Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Jun 2006 11:48 UTC, submitted by RJay
Thread beginning with comment 137011
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: It's basically dead.
by dylansmrjones on Sun 25th Jun 2006 12:53
in reply to "RE[3]: It's basically dead."
It is a sort of database.
But it's also a sort of high-level FS running on top of a low-level FS.
It's a database-like FS-extension.
Am I getting closer to something you can recognize?
The article does not directly use the word "filesystem" but I've always considered WinFS to be a high-level object-oriented, relational file system. So the 4th paragraph sort of points it out for me. Phrases like "richer store", "storage innovations" are what I consider part of a high-level FS.
It fits into what I've learned about FS. The classical Mac FS is a rich storage FS.
RE[5]: It's basically dead.
by sappyvcv on Sun 25th Jun 2006 13:09
in reply to "RE[4]: It's basically dead."
RE[6]: It's basically dead.
by grrr on Sun 25th Jun 2006 18:41
in reply to "RE[4]: It's basically dead."







Member since:
2005-06-29
WinFS was meant to be an object-oriented, relational filesystem to be run on top of a real filesystem.
I always thought it was a sort of database running on top of NTFS. Check the line I quoted from your post, doesn't 'database' fit in better there?
Also, where in the article does it say WinFS is a filesystem? I can't seem to find it-- however, might be me being stupid.
Edited 2006-06-25 12:45