posted by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 10:58 UTC

Randall
Thom,

I was waiting for the "MinWin" topic to come up. Never in my 20+ years as an author, analyst and software developer have I seen so many make so much out of so little. A single sentence, taken out of context and without regard for anything I had written before. Yet the Windows fan boys pounced thinking "Aha! We've got him!"

Well, time to burst your bubble on this one. Please take a moment to review the following Windows Sentinel blog entry - posted by yours, truly - way back in June of this year:

http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/06/the_myth_of_min.html

Note the title: "The Myth of 'MinWin' and a Thinner Windows 7"

As you can see, I was the *first* major media pundit to report on the fallacies surrounding the "MinWin" hype. In the above linked post, I explained why replacing the Windows NT kernel with something newer and lighter was impractical, and how those who believed such a creature were speaking out of ignorance and/or were misinterpreting the Eric Traut demo. In point of fact, I believe you actually linked to this piece from OS News.

Regardless, at the time that I published the above blog post, people were already calling me a quack. NOT for *believing in* a "clean break" with Windows 7, mind you, but rather for *denying* such a break would occur when so many were reporting the opposite. The simple truth is that I was publicly chastised 5 months ago for *not* drinking the media-hype-fueled "MinWin" cool-aid. So, for these same zealots to now accuse me of being somehow "confused" on the issue is both disingenuous and, in the case of my regular readers, downright slanderous.

But hey, an opportunity is an opportunity, and if your goal is to discredit someone at any cost (the true mantra of the zealot), then any gaff - even a fabricated one - is simply too good to pass up. That you and your compatriots seized on this one sentence and sought to turn a molehill into a mountain speaks volumes about your agenda.

Note: If you were trying to be objective - and I think we've established that objectivity was never your goal - you would have looked into my larger body of work on the subject before rushing to judgment. At least that's what a *real* journalist would have done. But then again, you're not really a journalist, are you Thom? You're more of a fan boy who somehow managed to secure himself a bully pulpit from which to spout his unsubstantiated blather.

Bottom Line: It was to these users - the original "MinWin" true believers and anyone they may have inadvertently influenced - that my comments in the latter article were directed. I was speaking to the confused masses and reality-deniers to whom "MinWin" still meant "new kernel." My goal was to prove to them, once and for all, that Windows 7 was indeed based on the Vista kernel architecture - not some new "clean break" kernel that they may have heard about during the months of rampant hype and speculation leading up to the PDC.

In conclusion, I'll leave you with the following quotes from one of those confused media types who inadvertently misled so many. Speaking about Windows 7 and the Eric Traut demo, this person opened their analysis by saying:

"First up is a streamlined microkernel codenamed MinWin, around which a re-engineered Windows line will be built."

And later, in the same - or a related - article, they repeated the fallacy:

"Additionally, the presentation also showed us that Microsoft is in fact working with a stripped-down, bare-metal version of the NT kernel, to be used as a base for future Windows releases."

Sound familiar? It should. It's you, Thom, in one of your own articles posted to OS News.

So, tell me all about this "streamlined microkernel" you reported on. I'm dying to hear details...

RCK

Table of contents
  1. Randall, opening
  2. Thom
  3. Randall
  4. Thom
  5. Randall
  6. Thom
  7. Randall
  8. Thom
  9. Randall
  10. Thom, final
e p (0)    78 Comment(s)

Technology White Papers

See More