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 338928
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Adam S
by merkoth on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 17:36 UTC 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