Microsoft on Monday released a near-final version of its Windows Computer Cluster Server 2003--a version of its operating system tailored to allow powerful clusters of Windows-based machines to perform high-performance computing tasks.
The product, which was originally expected last year, is now slated to be finalized by June, with about 30 customers already testing the software.
Fancy M$, trying to gatecrash the 100% domain of the linux/unix market, since most of the OS's for these monster speed demons is custom written and individually tailored to the machines in question!, and the budget for these babies is blown on all the hardware ,power and cooling systems with zero $ for the core operating system, this is a most interesting attempt to scale the walls of improbability!
Oh well, here's to the virii moving around the system at the speed of 10 gigaflops plus, now that would be a world first!
Fancy M$, trying to gatecrash the 100% domain of the linux/unix market, since most of the OS's for these monster speed demons is custom written and individually tailored to the machines in question!, and the budget for these babies is blown on all the hardware ,power and cooling systems with zero $ for the core operating system, this is a most interesting attempt to scale the walls of improbability!
Oh well, here's to the virii moving around the system at the speed of 10 gigaflops plus, now that would be a world first!
Microsoft has no experience, other than the beta testing, in this arena. Given their track record with their operating systems to date, it is truly a scary proposition.
In addition, as one poster made clear, all the supercomputing experience is on other operating systems with a long history of success. How in the world, with their pricing structures, strong paternalistic attitude, history of trying to manipulate the market place, (etc) do they expect to make a serious dent in this market. It is full of tech savvy people who, for the most part, have a disdain for Windows.
I will be surprised if I am proven wrong. But I have a strange feeling, I won't be. It's their track record. A major fowl up in this arena just won't be forgiven, at all.
Apparently you have no experience in working in shops where SQL Server and other transactional processing take place. Microsoft has a long history of support for clustered environments and this will be a welcome addition for many big businesses who need more power.
Microsoft has no experience, other than the beta testing, in this arena. Given their track record with their operating systems to date, it is truly a scary proposition.
In addition, as one poster made clear, all the supercomputing experience is on other operating systems with a long history of success. How in the world, with their pricing structures, strong paternalistic attitude, history of trying to manipulate the market place, (etc) do they expect to make a serious dent in this market. It is full of tech savvy people who, for the most part, have a disdain for Windows.
I will be surprised if I am proven wrong. But I have a strange feeling, I won't be. It's their track record. A major fowl up in this arena just won't be forgiven, at all.
Apparently you have no experience in working in shops where SQL Server and other transactional processing take place. Microsoft has a long history of support for clustered environments and this will be a welcome addition for many big businesses who need more power.
One of the cool things about Unix, and Linux, is the availability of software that allows grid computing today. If this Windows version is merely a means of clustering multiple computers, then they are already far behind the curve. In addition, if this is a cluster that requires a special version of windows to run as a client, then it drops even further down the pole. But then, it doesn't get any better if it uses the current versions of windows as clients either, given the current issues with the operating system.
The up-side, is a supercluster of MSSQL. Now that would be something worth the trouble.
What are the current counter parts to this, and you can flame on like a super hero if you want, but this is not false, or some half-baked scheme. OSX (Tiger) comes with grid computing. That means every CPU using it, can act as a client. Every server using it can act as a controller. Virgina Tech, created the third fastest academic super compter (at the time) using it. COLSA, a DOD uses them to run a super cluster at 25+ teraflops. This experience to do this, really doesn't come from Apple, but as a result of years of work from other developers, scientists, and researchers. All OSX did, was make it possible for everyone to take advantage of this technology. As a result, most, if not all of the work previously done in this arena can be applied in OSX.
For reference (so you don't think I'm full of it): <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/</a>
The developers: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/acg/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/acg/</a>
Bottom-line, this new Windows version MAY provide a the ability to create truly powerful SQL servers that can begin to finally compete directly with the mainframes. This is a hypothetical thought, because there are inherent limitations in MSSQL (as most PC based DBMSs), that might be able to be overcome with a cluster. Beyond that ... there is nothing in Microsofts past, and current developments, that would lead me to believe that this new version is truly a viable option.
