Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Nov 2008 22:55 UTC
Editorial Yesterday, a story made its rounds across the internet. It was picked up by many large news websites, and I'm sure it will be quoted by people until eternity. It was published by a large website, looked all fancy, it had multiple pages - it looked like it was really something. However, anyone with even the remotest bit of knowledge knows that the article was a collection of complete and utter bogus.
Permalink for comment 337191
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You and the author of the article agree...not
by stln on Thu 13th Nov 2008 09:55 UTC
stln
Member since:
2008-11-13

Here is my problem with your post:
-First you conclude that the author doesn't know what he's talking about because he says that the Vista and Windows 7 kernels are very similar

- Then you say that Windows 7 never was intended as a 'new kernel' ... and that the kernels are very similar.

You are focussing on the way he arrived at that conclusion and make a big fuss about it being 'not scientific'.

But all the time you avoid the hart of the matter: that according to the author (and I agree with him), there is a substantial gap between what windows 7 is marketed to be (Vista, but lean and mean) and what it is (Vista, with a few tweaks).

I must say that I'm very dissapointed to hear that in terms of memory footprint and performance, windows 7 is very similar to Vista.

And don't start about 'beta software'. We all know that MS wants to push W7 out of the door before the summer which means that the cut-off date for any real development is about now.

And then there is the other problem: at least the upgrade will be smooth because they kept Vista almost entirely. Well... aparently they still managed to break lots of things.
Of course this IS an area where a lot of progress can still be expected. But still it is worrying that when 'if it runs on Vista then it runs on W7' is your credo, it doesn't really show.

Reply Score: 5