Bill Gates

Ultimately, there was a very fundamental architecture shift that just did not pan out. If you remember from the last episode, we talked about Chicago, Windows 95, and Cairo, this theoretical thing that never shipped, that was going to be the next generation operating system. Well, they basically... They tried it again. ...did the same thing again.

Ultimately, there was a very fundamental architecture shift that just did not pan out. If you remember from the last episode, we talked about Chicago, Windows 95, and Cairo, this theoretical thing that never shipped, that was going to be the next generation operating system. Well, they basically... They tried it again. ...did the same thing again.

Yeah, I think Bill Gates was a big fan of this vision because it was really technically ambitious where they had an object-oriented file system where the file system could specify data types. And then every application would plug directly into the data types that the file system knew about.

Yeah, I think Bill Gates was a big fan of this vision because it was really technically ambitious where they had an object-oriented file system where the file system could specify data types. And then every application would plug directly into the data types that the file system knew about.

So there was these sort of standards, like a calendar invites a calendar invite, and the operating system has its own standards. fields for date and time and notes. And that means you're not always traversing directory trees whenever you're trying to search through stuff.

So there was these sort of standards, like a calendar invites a calendar invite, and the operating system has its own standards. fields for date and time and notes. And that means you're not always traversing directory trees whenever you're trying to search through stuff.

And also it meant that the operating system could actually reach into the data within files that were being stored by applications. So it was sort of a standard way of storing files in an easy to search way.

And also it meant that the operating system could actually reach into the data within files that were being stored by applications. So it was sort of a standard way of storing files in an easy to search way.

Yes. Ultimately, WinFS, they tried to build it many times. There was a lot of off-sites and architecture reviews and talking about how great it was when, in practice, there was never any pull from application developers that they wanted this in the first place. And this was a huge part of the wheel spinning of, well, we can't

Yes. Ultimately, WinFS, they tried to build it many times. There was a lot of off-sites and architecture reviews and talking about how great it was when, in practice, there was never any pull from application developers that they wanted this in the first place. And this was a huge part of the wheel spinning of, well, we can't

do all this other stuff in the operating system until we figure out the spec and the implementation for WinFS. And then once we have that, then we can start to do all this other stuff. Part of the other stuff was the .NET development team wanted to bake .NET directly into the bits of the operating system that shipped in the box and on your PCs, so .NET was everywhere.

do all this other stuff in the operating system until we figure out the spec and the implementation for WinFS. And then once we have that, then we can start to do all this other stuff. Part of the other stuff was the .NET development team wanted to bake .NET directly into the bits of the operating system that shipped in the box and on your PCs, so .NET was everywhere.

So ultimately, what happened here is, and I heard this from a developer, there was many different groups who were all compiling their own subprojects and they could sort of run them. But when it came time to try to actually do a build of this operating system and say, hey, we've had too many offsites and architecture reviews and restarts and this is in, this is out.

So ultimately, what happened here is, and I heard this from a developer, there was many different groups who were all compiling their own subprojects and they could sort of run them. But when it came time to try to actually do a build of this operating system and say, hey, we've had too many offsites and architecture reviews and restarts and this is in, this is out.

Let's just try to do like a build of the OS that we could deliver. They never built Longhorn.

Let's just try to do like a build of the OS that we could deliver. They never built Longhorn.

They could not integrate all the different projects into one. And they ended up reforking from an old Windows Server version or something and adding things in one by one piecemeal to try to figure out, you know, in year four, how can we get something shippable out to consumers so we can say this is our next generation operating system?

They could not integrate all the different projects into one. And they ended up reforking from an old Windows Server version or something and adding things in one by one piecemeal to try to figure out, you know, in year four, how can we get something shippable out to consumers so we can say this is our next generation operating system?

And what is the minimum acceptable set of stuff that we can put in such that it looks and feels new?

And what is the minimum acceptable set of stuff that we can put in such that it looks and feels new?