One of the cool things about Unix, and Linux, is the availability of software that allows grid computing today. If this Windows version is merely a means of clustering multiple computers, then they are already far behind the curve. In addition, if this is a cluster that requires a special version of windows to run as a client, then it drops even further down the pole. But then, it doesn't get any better if it uses the current versions of windows as clients either, given the current issues with the operating system.
The up-side, is a supercluster of MSSQL. Now that would be something worth the trouble.
What are the current counter parts to this, and you can flame on like a super hero if you want, but this is not false, or some half-baked scheme. OSX (Tiger) comes with grid computing. That means every CPU using it, can act as a client. Every server using it can act as a controller. Virgina Tech, created the third fastest academic super compter (at the time) using it. COLSA, a DOD uses them to run a super cluster at 25+ teraflops. This experience to do this, really doesn't come from Apple, but as a result of years of work from other developers, scientists, and researchers. All OSX did, was make it possible for everyone to take advantage of this technology. As a result, most, if not all of the work previously done in this arena can be applied in OSX.
For reference (so you don't think I'm full of it): <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/</a>
The developers: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/acg/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/acg/</a>
Bottom-line, this new Windows version MAY provide a the ability to create truly powerful SQL servers that can begin to finally compete directly with the mainframes. This is a hypothetical thought, because there are inherent limitations in MSSQL (as most PC based DBMSs), that might be able to be overcome with a cluster. Beyond that ... there is nothing in Microsofts past, and current developments, that would lead me to believe that this new version is truly a viable option.
Explain to me why we need supercomputing based on Windows ? Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ? Does excel now recalulate cells faster ? This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming the fastest car in the world.
"Explain to me why we need supercomputing based on Windows ?"
I don't know the "official" reason but here are some possibilities:
A. Bragging rights. -- MS wants to prove that there's no area Unix is into that Windows can't be run in.
B. Familiarity. -- Coders used to writing to the windows platform now have access to super-computing capability without having to learn a new platform.
C. Rathole -- MS wants to throw money down a rathole instead of losing it in lawsuits. (I can't see how this part of the business could ever make a profit).
"Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ?"
They already have a number of people fixing bugs, they have an obligation to also provide new versions of existing products and completely new products. Otherwise investors will abandon their stock and the company will go bankrupt.
"Does excel now recalulate cells faster ?" Did you hear that as an objective for this project? If not why would you even think Excel would be related to this?
"This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming the fastest car in the world."
No, it's more like claiming the largest "people/cargo" capacity. That many cars can actually carry more than the largest dump truck but it'd be as foolish to buy 1000 Corollas to carry rock out of a quarry as it would be to buy one of those monster dump trucks to carry hundreds of people somewhere. You've got to look at the application to see which way is more appropriate.
Explain to me why we need supercomputing based on Windows ? Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ? Does excel now recalulate cells faster ? This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming the fastest car in the world.
"Explain to me why we need supercomputing based on Windows ?"
I don't know the "official" reason but here are some possibilities:
A. Bragging rights. -- MS wants to prove that there's no area Unix is into that Windows can't be run in.
B. Familiarity. -- Coders used to writing to the windows platform now have access to super-computing capability without having to learn a new platform.
C. Rathole -- MS wants to throw money down a rathole instead of losing it in lawsuits. (I can't see how this part of the business could ever make a profit).
"Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ?"
They already have a number of people fixing bugs, they have an obligation to also provide new versions of existing products and completely new products. Otherwise investors will abandon their stock and the company will go bankrupt.
"Does excel now recalulate cells faster ?" Did you hear that as an objective for this project? If not why would you even think Excel would be related to this?
"This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming the fastest car in the world."
