The leaked builds of Longhorn took forever just to boot on the hardware of the era. That's a performance issue.

However, the internal politics of Microsoft certainly didn't help either.

The stated reasons for removing the Go portions of Fuchsia and rewriting them in another language were also firmly based in performance.

Of course debug builds aren't the prime example of performance, that is to be expected.

Performance problems get sorted out when people actually care to solve them instead of driving their own agenda.

Sorry, but debug builds weren't the only builds that leaked. The performance was just never there.

Naturally you would answer that, from an OS that never had a certified GA build, great proof indeed.

Yet the same group that sabotaged Longhorn, was quite keen in doing exactly the same stuff using a mix of .NET Native and C++/CX, which only failed due to the lack of migration path from Win32, and not much love for the sandboxing.

Microsoft handed out builds at PDC. It's difficult to take claims that it didn't have massive performance issues seriously.

No one is claiming that performance problems did not exist on an alpha version of Longhorn.

Performance problems get sorted out, instead we got management chaos,

https://hackernoon.com/what-really-happened-with-vista-4ca7f...

Jim Allchin, who ran Windows development at the time, didn't send an email to Gates and Ballmer warning about management issues.

He told them that Longhorn was a pig and he didn't see any solution to that issue.

Just before the code base was abandoned.

Insider info here, proof would be nice.

In any case, the top level manager for Windows development asserts his failure to make the team make it happen, looks like management issues to me.

The coach failed the team.

>proof would be nice.

It's one of the internal emails made public as part of the Microsoft antitrust trial.

>LH is a pig and I don’t see any solution to this problem. If we are to rise to the challenge of Linux and Apple, we need to start taking the lessons of “scenario, simple, fast” to heart.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210427171552/http://blog.seatt...

Sorry, but the person who was in charge of Windows development at the time did not agree with you. Longhorn failed due to performance issues that Jim Allchin believed were unsolvable.

The manager failed at his job to steer the team into solving those issues.

The team's failure has a direct relation with the management failing to act upon the issues until it was too late to actually try to sort them out.

So yeah, management failure in all its glory.

The anti-trust trial was decided in 2001, Longhorn was developed from middle 2001 up to 2006, nice try.

The lead developer said the performance problem could not be solved and the code was abandoned.

I'm not sure how you can spin your way around that and be taken seriously.