Farewell, WinFS...
- Thread starter _xxx_
- Start date
A very interesting interview with former BeOS people is linked there as well, nice read and some deeper discussion there:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/29/windows_on_a_database_sliced/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/29/windows_on_a_database_sliced/
I dont get the hype about data-base Filesystems anyway.
Except for Mediaplayers, there is little use for exhausive searches (atleast they are so few and far between that I dont mind waiting a bit longer). If an App like a Mediaplayer needs a database, then just use one for that specific App, no need for forcing a significant memory and processor overhead to EVERYTHING.
Except for Mediaplayers, there is little use for exhausive searches (atleast they are so few and far between that I dont mind waiting a bit longer). If an App like a Mediaplayer needs a database, then just use one for that specific App, no need for forcing a significant memory and processor overhead to EVERYTHING.
Edit: sorry, lol, reading that article I see i was even more off topic than i originally thought. 
my apologies~!
i'm inclined to agree, although it seems like it is too much of a benefit in some circumstances to ignore completely. Also, assuming the improved performance of Vista in this regard is true, then i don't mind so much. But what I really resented was WinXP's cataloguing of so much data I wasn't even interested in. If you're going to be slow as turds at something like that, you might as well give me the option to turn it off, and not just in registry hacks. I've applied some registry hacks and it's better now, but it was a stupid, stupid decision. So, I really only somewhat agree -- I'm ok with db file system, but they'd better not make it obscure to change EVERYTHING it catalogues, and WHEN it displays ANY of that info. Grrrr!!! [/rant] sorry to get slightly o-t.
my apologies~!Npl said:
i'm inclined to agree, although it seems like it is too much of a benefit in some circumstances to ignore completely. Also, assuming the improved performance of Vista in this regard is true, then i don't mind so much. But what I really resented was WinXP's cataloguing of so much data I wasn't even interested in. If you're going to be slow as turds at something like that, you might as well give me the option to turn it off, and not just in registry hacks. I've applied some registry hacks and it's better now, but it was a stupid, stupid decision. So, I really only somewhat agree -- I'm ok with db file system, but they'd better not make it obscure to change EVERYTHING it catalogues, and WHEN it displays ANY of that info. Grrrr!!!
[/rant] sorry to get slightly o-t.
Last edited by a moderator:
hoom
Veteran
Release XP was bug free? I don't think so.
I find it very hard to believe there was no DRM at all in XP on release but certainly the XP Licence Agreement includes reference as of June 1 2004.
Note: I'm not saying its on the same scale or level of integration as Vista but don't think for a second that its not there at all.
Edit: Windows DRM version 1 is 1999.
I find it very hard to believe there was no DRM at all in XP on release but certainly the XP Licence Agreement includes reference as of June 1 2004.
Note: I'm not saying its on the same scale or level of integration as Vista but don't think for a second that its not there at all.
Edit: Windows DRM version 1 is 1999.
Last edited by a moderator:
The small amount of bugs in XP were very minor, in fact the service packs made it buggier for the sake of security. The only form of DRM is with wmv, which is hardly required and not widely used.
My point though was that it's a hell of alot less in those areas than Vista, that you cannot argue.
My point though was that it's a hell of alot less in those areas than Vista, that you cannot argue.