No, it's more like claiming the largest "people/cargo" capacity. That many cars can actually carry more than the largest dump truck but it'd be as foolish to buy 1000 Corollas to carry rock out of a quarry as it would be to buy one of those monster dump trucks to carry hundreds of people somewhere. You've got to look at the application to see which way is more appropriate.
Microsoft can hardly keep the desktop market from blowing up in their faces. What would make them think that the supercomputer arena was a good place to go?
Microsoft can hardly keep the desktop market from blowing up in their faces. What would make them think that the supercomputer arena was a good place to go?
I'm always amazed at people who have done all these "great things" and are "masters" of a technology. Why they have climbed every mountain and swam every sea.
You can tell who they are. They are ones who have nothing better to do than hang around and post comments about how superior they are to everyone else.
When more than 1/3rd of the responses to a story are from the same person, I think that tells you something -- at least it tells me something.
I do believe we will all stick with the facts. Its wonderful that you can make posts of absolutely no substance and still wish for some kind of respect. That's ok. Keep your milk and cookies, I'm sure as heck aint Santa Claus.
It would be worthwhile if you AT LEAST attempted to debate. But, since you seem to not have anything real to add in the first place, all one can surmise is you simply have nothing to add at all.
I'm always amazed at people who have done all these "great things" and are "masters" of a technology. Why they have climbed every mountain and swam every sea.
You can tell who they are. They are ones who have nothing better to do than hang around and post comments about how superior they are to everyone else.
When more than 1/3rd of the responses to a story are from the same person, I think that tells you something -- at least it tells me something.
I do believe we will all stick with the facts. Its wonderful that you can make posts of absolutely no substance and still wish for some kind of respect. That's ok. Keep your milk and cookies, I'm sure as heck aint Santa Claus.
It would be worthwhile if you AT LEAST attempted to debate. But, since you seem to not have anything real to add in the first place, all one can surmise is you simply have nothing to add at all.
Supercomputers spend most of their time doing complex calculations and need their CPUs focused on their core task. On Windows, the GUI takes a fair amount of CPU usage --- while appropriate for a desktop, I don't think it makes sense for a supercomputer.
And that's ignoring the vast number of security issues Windows has on Intel machines. I wouldn't run it on a multimillion dollar supercomputer. Personally, I'd use the Beowolf cluster for Linux, if I ever were to use such a machine.
And Since When Did Anything Microsloth Do Have to Make Sense? ...
It certainly wasn't in any of the consent decrees or opinions handed down by the feds, or in any of the other marketing hoopla that apologists/shills feel the need to broadcast in support of that company's continued attempts at expansion beyond its already moribund and pathetic desktop products market (desktop OS license sales recently dropped below those for the Media Center version, although they spun it as Media Center sales rising, even though they were almost exclusively already installed on systems sold at retail). There's only one reason that they're attempting to break down the door into the supercomputing market, and that's a vain attempt to find additional incremental sales somewhere, anywhere, outside the portion of the computing marketplace that they had locked up (but, even that has slowly started dribbling away - virtually the only money they will make from Vista will be via licenses on new systems, and sales for them are declining - look at the problems that Dell, HP, etc., have gotten in over the past few years).
This follows on the heels of their largely unsuccessful attempts to dominate the enterprise server markets - i.e., tightly-coupled symmetric multiprocessor systems that the mainframe vendors have had a stranglehold on for decades. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their technology does not scale well, and how they thought that anyone was going to port upwards of 60 years' worth of mainframe software over to Microsloth's completely different version of proprietary control just goes to show how naive and/or arrogant they really are in the head shed in Redmond. There might actually be some customers who are dumb enough to think that, if only Windoze ran on every conceivable piece of hardware under the Sun (pun fully intended), the world would be so much of a better place, but the vast majority of the supercomputing market will very likely never even hear about this, much less give a damn, as they happily continue their work with what is absolutely not broken in any way, shape, or form.
