| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
What? They cut WinFS?? | |
|
||
| Time: 15:23 EST/20:23 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Thanks, eldoen. There has been a great deal of hubub about what Jay Greene’s BusinessWeek article means for Longhorn, and WinFS in particular. I’ve been surprised by the general silence on MS blogs on this topic – which is perhaps an indication that I ought to be careful myself ;) But let me throw caution to the wind and get to the punch line: I, from my vantage as a Longhorn Evangelist, haven’t seen any changes that significantly impact anything we’ve said at PDC, or since, about the WinFX platform. You won't see me editing my slides, changing my talking points, or cutting back my demos, because the message about WinFX's capabilities hasn't changed. The line that got everyone thinking was Jay’s comment that. “The current plan calls for the file system to work on PCs but not extend to files shared over a corporate network.” Note that although he writes this immediately following a quote from an internal mail, this sentence is not in fact a direct quote – it’s Jay’s interpretation. MaryJo Foley picked up the thread, and added her own interpretation that Microsoft is “holding off on allowing WinFS to work over a corporate network”. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:55:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 5444 (64.185.17.23) at 4/14/2004 4:42:20 PM |
|
Mr. Dee
On the sp2 pack. the most important part is the recompilation of XP using more secure compile techniques. for that alone SP2 would be a major improvement in preventing some trojans/viruses that use buffer over runs to gain access. And while I agree with the firewall statement, I would much rather prefer the one in sp2 than the previous one, namly as it is fully designed in a DNS enviroment. So with that said while NT is fairly secure the recompile of the platform will make it that much more secure. and while hackers will still find weaknesses they will have to work harder at it. Now if they had outbound control it would complete the picture. but that is another story and time. edit, btw read the article it contridicts everything that was said in the bizweek article. from a ms source. el This post was edited by eldoen on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at 16:44. |
| #2 By 21203 (208.252.96.195) at 4/14/2004 7:06:45 PM |
| Right, all I heard is that they're only making WinFS local client only. This makes a lot of sense. Yes it's scaling back from the broad scheme of things, but it's still a great plan. Baby steps. |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/14/2004 7:57:38 PM |
|
"btw read the article it contridicts everything that was said in the bizweek article. from a ms source."
Actually, the MS source says he has no clue what's going on. |
| #4 By 2459 (24.175.141.98) at 4/14/2004 9:01:02 PM |
|
"Actually, the MS source says he has no clue what's going on."
Not quite. He basically said he had no idea where the press got the idea that MS was cutting networked WinFS. I, from my vantage as a Longhorn Evangelist, haven’t seen any changes that significantly impact anything we’ve said at PDC, or since, about the WinFX platform. The line that got everyone thinking was Jay’s comment that. “The current plan calls for the file system to work on PCs but not extend to files shared over a corporate network.” Note that although he writes this immediately following a quote from an internal mail, this sentence is not in fact a direct quote – it’s Jay’s interpretation. MaryJo Foley picked up the thread, and added her own interpretation that Microsoft is “holding off on allowing WinFS to work over a corporate network”. Given that he's met with the WinFS team several times, was working on a capabilities review for Allchin, and hasn't received any directive telling him to cut certain details from his evangelism materials, or received any indication that major features were being cut, I'd tend to trust the guy whose job it is to know the product, than the press who couldn't even provide a direct quote from an MS employee, or other compelling evidence to back their claims (a too common occurrance). This is much like the .GNU project that tries to attribute a quote ("the era of 'open computing,' the free exchange of digital information that has defined the personal computer industry, is ending.") to MS in order to make their .NET porting effort seem noble, when, in fact, if you look at the article cited (and closely at .GNU's quote), the only words actually quoted from MS was "open computing". In short, as has happened here, an author's own interpretation was taken as the facts according to MS. Then, this non-MS "fact" was further misinterpreted by others and further mutated, but still pushed as the facts according to MS. |
| #5 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/14/2004 9:11:06 PM |
|
When has Microsoft ever cut anything from their materials to be in line with reality?
In fact, he specifically says: "You won't see me editing my slides, changing my talking points, or cutting back my demos, because the message about WinFX's capabilities hasn't changed." Not the product, the message. I'm not saying Business Week has it right, but what is apparent is that between Scoble, this guy, Channel 9, Longhornblogs, and a few other sources... everyone is running around saying we don't know, we don't know... some stuff probably won't make it, but we don't know. In fact, many of the bloggers from within Microsoft are now debating back and forth: is this a feature-driven schedule or a date-driven schedule? And let's point that out: what seems to have been accepted by the vast majority of MS bloggers is they are now aiming for a specific release date and features will fall off if they aren't hitting that date... which is a huge change. Also, the other thing which seems apparent: they are all afraid of losing their jobs... They want to reassure people, they want to give firm answers, but they can't. Leading to supreme examples of subtle non-speak like: "The teams are looking at trimming out the features that might effect performance, or significantly increase the test burden, or other factors that might unreasonably delay the release of the product." Well, sh1t, couldn't that be every feature? None of them seem to know. The only thing they'll say definitely is: "WinFS is still there" which as far as I can tell was always apparent. They sound like the Bush administration. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at 21:56. |
| #6 By 2459 (24.175.141.98) at 4/14/2004 9:40:14 PM |
|
When has Microsoft ever cut anything from their materials to be in line with reality?
