this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
75 points (90.3% liked)

Technology

71754 readers
3467 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
75
Do you remember Windows 95? How about Windows 96? (timemachiner.io)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by macstainless@discuss.tchncs.de to c/technology@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

That’s not a typo. Windows 96 promised to build on the success of Windows 95, yet it never materialized as originally intended.

I only learned about this a few months ago. To me, this was an incredibly fascinating discovery and wanted to write about & share it.

"The Windows That Never Was"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tinned_tomatoes@feddit.uk 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I do kinda wish we had gotten WinFS. All the "ideas" of it seemed cool, just impossible to implement without breaking every existing application.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago

If Windows is (was) good at anything, it's maintaining backwards compatibility for longer than anyone expects them to. Never mind revolutionizing their entire file system, Windows 11 is still backwards-compatible with batch files written before we had folders.

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

FS?

As in "F'ing Shit"?

[–] megabyteX@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Future Storage aka WinFS. It was a cool idea, metadata based relational db file system. But the execution was horrible, SQL Server based file system which was exposed via .NET IIRC.

Desktop search was supposed to be revolutionized, but it was scrapped just before Vista was released

[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If I recall, it was a new file system. So instead if folders, every file would just kind of have tags and could be dynamically grouped like that. I could very well be wrong, but I remember being excited for it.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can we please have a FUSE FS like this?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was curious, so I found this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3263036/file-system-that-uses-tags-rather-than-folders

One of the projects they mention is tagfs, which sounds like it does what you want: http://github.com/marook/tagfs

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Ha, thanks for searching!