Or, maybe it was just done for bragging rights by the eggheads in their pure research labs in Cambridge, etc., who are trying to justify their otherwise completely useless existence. Can anyone point to a single major technological leap forward in computing from any of these labs? Oh, yeah, they're in it for the long haul, and can't be bothered with solving existing problems. They have to dream up new problems no one is having so they can solve them, instead. I've worked in that kind of community before, and yes, they have done some very clever and interesting things, but it's been a long time since anything "paradigm-shifting" has come from within a corporate-sponsored computing research bureaucracy, or an academic/government one, for that matter - many of which have been benefactors of Bill's largesse (which you can bet translates into doing at least some bidding in the research world on Microsloth's behalf - to include sabotage of work that Microsloth doesn't sponsor).
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike everything Microsloth does - I find endless amusement in watching them stumble around, trying to figure out which door number to pick next, only to find that they've won yet-another jackass, box of dog poop, or other consolation prize.
Supercomputers spend most of their time doing complex calculations and need their CPUs focused on their core task. On Windows, the GUI takes a fair amount of CPU usage --- while appropriate for a desktop, I don't think it makes sense for a supercomputer.
And that's ignoring the vast number of security issues Windows has on Intel machines. I wouldn't run it on a multimillion dollar supercomputer. Personally, I'd use the Beowolf cluster for Linux, if I ever were to use such a machine.
And Since When Did Anything Microsloth Do Have to Make Sense? ...
It certainly wasn't in any of the consent decrees or opinions handed down by the feds, or in any of the other marketing hoopla that apologists/shills feel the need to broadcast in support of that company's continued attempts at expansion beyond its already moribund and pathetic desktop products market (desktop OS license sales recently dropped below those for the Media Center version, although they spun it as Media Center sales rising, even though they were almost exclusively already installed on systems sold at retail). There's only one reason that they're attempting to break down the door into the supercomputing market, and that's a vain attempt to find additional incremental sales somewhere, anywhere, outside the portion of the computing marketplace that they had locked up (but, even that has slowly started dribbling away - virtually the only money they will make from Vista will be via licenses on new systems, and sales for them are declining - look at the problems that Dell, HP, etc., have gotten in over the past few years).
This follows on the heels of their largely unsuccessful attempts to dominate the enterprise server markets - i.e., tightly-coupled symmetric multiprocessor systems that the mainframe vendors have had a stranglehold on for decades. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their technology does not scale well, and how they thought that anyone was going to port upwards of 60 years' worth of mainframe software over to Microsloth's completely different version of proprietary control just goes to show how naive and/or arrogant they really are in the head shed in Redmond. There might actually be some customers who are dumb enough to think that, if only Windoze ran on every conceivable piece of hardware under the Sun (pun fully intended), the world would be so much of a better place, but the vast majority of the supercomputing market will very likely never even hear about this, much less give a damn, as they happily continue their work with what is absolutely not broken in any way, shape, or form.
Or, maybe it was just done for bragging rights by the eggheads in their pure research labs in Cambridge, etc., who are trying to justify their otherwise completely useless existence. Can anyone point to a single major technological leap forward in computing from any of these labs? Oh, yeah, they're in it for the long haul, and can't be bothered with solving existing problems. They have to dream up new problems no one is having so they can solve them, instead. I've worked in that kind of community before, and yes, they have done some very clever and interesting things, but it's been a long time since anything "paradigm-shifting" has come from within a corporate-sponsored computing research bureaucracy, or an academic/government one, for that matter - many of which have been benefactors of Bill's largesse (which you can bet translates into doing at least some bidding in the research world on Microsloth's behalf - to include sabotage of work that Microsloth doesn't sponsor).
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike everything Microsloth does - I find endless amusement in watching them stumble around, trying to figure out which door number to pick next, only to find that they've won yet-another jackass, box of dog poop, or other consolation prize.
