White Paper Analysis Limewire vs iTunes White Paper Analysis lotting paper

Document Sample
White Paper Analysis Limewire vs iTunes White Paper Analysis  lotting paper Powered By Docstoc
					White Paper Analysis: LimeWire vs. iTunes

           Lindsay Goodwin
            Marcy Jasmund
           Brad Kanwischer
             Adam Macek

           September 30, 2005
              English 420S
            Purdue University
         After reading the white paper and reviewing the content, it was determined that
LimeWire vs. iTunes is an extremely well-written paper. In addition, it does a good job of
following the guidelines for the white paper genre, correctly addresses the OSDDP audience,
draws from reliable sources, and utilizes a clear, continuous, and organized structure. While
the authors of this paper created a good final project, there are still areas that can be
improved upon.
         For instance, LimeWire vs. iTunes is an extremely lengthy paper, finishing out at
seventeen pages. Many portions of the reading seem unnecessarily arduous. The authors
choose to generally skim the topics such as history, legal issues, and usability. Under the
“Virus” topic, however, the authors went into great detail about several different viruses.
The increased focus on the viruses majorly distracted from the original focus of the paper.
By cutting down the discussion of each virus, the paper could be shortened and this area
would be much less burdensome.
         In addition to their proper coverage of topics, the authors chose to use several
illustrations. Each illustration had a specific purpose and greatly enhanced the paper. By
providing graphic examples of the theories and principles discussed in the paper, the authors
allowed the audience (especially those with less subject knowledge) to grasp the big picture.
This paper was well-written for the OSDDP audience.
         The paper was also made more reliable through the authors’ use of sources. The
majority of the resources proved to be credible. In fact, several sources seemed to be
specifically tailored toward this subject. For example, was an excellent
source often linking the reader to further web sights on the topic from prestigious
universities like Duke and Stanford. While searching the internet for further resources,
several of the original sources came up during the search. It was obvious that the researchers
took a significant amount of time in locating more reliable sources.
         Unfortunately, a few of the sources were no longer available or were outdated. These
sources included, and many sources from as far back as 2001. With
the swift and continuous change in technology, it was important to weed out the old sources.
Some great replacements include:

       The organization and structure of the white paper was executed in an easy to
understand format. The basics and history of P2P file sharing were presented first, before
delving knee deep in the technical aspects of the programs. The layout flowed fairly well
from one topic to another. In each of the topics though, it was noticed that some of the
paragraphs were a too long and hard to follow. Breaking up some of these larger paragraphs
to a couple or few shorter ones would make the reading easier for the reader. It may also be
more beneficial to switch the order of the two topics “The Cost of File Sharing” and
“Functionality and Usability”. This would provide for an even better flow of the content.
        In addition, a couple of spelling errors were evident throughout the white paper.
With the technological advances of spell checking features, this is unacceptable. With the
correction of these errors, the voice and style of the white paper becomes a great part of this
document. The overall voice of the project provides a lot of technical information that is
easy to follow for anyone who is not computer savvy. From reading this white paper, the
reader is provided with plenty of information to aid them in their choice for downloading
        Overall, the paper is consistent throughout, but there are a couple instances where
different writing styles were evident. This comes into play with some of the computer
terminology. Some writers seemed to have more knowledge than others about how
computers and P2P sharing really works. As mentioned before, some paragraphs were
harder to read than others because they were too long. Perhaps, this was due to multiple
authors. Sections of the paper were probably copied and pasted together, causing some
writers long paragraph habits to be blended with others short paragraph habits.
        This white paper is written fairly well. This is a topic that many students can relate to,
which makes it a lot easier to understand. Many white papers are on topics that the reader
may have no background information about, which makes it difficult to understand. In this
white paper, there are diagrams which illustrate how the process of file sharing really works.
This is very useful for the reader because they are able to make a visual connection while
reading. This can clear up any information that the reader may be confused about.
        There is a section in which the white paper that discusses spyware and adware,
without any identifying or clarifying information. The reader must proceed to deeper parts
of the paper in order to find out about spyware and adware. This becomes confusing and the
information about adware and spyware can be added a little earlier to help clear any
confusing about the programs.
        Also, the paper does a great job of describing other related programs. The authors list
the program in bold and then go into detail about it. This helps the reader because you know
exactly what relates to the program. Also, it describes the information regarding LimeWire
and iTunes very well. The authors go into great detail about each one and for the most part
and keep the information separate between the two which helps the reader keep certain facts
with certain programs.
        Overall, this white paper is very clear with a few small exceptions. The authors did a
great job in getting the point across, and they did it in a way where anyone reading it can
understand what they are saying. With a few small improvements, this white paper could be

Shared By:
Description: White Paper Analysis Limewire vs iTunes White Paper Analysis lotting paper