You're not going to get any counterarguments from me regarding the fact that businesses and large enterprises won't like Vista over XP. Vista obviously requires better hardware than XP, and it may certainly perform slower than XP in some, or many, workload scenarios that are important to businesses. Meaning they will have to spend more money to get the same results, and that makes no sense.
However, that's not what our two original articles were about, and it's most certainly not what our current point of debate - Vista's performance improved over time - is all about. So while you may have a good point on Vista requiring more hardware, or performing worse on the same hardware than Windows XP does - it's irrelevant to this discussion. We're comparig Vista-now to Vista-RTM - not to XP.
But, I see we're getting back at the thread count point. I'm afraid we're going to lose our readers this way. I continue to stick by my original point, namely that the number of threads says nothing about the amount of changes made to the kernel. Like I detailed before, any change in thread count could lead to any possible outcome - increased or lowered performance, or simply, no gain or loss at all. The fact that your thread count metric did not pick up any of the significant changes detailed by Mark Russinovich and Eric Traut clearly shows how useless a metric the thread count statistic is. That's going to be my final word on thread count, as we have both did our thing. Let's leave it up to our readers to decide which argumentation makes more sense to them.
Let's move on the next point on the list, and this time, I'll pick one.
How is it possible that someone who claims to know so much about the NT kernel appears to be so blatantly ignorant about the concept of MinWin, even though both Traut and Russinovich detailed the concept so crystal clear? Let me quote my own artice:
"Kennedy is so wrong about MinWin I'm again at a loss as to where to start. Despite a number of fairly clear explanations from Microsoft (most notably, by Mark Russinovich), Kennedy shows a clear lack of understanding on what MinWin actually is. Microsoft never promised a "clean break", it never promised a "new kernel". Microsoft has been very clear: MinWin is *not* a new kernel. It is *not* a streamlined NT kernel. In fact, it *is* the NT kernel. The only thing Microsoft did was reorganise parts of it to make it cleaner, and to make sure they had a small core without any outward calls, so that they could make changes to the Windows kernel without causing massive breakage."
I'm very interested to hear about where you got the clean break and new kernel stuff from. Really, I am.
posted by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 10:58 UTC
Table of contents