Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 10:58 UTC
Windows Two weeks ago, I published an article in which I explained what was wrong about Randall Kennedy's "Windows 7 Unmasked" article. This was noted by Infoworld's editor-in-chief Eric Knorr, who suggested that Randall and I enter into an email debate regarding the various points made in our articles. We agreed upon publishing this email thread as-is, unedited (I didn't even fix the spelling errors), on both Infoworld and OSNews. We agreed that Randall would start the debate, and that I had the final word. Read on for the entertaining email debate (I figured it would be best to give each email its own page, for clarity's sake. My apologies if this makes each individual page much shorter than what you're used to from OSNews).
Thread beginning with comment 338906
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom a Windows fanboy
by jack_perry on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 14:38 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

So Randall accuses Thom on a couple of occasions of being a Windows fanboy:[quote]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.[/quote]That's news to me, and goes a long way in establishing credibility, or (as in this case) the lack thereof.

I thought both of them have good points about thread counts. I have at times made huge changes to the code I've written, with huge improvements to efficiency (better algorithms) without changing significantly the outward appearance of the code. I'm hardly the only developer to experience this gratifying phenomenon (sorting algorithms, anyone?). It seems to me that Thom is arguing that this is the general approach of Windows 7.

If that's true, and if Randall is really saying (as he appears to be saying) that this implies there are no real changes that improve functionality, user experience, etc., then Randall is sticking to an appallingly poor choice of words. The rest of his arguments attack straw men more or less: all are valid and insightful points, but they have nothing to do with Thom's original statement.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Thom a Windows fanboy
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 15:17 in reply to "Thom a Windows fanboy"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

So Randall accuses Thom on a couple of occasions of being a Windows fanboy:[quote]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.[/quote]That's news to me, and goes a long way in establishing credibility, or (as in this case) the lack thereof.


Exactly - it sounds like he's just whipping out the tired old chestnut of "You're just saying that because of [pre-supposed bias goes here] - which is incredibly convenient, because it lets me dismiss your argument without the hassle of writing an actual rebuttal." The only difference is that that sort of nonsense is usually confined to an article's comments, not the article itself.

The hell of it is that I agree with Randall's conclusion, but I think the argument he bases his conclusion on is absurd. He's basically making an unverified assumption that is, itself, based upon "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" reasoning - an assumption based on a fallacy, great.

And the further hell of it? It would be trivially-easy to actually verify his conclusion - and do so using something a little more substantial than the number of kernel threads (like, say, the names, numbers, and relative sizes of system files between Vista and Win7).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Thom a Windows fanboy
by Soulbender on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 16:17 in reply to "Thom a Windows fanboy"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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


Well, you know what they say about IT journalist; they're the guys who cant cut it in the field.

Reply Parent Score: 3