Easy. They cut Java support from their materials with SP1a. ;-) They cut Quicktime support from the documentation after the Sorenson codecs were released. No mention of Chrome/Chromeffects/GDI 2k or Cairo in Windows 98 and 2000 respectively. No mention hailstorm (though it's making a comeback in a revised form). I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but I'd rather not try to list them all. In fact, he specifically says: "You won't see me editing my slides, changing my talking points, or cutting back my demos, because the message about WinFX's capabilities hasn't changed." Not the product, the message. If the product hasn't changed, then neither has the message. No one has given the evangelists any reason to believe the BW article has merit, yet they know of other features that have been cut. If WinFS had been scaled back, they'd likely receive notice as they have concerning other features. From the post: I was working on assembling a presentation for Jim Allchin, Senior VP of Windows. As it so happens, the subject of the review was an update on WinFX platform capabilities, with a specific eye towards whether anything we discussed at PDC might have been cut since then. I found that the vast majority of the WinFX technology we showed at PDC is still on track. I had conversations with product team leaders around the company to try to ferret out any recent cuts. We also just had a week of quarterly Longhorn Reviews, where each team presented their latest plans, including risk items, to the leadership team. And having gone through all that data, my conclusion is that the platform we showed at PDC is intact. WinFS hasn’t been cut. WinFS hasn’t even really been scoped back. OK, so the second question that might come to mind is “well, is there anything that you did cut?” The answer is yes – features get cut all the time in a software product. We’ve had two milestones since the PDC build, which means two opportunities to find features that weren’t working as expected, or couldn’t get the right performance level, or otherwise proved to be untenable. But the scope of these cuts is so small that it’s barely worth mentioning. I really wish we’d just publish the whole darn list to stop the speculation, but since I can’t do that, let me be bold and mention at least a few by name. I’ll stick with WinFS, because it’s the area I know best (and the team I know best, which means perhaps they’ll be less likely to tell my boss to fire me ;) I think this show's that the guy is in touch with the LH teams fairly regularly, and he has an idea about what has and has not been cut. He mentions that he wishes the change-list could be published (he's not the only MS employee that has expressed this), but that's something he can't do without risk of losing his job. This clearly says that he knows a good deal about what's going on, he just can't give each and every detail to the public (for obvious competitive reasons -- if a major item was cut, however, MS would inform their customers due to the effect it may have on their plans. They do this in product roadmaps all the time.). This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at 21:44. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/14/2004 9:48:45 PM |
|
"sure there are plenty of other examples, but I'd rather not try to list them all. "
This whole bit is a bunch of retardness... I was saying when have they ever ratcheted back their marketing, pre-release materials to reflect what will not make it into the product when it is released later. Of course, when something is cut from the product it is no longer in the product or the product help files. Did you really think that was what I was asking? Let's just look at what he says most simply: "You won't see me editing my slides, changing my talking points, or cutting back my demos, because the message about WinFX's capabilities hasn't changed." "OK, so the second question that might come to mind is “well, is there anything that you did cut?” The answer is yes – features get cut all the time in a software product." i.e. the materials and presentations from PDC no longer reflect the product, but he'll still present those same materials because he's more concerned about "the message." This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at 21:50. |
| #8 By 2459 (24.175.141.98) at 4/14/2004 10:12:41 PM |
|
Did you ever consider that a) his materials never contained info about the effected cuts since they were to little-known features, or b) his materials currently reflect changes since the PDC, and he was referring to not changing them with regards to the BW article's assertions that WinFS was being scaled back?
I've watched a lot of demos and other material from MS concerning LH, Whidbey, and other products, and the presenter has always mentioned when changes/additions have occurred that makes certain aspects of the presented material inaccurate or incomplete. They've also mentioned when certain features only apply to internal builds or to external builds. The only thing MS doesn't discuss in detail are additional features the product will have at a later date, but are kept secret for competitive reasons, or because the implementation hasn't been fleshed out enough at that point. This stuff doesn't appear in the materials, however, so nothing in the materials needs to be edited to account for it. |
| #9 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 4/14/2004 10:46:11 PM |
|
Is there a Release Candidate for Longhorn?
