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 338986
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: A dialog...
by google_ninja on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A dialog..."
Member since:

When people use phrases like 'mid way though a development cycle' and 'not even a beta' it's because they know nothing has changed but they are insinuating that something will change later on. Using the "Oh we don't know what will happen" argument is just daft.

You don't go mucking around with kernel thread handling and integrity when you start releasing public builds the last I checked, especially when you have stated that drivers and applications will be completely compatible with a previous kernel version. This doesn't just mean binary compatibility, because you have to account for timing and all sorts of other extreme quirks.

In the absence of source code then we either go on hearsay as to what has changed, or someone looks at some evidence as to what has changed.

That sort of stuff you mess with when you need to, or when you are optimizing. You do not optimize for a build you give out to developers at the PDC.

Whether or not the thread count changes is irrelivent. What is relevant is that it has changed in previous windows releases. This is a preview build, not a release, so once again, the thread count fades into irrelevance. The fact that you are arguing this shows you know next to nothing about windows memory management. I am far from an expert, but I know enough to be able to say the guy is full of crap.

MDAC as in Microsoft Data Access Components.....?

from the article

The additional Local Procedure Call overhead of moving portions of MDAC (Microsoft Data Access Components) out of the kernel would most certainly be felt by a time-sensitive, looping transactional workload like ADO Stress.

I do not understand how anyone can take this guy seriously. Did you even read the article?

Reply Parent Score: 2