Mozilla plans to release a beta version this year for Microsoft's upcoming Windows interface. It'll be a lot of work, but Mozilla doesn't really have a choice.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
The space agency powers down its last System Z machine, years after IBM stopped selling them for the mathematical calculation jobs for which NASA originally bought them.
A group calling itself Evil Shadow Team reportedly hacked into Microsoft's online store in India, stealing usernames and passwords of the site's customers.
Oh well, here's to the virii moving around the system at the speed of 10 gigaflops plus, now that would be a world first!
Oh well, here's to the virii moving around the system at the speed of 10 gigaflops plus, now that would be a world first!
In addition, as one poster made clear, all the supercomputing experience is on other operating systems with a long history of success. How in the world, with their pricing structures, strong paternalistic attitude, history of trying to manipulate the market place, (etc) do they expect to make a serious dent in this market. It is full of tech savvy people who, for the most part, have a disdain for Windows.
I will be surprised if I am proven wrong. But I have a strange feeling, I won't be. It's their track record. A major fowl up in this arena just won't be forgiven, at all.
Yes MS is new to this area, but doesn't everything starts from fresh? And MS has all resources/know-hows needed to give us this suprise...
Let's wait
Yes MS is new to this area, but doesn't everything starts from fresh? And MS has all resources/know-hows needed to give us this suprise...
Let's wait
Apparently you have no experience in working in shops where SQL Server and other transactional processing take place. Microsoft has a long history of support for clustered environments and this will be a welcome addition for many big businesses who need more power.
In addition, as one poster made clear, all the supercomputing experience is on other operating systems with a long history of success. How in the world, with their pricing structures, strong paternalistic attitude, history of trying to manipulate the market place, (etc) do they expect to make a serious dent in this market. It is full of tech savvy people who, for the most part, have a disdain for Windows.
I will be surprised if I am proven wrong. But I have a strange feeling, I won't be. It's their track record. A major fowl up in this arena just won't be forgiven, at all.
Yes MS is new to this area, but doesn't everything starts from fresh? And MS has all resources/know-hows needed to give us this suprise...
Let's wait
Yes MS is new to this area, but doesn't everything starts from fresh? And MS has all resources/know-hows needed to give us this suprise...
Let's wait
Apparently you have no experience in working in shops where SQL Server and other transactional processing take place. Microsoft has a long history of support for clustered environments and this will be a welcome addition for many big businesses who need more power.
The up-side, is a supercluster of MSSQL. Now that would be something worth the trouble.
What are the current counter parts to this, and you can flame on like a super hero if you want, but this is not false, or some half-baked scheme. OSX (Tiger) comes with grid computing. That means every CPU using it, can act as a client. Every server using it can act as a controller. Virgina Tech, created the third fastest academic super compter (at the time) using it. COLSA, a DOD uses them to run a super cluster at 25+ teraflops. This experience to do this, really doesn't come from Apple, but as a result of years of work from other developers, scientists, and researchers. All OSX did, was make it possible for everyone to take advantage of this technology. As a result, most, if not all of the work previously done in this arena can be applied in OSX.
For reference (so you don't think I'm full of it):
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/</a>
COLSA implementation:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/</a>
The developers:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/acg/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/acg/</a>
Bottom-line, this new Windows version MAY provide a the ability to create truly powerful SQL servers that can begin to finally compete directly with the mainframes. This is a hypothetical thought, because there are inherent limitations in MSSQL (as most PC based DBMSs), that might be able to be overcome with a cluster. Beyond that ... there is nothing in Microsofts past, and current developments, that would lead me to believe that this new version is truly a viable option.
The up-side, is a supercluster of MSSQL. Now that would be something worth the trouble.
