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).
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 78 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 338914
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Adam S
by Adam S on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 15:39 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

Intersting that on the whole, OSNews readers seem to basically agree with Kennedy.

Infoworld readers seems to favor Thom.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/02/49FE-windows-7-great-deba...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Adam S
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 16:02 in reply to "Comment by Adam S"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The whole thing makes me think of power plants. If you were a power plant expert for the first half of the century, you'd notice a correlation between CO2 output and power produced at plants. Then The first Nuclear plant would be built and some industry stooge would declare that its an incredibly weak power plant, based on the C02 output.

I can't believe Thom never hit on a similar metaphor. Editor position, please!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Adam S
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 17:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by Adam S"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The whole thing makes me think of power plants. If you were a power plant expert for the first half of the century, you'd notice a correlation between CO2 output and power produced at plants. Then The first Nuclear plant would be built and some industry stooge would declare that its an incredibly weak power plant, based on the C02 output.


You're hired.

Seriously now, that's a really good analogy, and really sums up my position perfectly. I could basically replace the entire ten emails about thread count with just this analogy.

Too bad I didn't think of it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by Adam S
by Soulbender on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 16:15 in reply to "Comment by Adam S"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Even more interestingly, in the original post I got the feeling that osnews readers generally agreed with Tom while now it's the other way 'round.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Adam S
by Alex Forster on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 18:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by Adam S"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

It seems that the readers of that site already dislike the editor, thus are more inclined to take the opinion of the fresh face with higher regard.

Same thing is happening here, with roles reversed. It is interesting.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Adam S
by merkoth on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 17:36 in reply to "Comment by Adam S"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Intersting that on the whole, OSNews readers seem to basically agree with Kennedy.

Infoworld readers seems to favor Thom.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/02/49FE-windows-7-great-deba...


I'm a OSN reader and I still think that measuring development by counting threads is absolutely bogus. I don't care about historical precedent, entire subsystems could be overhauled while retaining a similar thread count. Even more, let's say they optimize something and then decide to remove useless threads: can we say that they have actually removed functionality?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by Adam S
by rexstuff on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 17:41 in reply to "Comment by Adam S"
rexstuff Member since:
2007-04-06

Well, I'm with Thom on this one. Changes in thread count is just an indicator of... changes in thread count.

Randall may have some historical evidence to give his argument some credence, but ultimately his entire argument is fallacious: one of correlation vs causation and historical fallacies.

Perhaps in the past, changes in thread count have accompanied significant changes in the kernel. But a stronger argument is needed to establish causality.

(However, I do tend agree with Randall's assessment of Rock > Techno, but there's no accounting for taste ;) )

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Adam S
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 17:46 in reply to "RE: Comment by Adam S"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

(However, I do tend agree with Randall's assessment of Rock > Techno, but there's no accounting for taste )


Of course, rock > techno, but it's all irrelevant.

Fiona Apple > everything.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Adam S
by segedunum on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 01:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by Adam S"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The question is, do we look within the OS and the kernel for any evidence that we can that things have actually changed, or do we use hearsay from PDCs and blogs about improvements people say have happened? Anybody who believes the latter has taken leave of their senses. Fallacious doesn't quite cut it, and alas, using hearsay has never disproved, or proved, a thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2