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.
Thread beginning with comment 337155
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Holy War
by Ford Prefect on Wed 12th Nov 2008 23:58 UTC
Ford Prefect
Member since:
2006-01-16

Thom, you really seem to get yourself into a Holy War here with OSNews. Perhaps you should step back from that a little.


It is right that thread count, memory allocation etc. are bogus measurements (your rebuttal about what WinMin actually is meant to be sounds bogus to me, too; as if you would really know the kind of reorganization they are doing and how it would show or not). But your article tells more than that observation. It tells that you really so goddamn want to believe in a shiny bright new Windows 7 and you want others to believe in that, too. Same as educating everybody on how well Vista finally shaped up.

Save yourself some credibility and stay more to the facts. Fact is: I wait for MS to do a release, before I judge/condemn/defend it whatsoever. You are better off doing the same.

Edited 2008-11-13 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 15

RE: Holy War
by Valhalla on Thu 13th Nov 2008 01:09 in reply to "Holy War"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Well, while I can agree that Thom has generally taken the 'pro Vista' stance I think 'Holy War' is over the top. Alot of the things he says regarding the shortcomings of the article in question I certainly agree with, however things like -"It is irrelevant how much memory is in use at any given time." is ridicoulus.

While I certainly have no problem with Superfetch which caches often used applications and data from disk into ram there's a huge difference between caching and the amount of ram usage that is necessary for the system to operate at all.

Vista has a very high memory requirement just to have the system running, which is why Microsoft still needs XP for stuff like netbooks etc. Superfetch is not part of this problem since it simply mirrors content existing on disk and as such can be flushed the second you need that memory, the system memory usage is another thing altogether and the only way to 'flush' that when memory gets low is to page it (i.e write it to disk) which is very slow.

I've said this before and will probably say it again, most people out there seldom if ever use their machine's full capacity and for them Vista is probably just a better looking Windows which launches programs faster and has some added functionality. However, for those who regularly use their systems resources to the max (generally professionals), Vista's memory usage (and to a lesser extent worse performance) only means a system with which they can do less. For me when I work I never encounter a 'too much memory or too much cpu power' situation, any surplus will be used one way or another to speed up my workflow. Granted I work with 3D which is very cpu/memory consuming, which is why I say that likely for the majority Vista is just fine (although many of my buddies who are into PC gaming disagree since they get less performance).

From the sound of it Windows 7 will be much slimmer (or atleast modular enough to be made much slimmer) which sounds great to me, and given that Microsoft really wants to retire XP that might just be what we'll get.

A leaner operating system means more resources for the applications I wish to use, and it is the applications and not the operating system that makes me want to turn on the computer.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Holy War
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Nov 2008 01:22 in reply to "Holy War"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm pretty sure if you google MinWin, you'll get a lot of hits explaining what MinWin is and isn't. Perhaps after you read some of them you won't be so quick to judge Thom's explanation of MinWin. It is pretty close to the things I have read.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Holy War
by google_ninja on Thu 13th Nov 2008 01:32 in reply to "Holy War"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

(your rebuttal about what WinMin actually is meant to be sounds bogus to me, too; as if you would really know the kind of reorganization they are doing and how it would show or not).


"MinWin" has been in effect for ages now. I don't know what people expect, maybe a checked list with stuff to turn on or off? NT is modular enough now that they can do a home version, a server version, a stripped down server version and an embedded version of the same kernel through configuration. That is minwin, and it is here.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Holy War
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 14th Nov 2008 03:01 in reply to "Holy War"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

It tells that you really so goddamn want to believe in a shiny bright new Windows 7 and you want others to believe in that, too. Same as educating everybody on how well Vista finally shaped up.


I don't see any sign of that in either the literal text or between the lines. If there is an overall sentiment expressed by the article, I think it's annoyance at the way that zealots, fanboys (or in the case of Microsoft, anti-fanboys) have end up dominating and framing the discussion, to point of drowning out any voices of reason or moderation.

Reply Parent Score: 1