What are the current counter parts to this, and you can flame on like a super hero if you want, but this is not false, or some half-baked scheme. OSX (Tiger) comes with grid computing. That means every CPU using it, can act as a client. Every server using it can act as a controller. Virgina Tech, created the third fastest academic super compter (at the time) using it. COLSA, a DOD uses them to run a super cluster at 25+ teraflops. This experience to do this, really doesn't come from Apple, but as a result of years of work from other developers, scientists, and researchers. All OSX did, was make it possible for everyone to take advantage of this technology. As a result, most, if not all of the work previously done in this arena can be applied in OSX.
For reference (so you don't think I'm full of it):
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/</a>
COLSA implementation:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/</a>
The developers:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/acg/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/acg/</a>
Bottom-line, this new Windows version MAY provide a the ability to create truly powerful SQL servers that can begin to finally compete directly with the mainframes. This is a hypothetical thought, because there are inherent limitations in MSSQL (as most PC based DBMSs), that might be able to be overcome with a cluster. Beyond that ... there is nothing in Microsofts past, and current developments, that would lead me to believe that this new version is truly a viable option.
Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ?
Does excel now recalulate cells faster ?
This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming
the fastest car in the world.
I don't know the "official" reason but here are some possibilities:
A. Bragging rights. -- MS wants to prove that there's no area Unix is into that Windows can't be run in.
B. Familiarity. -- Coders used to writing to the windows platform now have access to super-computing capability without having to learn a new platform.
C. Rathole -- MS wants to throw money down a rathole instead of losing it in lawsuits. (I can't see how this part of the business could ever make a profit).
"Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ?"
They already have a number of people fixing bugs, they have an obligation to also provide new versions of existing products and completely new products. Otherwise investors will abandon their stock and the company will go bankrupt.
"Does excel now recalulate cells faster ?" Did you hear that as an objective for this project? If not why would you even think Excel would be related to this?
"This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming the fastest car in the world."
No, it's more like claiming the largest "people/cargo" capacity. That many cars can actually carry more than the largest dump truck but it'd be as foolish to buy 1000 Corollas to carry rock out of a quarry as it would be to buy one of those monster dump trucks to carry hundreds of people somewhere. You've got to look at the application to see which way is more appropriate.
Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ?
Does excel now recalulate cells faster ?
This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming
the fastest car in the world.
I don't know the "official" reason but here are some possibilities:
A. Bragging rights. -- MS wants to prove that there's no area Unix is into that Windows can't be run in.
B. Familiarity. -- Coders used to writing to the windows platform now have access to super-computing capability without having to learn a new platform.
C. Rathole -- MS wants to throw money down a rathole instead of losing it in lawsuits. (I can't see how this part of the business could ever make a profit).
"Why dont they spend their time on fixing bugs ?"
They already have a number of people fixing bugs, they have an obligation to also provide new versions of existing products and completely new products. Otherwise investors will abandon their stock and the company will go bankrupt.
"Does excel now recalulate cells faster ?" Did you hear that as an objective for this project? If not why would you even think Excel would be related to this?
"This is like stringing 1000 Toyota Corollas together and claiming the fastest car in the world."
No, it's more like claiming the largest "people/cargo" capacity. That many cars can actually carry more than the largest dump truck but it'd be as foolish to buy 1000 Corollas to carry rock out of a quarry as it would be to buy one of those monster dump trucks to carry hundreds of people somewhere. You've got to look at the application to see which way is more appropriate.
You can tell who they are. They are ones who have nothing better to do than hang around and post comments about how superior they are to everyone else.
When more than 1/3rd of the responses to a story are from the same person, I think that tells you something -- at least it tells me something.
It would be worthwhile if you AT LEAST attempted to debate. But, since you seem to not have anything real to add in the first place, all one can surmise is you simply have nothing to add at all.
You can tell who they are. They are ones who have nothing better to do than hang around and post comments about how superior they are to everyone else.
When more than 1/3rd of the responses to a story are from the same person, I think that tells you something -- at least it tells me something.
It would be worthwhile if you AT LEAST attempted to debate. But, since you seem to not have anything real to add in the first place, all one can surmise is you simply have nothing to add at all.