If not, then features aren't frozen, and this discussion is more stupid MS bashing. |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/15/2004 12:25:25 AM |
|
Bashing? No one but these Microsoft bloggers said WinFS was being cut. Possibly there is some speculation; however, based on the schedule slipups coupled with the firming and moving up of a release date, this seems appropriate, even acknowledged by Microsoft.
Otherwise, I see this as a discussion of the sturm und drang generated by and mirroring the host of specualtive and premature comments, retractions, promises, generalizations, etc... produced by Microsoft's desires to promise features they can't deliver and their desires to produce products, that customers actually want, on time... I also see this as a discussion of Microsoft's blogger community which seems confused, blinded, and struggling to cope with the specualtion on the web, what they individually want to say, what they can actually say, and what they actually have to do for their company. "I've watched a lot of demos and other material from MS concerning LH, Whidbey, and other products, and the presenter has always mentioned when changes/additions have occurred that makes certain aspects of the presented material inaccurate or incomplete." Isn't that exactly what I said. They leave it in all the materials... Then if you actually get them in person, they may say: "Ignore that slide, that features gone... can't get that into this build, expect it in the next one...." Which is why I said his presentation materials do not provide evidence of anything. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 00:27. |
| #11 By 2459 (24.175.141.98) at 4/15/2004 2:06:26 AM |
|
Isn't that exactly what I said. They leave it in all the materials... Then if you actually get them in person, they may say: "Ignore that slide, that features gone... can't get that into this build, expect it in the next one...." Which is why I said his presentation materials do not provide evidence of anything.
No. They only go "ignore the slide" if the feature was just changed and they didn't have time to make new slides, and they tell you this during the presentation. It's not something that has to be prompted. WRT this evangelist's materials, again, explain why they should be modified when no official notification of changes to WinFS has been received, and all indications from the team are that there are no such changes being made. Here's a similar case. The press reported that HP's iPod would playback WMA. If I'm an HP/Apple iPod evangelist and my materials contain info about HP's iPod capabilities, should I add to my materials that HP's iPod supports WMA playback solely based on press speculation and without any official notice of this from Apple/HP? Anyone that thinks the answer is yes would probably be fired. |
| #12 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/15/2004 2:33:02 AM |
|
You're looking a little ridiculous, sodajerk, arguing about very little, really.
Of course the feature set isn't finalized, and of course there's going to be confusion over what's cut (especially initially, and especially if the cuts will be as subtle and minor as mentioned). That is obvious, and it's obvious in the blog post. It's also obvious that the blogger knows more about the situation than the author of the BW article. I think he summarizes the situation quite well... why muddy the waters further? Because of your well-known bias against MS? Or is there some substantive reason? |
| #13 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 4/15/2004 3:21:52 AM |
|
Not even beta 1 yet.
Clearly, someone is putting the goose well before the gander. |
| #14 By 8556 (12.217.173.227) at 4/15/2004 9:34:32 AM |
| How do you guys find the time to argue about a product that is far from finished? The final version won't be anything like the alpha release we've toyed with. Longhorn is a diamond very much in the rough. Looking back at past MS OS early marketing hype (such as Bill Gates claiming in 1993 that Windows 95 will be a true 32-bit OS) we can expect the next couple of Windows releases to be giant steps toward meeting the Longhorn promise but won't see the realization of the early "vision" until 2010 or later. The best predictor of Microsoft's future commercial OS releases is the patterns of their past. We'll get it all, someday. |
| #15 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/15/2004 12:28:49 PM |
|
"How do you guys find the time to argue about a product that is far from finished?"
Same way you can call it a diamond in the rough... maybe. |
| #16 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/15/2004 1:48:09 PM |
|
"I think he summarizes the situation quite well... why muddy the waters further?"
Yes, I am the only one creating a murky image of the whole thing. I look ridiculous? I am simply expressing the opinion of many people, including diehard softies, and MS employees. As you said, yes, the picture is murky, features will come and go, schedules will change. So why is it so wrong to say that and it's A-Okay to sit there saying this is going to be the best OS ever, until it's released it's inappropriate to comment on what features will drop, it's best to just presume that what MS says is right (even though they say something different everytime)? The answer: there is really no difference, and it's hypocritical to suggest otherwise. |
| #17 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/15/2004 2:31:06 PM |
|
sodajerk - Mary Jo Foley is not a Microsoft blogger, she runs the MS-bashing website microsoftwatch.com or something like that.
the Microsoft bloggers were simply responding to the accusations saying "Where do they get this crap?" Sorry to burst your bubble. |
| #18 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 4/15/2004 8:25:30 PM |
|
I didn't think Mary Jo Foley was a Microsoft blogger. I know who she is.
Don't know what bubble you think you burst. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:55:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
