國(guó)外IT業(yè)者有關(guān)Windows 7的一次辯論

Win7之家（ www.airtaxifl.com）：國(guó)外IT業(yè)者有關(guān)Windows 7的一次辯論

看完你那“反駁性”的文章之后，我發(fā)現(xiàn)其實(shí)你也贊同我的一些核心觀點(diǎn)。

“微軟也很清楚，Windows Vista和Windows 7之間并沒(méi)有多大的區(qū)別，雖然Windows 7做了些優(yōu)化，但并沒(méi)有本質(zhì)上的變化”

因此，可以看出我們倆都同意，從Vista到Windows 7并不是一次重大的升級(jí)。下面再看看我們倆觀點(diǎn)的另一處不同：

“首先，正在運(yùn)行的內(nèi)核線程數(shù)并不能說(shuō)明Windows 7對(duì)內(nèi)核是否做了改變..”

對(duì)于任何沒(méi)看過(guò)Windows 7源代碼的人來(lái)說(shuō)，這樣的陳述都是需要相當(dāng)大的勇氣的。事實(shí)上，在沒(méi)有遍覽Windows 7的內(nèi)核資源樹狀圖的情況下，任何人也無(wú)法得出這樣或那樣的結(jié)論。這也就是為什么我在過(guò)去16年里都一直從事著NT內(nèi)核相關(guān)工作的原因-它已經(jīng)很優(yōu)秀了。

對(duì)于你的這些觀點(diǎn)，我的回復(fù)如下：

誠(chéng)然，我們都無(wú)法得出諸如”Windows 7是否對(duì)內(nèi)核作出了改進(jìn)，作了多少改進(jìn)“這樣的結(jié)論，而事實(shí)上，我也從未說(shuō)過(guò)這些結(jié)論。只是，歷史證實(shí)了Windows從一個(gè)重要版本過(guò)渡到另一個(gè)重要版本的巨大意義。而根據(jù)微軟在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上的陳述，我的觀點(diǎn)顯然更站得住腳：Windows 7跟Vista并沒(méi)有多大區(qū)別，Windows 7只是Vista的 R2版本。而，也許你沒(méi)有注意到，其實(shí)你也是同意我這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)的。

小編：且不管文中的這些觀點(diǎn)孰是孰非，但在我看來(lái)，這種熱烈討論的氣氛很值得我們借鑒。國(guó)內(nèi)，實(shí)在是缺乏這樣的氛圍。

Thom,

After reviewing your "rebuttal" article, I find that you seem to agree with the core point of my original piece:

"In all seriousness, Microsoft has been very clear that when it comes to under the hood, there won't be many changes between Windows Vista and Windows 7. There will be optimisations to improve performance, but nothing drastic."

So, now that we've established that we both agree that Windows 7 is *not* a major upgrade to Windows Vista (at least as far as "under the hood" is concerned), we can move on to the first major objection in your "rebuttal" text:

"First of all, the number of threads running within a kernel says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how many changes have or have not gone into the kernel..."
(note: emphasis on "whatever" preserved from your article).

Wow! That's a bold statement for someone who (I would assume) does not have access to the Windows 7 source code! The truth is that, without walking the NT kernel source tree, there is simply no way to *conclusively* make such a statement one way or the other. That's why, in my article, I make a point of establishing the history of this metric and how - over the 16 years I've been working with the NT code base - it has proven to be a good, externally-accessible indicator of kernel churn.

So my response is: There is no way that *either* of us can state *conclusively* that the thread count metric does or does not express change at kernel level. But then again, I never claimed that it does - only that history shows the value changing significantly from major version to major version. Combined with various statements made by Microsoft on the subject, this lack of change - when viewed in the context of the aforementioned history for this metric - would seem to support my own conclusion about Windows 7 being so similar to Vista as to warrant a "point release" or "R2" moniker. A conclusion, I might add, that you have already tacitly agreed to (see first quote above).