And that's ignoring the vast number of security issues Windows has on Intel machines. I wouldn't run it on a multimillion dollar supercomputer. Personally, I'd use the Beowolf cluster for Linux, if I ever were to use such a machine.
This follows on the heels of their largely unsuccessful attempts to dominate the enterprise server markets - i.e., tightly-coupled symmetric multiprocessor systems that the mainframe vendors have had a stranglehold on for decades. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their technology does not scale well, and how they thought that anyone was going to port upwards of 60 years' worth of mainframe software over to Microsloth's completely different version of proprietary control just goes to show how naive and/or arrogant they really are in the head shed in Redmond. There might actually be some customers who are dumb enough to think that, if only Windoze ran on every conceivable piece of hardware under the Sun (pun fully intended), the world would be so much of a better place, but the vast majority of the supercomputing market will very likely never even hear about this, much less give a damn, as they happily continue their work with what is absolutely not broken in any way, shape, or form.
Or, maybe it was just done for bragging rights by the eggheads in their pure research labs in Cambridge, etc., who are trying to justify their otherwise completely useless existence. Can anyone point to a single major technological leap forward in computing from any of these labs? Oh, yeah, they're in it for the long haul, and can't be bothered with solving existing problems. They have to dream up new problems no one is having so they can solve them, instead. I've worked in that kind of community before, and yes, they have done some very clever and interesting things, but it's been a long time since anything "paradigm-shifting" has come from within a corporate-sponsored computing research bureaucracy, or an academic/government one, for that matter - many of which have been benefactors of Bill's largesse (which you can bet translates into doing at least some bidding in the research world on Microsloth's behalf - to include sabotage of work that Microsloth doesn't sponsor).
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike everything Microsloth does - I find endless amusement in watching them stumble around, trying to figure out which door number to pick next, only to find that they've won yet-another jackass, box of dog poop, or other consolation prize.
All the Best,
Joe Blow
And that's ignoring the vast number of security issues Windows has on Intel machines. I wouldn't run it on a multimillion dollar supercomputer. Personally, I'd use the Beowolf cluster for Linux, if I ever were to use such a machine.
This follows on the heels of their largely unsuccessful attempts to dominate the enterprise server markets - i.e., tightly-coupled symmetric multiprocessor systems that the mainframe vendors have had a stranglehold on for decades. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their technology does not scale well, and how they thought that anyone was going to port upwards of 60 years' worth of mainframe software over to Microsloth's completely different version of proprietary control just goes to show how naive and/or arrogant they really are in the head shed in Redmond. There might actually be some customers who are dumb enough to think that, if only Windoze ran on every conceivable piece of hardware under the Sun (pun fully intended), the world would be so much of a better place, but the vast majority of the supercomputing market will very likely never even hear about this, much less give a damn, as they happily continue their work with what is absolutely not broken in any way, shape, or form.
Or, maybe it was just done for bragging rights by the eggheads in their pure research labs in Cambridge, etc., who are trying to justify their otherwise completely useless existence. Can anyone point to a single major technological leap forward in computing from any of these labs? Oh, yeah, they're in it for the long haul, and can't be bothered with solving existing problems. They have to dream up new problems no one is having so they can solve them, instead. I've worked in that kind of community before, and yes, they have done some very clever and interesting things, but it's been a long time since anything "paradigm-shifting" has come from within a corporate-sponsored computing research bureaucracy, or an academic/government one, for that matter - many of which have been benefactors of Bill's largesse (which you can bet translates into doing at least some bidding in the research world on Microsloth's behalf - to include sabotage of work that Microsloth doesn't sponsor).
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike everything Microsloth does - I find endless amusement in watching them stumble around, trying to figure out which door number to pick next, only to find that they've won yet-another jackass, box of dog poop, or other consolation prize.
All the Best,
Joe Blow