Longhorn (Corrected)

[R. McCarty]

I would like to chime in on this one as well. WinFS may be a help,
but it masks a big problem with data organization. Most users have
problems with folder layout. The concept of data trees like Mike
described would be
My Pictures
Children
Mike
Birthday Photos.
In most cases you will find My Pictures just has hundreds of individual
photographs. Perhaps WinFS would benefit users if it could have a
tool to first collect common types, sort and offer a disk layout. Then help
the user to input the metadata to the re-organized material. Maybe also
provide a "Sorting" option for files without metadata to help in organizing
them in the correct folder tree.
Remember it's taken years for Windows users to learn My Documents,
sub-folders and then data. I would be more interested in proper folder
layout than having Windows create databases of data spread out all over
a disk. Windows itself is organized and structured, so does WinFS mean
that in Longhorn there will only be a single O/S folder with everything
sorted/cataloged by WinFS ? Why not help users to correctly store their
data instead of accommodating the hap-hazard way people do it today.

 

[Chris Lanier]

What is "WinFS"?

"WinFS" is the active storage subsystem in "Longhorn" that is used for
searching, organizing, and sharing data. "WinFS" maintains a store of items
and their properties, and provides a system service in "Longhorn" to
retrieve information when it's needed. Because "WinFS" allows organization
and retrieval of items based on properties (such as author or title), users
can find things more quickly. Users can also organize, relate, and act on
their documents, music, photos, e-mail, calendar information, and other
types of items more efficiently.

 

[Chris Lanier]

What are the benefits of Using "WinFS"
In "WinFS," how information is organized is separate from how that
information is stored physically. How users and applications organize
information is also separate from how the information is saved. Data can be
organized using a connected folder structure, namespaces, properties,
tables, invariant identities, or relationships.

To benefit developers, the "WinFS" platform supports unified data services
for all end-user applications. Integrated data services such as
synchronization, notification, a unified store, and a common security model,
and their integration with other technologies such as peer-to-peer
networking and directory services, make data sharing among applications
easier. These data services enable you to write applications that exchange
data with applications built by other software developers. Also, "WinFS"
works with other Windows-based technologies to allow information sharing
remotely with both "WinFS" and non"WinFS" stores.

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

I would like to chime in on this one as well. WinFS may be a help,
but it masks a big problem with data organization. Most users have
problems with folder layout. The concept of data trees like Mike
described would be
My Pictures
Children
Mike
Birthday Photos.
In most cases you will find My Pictures just has hundreds of individual
photographs. Perhaps WinFS would benefit users if it could have a
tool to first collect common types, sort and offer a disk layout. Then help
the user to input the metadata to the re-organized material. Maybe also
provide a "Sorting" option for files without metadata to help in organizing
them in the correct folder tree.
Remember it's taken years for Windows users to learn My Documents,
sub-folders and then data. I would be more interested in proper folder
layout than having Windows create databases of data spread out all over
a disk. Windows itself is organized and structured, so does WinFS mean
that in Longhorn there will only be a single O/S folder with everything
sorted/cataloged by WinFS ? Why not help users to correctly store their
data instead of accommodating the hap-hazard way people do it today.

Hmm,

Maybe it is time that users did not have to think at all about disks layouts
folders etc.
Why should I even have to understand that the My Pictures icon has anything
to do with folders on disks.
If we stop thinking in terms of what stuff looks like in Windows Explorer
and think more in terms of viewing the data organized in related ways via
new user interfaces, that are more intuitive then worrying about C: drives
and D: drives and partitions and folders etc ?

If the user is not aware of on disk structures but can think more in terms
about what the data is and what it is about then the views they see are not
"hap hazard" but are exactly what they need to allow them to work and
operate in a more efficient and human centric manner.

Your closing comments about data "being spread all over the disk ..." and
"single folders" etc are still routed in think about this in terms of disk
layouts and folders etc. If you abstract the storage away from user
intervention then it all becomes much easier to relate to.
Think in terms of consumer devices - users of an Xbox have no idea nor do
they care about where there games are saved or config settings for a game
are held on the disk. They see views of "my saved games" or a view of a
game and the items of saved games, settings and downloaded content. All
totally unrelated to any on disk format or structure but eminently suitable
for the user to work with in terms that they understand.
Similar examples exist for PocketPC and SmartPhone users, who (in the
majority) again see data in other ways then files in solid state memory etc
(this is less valid analogy as these devices still have users who directly
access the "folder structure" for certain purposes.

The future could be so very different, and provide a significantly better
experience for end users - example "...it's taken years for Windows users to
learn My Documents, sub-folders and then data." - how about a (near) zero
learning curve instead ?!

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

 

[R. McCarty]

Without any orderly structure - How will users backup their data ?
Do I want my October bank statement saved with some other data
type because it contains a reference to BB&T ?

 

[Guest]

And, I have .50c can I have a cup of coffee please !!!!!!!

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Without any orderly structure - How will users backup their data ?
Do I want my October bank statement saved with some other data
type because it contains a reference to BB&T ?

Users run a backup tool that asks what they want to backup and does it e.g.
"All my files", "all my photos", "my music and files about music" etc etc
The Backup tool UI to the user also does not need to display any notion of
an on disk layout.
User can articulate either simply or in detail what they want to do. If
they just want to backup "all data" then do that , if it is "all my pc"
then do that instead.
And in answer to your question yes you might or no you might not - depends
if you are backing up "all my bank statements and correspondence with my
bank" or "all my files that are related to BB&T" or whatever you want.

There is structure, it just does not have to be an arbitrary one enforced
by file systems and folders.
There are many ways of looking at a structure or hierarchy. It depends on
the views you wish to create on it and the relationships between the objects
in that store.

(Please Note : All of this is blue sky discussion and is not a commitment to
provide any particular functionality or feature in a future product)
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

 

[R. McCarty]

Mike,

Thanks for the insight. After years of IT experience the concept of
data without structure seems alien to me. Perhaps it's time to concede
I'm an "old" dog and just stand out of the way for new approaches.

Maybe I need to see this actually work in a demo or something to get
a better grasp of it. From your description, I had better start brushing
up on SQL skills, as this looks like the future of data storage.

I can certainly see why the 2006 release of this O/S might still be a little
on the optimistic side.

 

[Frank Jelenko]

Isn't WinFS simply a relational database? So, each record [i.e., file]
would have several attribute associated with it - many of the attributes
would be shared by other records/files. This is well structured.

Then 'views' of the records/files can be created by 'sorting/limiting' on
any of the attributes. Presumably, MS would provide some default views and
a tool to configure/add others.

 

[Alex Nichol]

I would like to chime in on this one as well. WinFS may be a help,
but it masks a big problem with data organization. Most users have
problems with folder layout. The concept of data trees like Mike
described would be
My Pictures
Children
Mike
Birthday Photos.
In most cases you will find My Pictures just has hundreds of individual
photographs. Perhaps WinFS would benefit users if it could have a
tool to first collect common types, sort and offer a disk layout.

From what I see in looking at the documents, for which have a look at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/longhorn.htm,
the aim of the WinFS is to get away from there being just such a simple
hierarchy, but having (in addition) an ability to access files on the
basis of such metadata as People; place; date directly. So Children
could equally be a primary way into Schools - Children; or Birthday
cards - Children. Using database technology, and using experience from
SQL on the structures. Which is fine as a means of holding and
enquiring - it still leaves me wondering on a mechanism of getting this
extra information put in