Microsoft creating Windows for supercomputers

May 24, 2004, 12:30 PM PT

Microsoft has launched an effort to produce a version of Windows for high-performance computing, a move seen as a direct attack on a Linux stronghold.

Read More:ZDnet News

There Microsoft goes, want to be top in the market.

What do you think will Microsoft succeed in beating Linux?

I don�t know Linux is a strong competitor in super computing, but it looks if Microsoft want to work Linux out of the game�

You throw enough money at something and you�re bound to succeed. That's Microsoft's motto, which has worked pretty well so far. The X-Box couldn't have succeeded if not for this, and this ploy will probably be successful as well.

It won't work.
By suprecomputers do you mean the sort that the gov't use to keep tabs on the internet?
I'm pretty sure they won't want to see, 'sorry your computer as performed an illegal operation and will be shut down' every few hours.
Bah, microsoft.

Ash

Well since supercomputers are used in research labs, universities and generally by people who know more about computers than the average Joe, I doubt that they would go for an operating systems like Windows. Especially if it keeps crashing half way through an important calculation/operation.

For one they wont be able customize and tailor the OS to suit their needs due to the copy write restrictions and not having access to the source code.

I don�t really think MS would throw so much money in to a version of windows that would be used by a very small percentage of users. Saying that though they really don�t like Linux so who knows.

Windows also isn�t as secure as Linux, I know a lot of people would like argue whether it is or not but in my opinion it�s as secure as a safe made of air. And I�m sure the government only want the best and most well protected software for their ridiculously expensive computers.

I just hope MS try, I'd like to see them fail.

God i hate them

Why would you by Mico$oft crap when you can get a stable free OS like UNIX or *inux or better yet Free BSD that has great security.

Oh goody, Microsoft bashing again. I bet most of the 'bashers' are using windows 98 systems?

>>I'm pretty sure they won't want to see, 'sorry your computer as performed an illegal operation and will be shut down' every few hours.
Bah, microsoft.

Windows is as stable as linux, it depends what you do to it that affects this. I have not seen a blue screen for over two years.

>>Why would you by Mico$oft crap when you can get a stable free OS like UNIX or *inux or better yet Free BSD that has great security.

Unix is not free. Linux has less security than windows because it doesn't need it, it's just not a common target. I subscribe to the linux updates, and there's an almost daily patch for a security fix, just like Windows.

Windows is a fantastic operating system, and I tire of childish remarks like these. FWIW, my computer has been up solidly this year, and has only been rebooted a few times, mostly for hardware changes.

The bottom line is that win 9x sucks ass. Win2k/xp is rock-solid. Microsoft themself admit that 9.x is a toy.

>>as secure as a safe made of air

I laugh at this remark. It is true that the patching issued my microsoft is a bit of a joke, and that you have to have an up-to-date firewall and virus scanner, I'm also behind a firewall. As I said, my computer has been up all year, and I've not had a crach, intrusion, or virus. So, I don't think that statement is quite right.

Wasn't XP based on unfinished code?................
Linux is way more stable than any windows OS...........
I use XP but only because it came with my PC and I don't have a fast enough connection to download Linux. Oh and the fact I'd loose everything because I didn't partition my HD. (More people than me use this comp)

Ash

>>Linux is way more stable than any windows OS...........

My experience says otherwise.

I will grant you that a linux installation that is purely command-line is very, very stable. Our Apache server has been up for well over a year. But, as soon as you start adding the interface, and all the hardware drivers and tools and extras, it's as stable as a Windows installation.

I've got a room full of Linux boxes at work, so I'm not making this up. My linux boxes that are used as workstations are much more work to keep running than my Windows workstations.

But maybe my experience is unique.

Also, Linux has issues which windows does not. For example, much software requires a manufacturer specific distribution of Linux to run. These distro's are not free, and support costs plenty.

I personally have no experience on that scale. But for home use I found it more stable.

Ash

Fair enough. Different people use them differently.

I just hate it when people bash Windows. It can be a very, very stable and capable platform.

I also only use Windows 2000 and I Find it stable I hade no problems for about over 1 year know I still format my pc every 3 months gust for fun, but for Windows 95, me and 98 no thanks 98 se is ok but 2000 is my baby don�t like XP to fancy as of Linux I have no experience.

If you don�t do stupid Things to windows you won�t get stupid errors�

Ok I admit I may have gone over the top by saying that windows is as secure as an imaginary safe and yes I use win98se for gaming .

And yes Linux has more security holes than windows but the windows ones are more severe.

Imagine your operating system as a house, what would u rather have 12 holes the size of say a tennis ball or one giant cat flap you could climb through?

At the end of the day if you�ve got people working for you that know a hell of a lot about computers neither should be to much of a problem. But I�m going to stick with Linux, I believe its best candidate for a supercomputer OS and I don�t think MS will really be able shove them out the market.



[Edited on 25-5-2004 by Orias]

Thank you, Zzrub!

Originally posted by Zzub
Windows is as stable as linux, it depends what you do to it that affects this. I have not seen a blue screen for over two years.

Unix is not free. Linux has less security than windows because it doesn't need it, it's just not a common target. I subscribe to the linux updates, and there's an almost daily patch for a security fix, just like Windows.

I'll just ditto all that.

Most of you DON'T remember when Unix was the dominant system. It was hacked and cracked and wormed and virused with great ease -- in fact, *all* the oldest hacker tricks are for Unix systems and that particular set of daemons (which are still around today.)

I remember. I had to defend against some of that hacking and cracking.

I don't think they can get it on the Big Iron, but clustered computing is interesting. That's basically how SETIatHome works... and most of the folks here running it are on Windows PCs.

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by Byrd]

Originally posted by vaswegpg
May 24, 2004, 12:30 PM PT

Microsoft has launched an effort to produce a version of Windows for high-performance computing, a move seen as a direct attack on a Linux stronghold.

Read More:ZDnet News

There Microsoft goes, want to be top in the market.

What do you think will Microsoft succeed in beating Linux?

I don�t know Linux is a strong competitor in super computing, but it looks if Microsoft want to work Linux out of the game�

Micro$oft want to turn all the cray of the planet into soopatoasters ?!

The thing with Cluster system OS's is that they are mainly extremely stripped versions of linux or unix modified to support just and only that hardware thats present, optimized to the bone for that hardware and intercommunication methods for the cluster added to the whole.

Then the needed applications are developed or implemented on this base platform.

Most clusters are built at start by just having a costom kernel running and then on top of that the application and communication layer of the cluster is built.

There are even some cluster builders that opt for a total writen from scratch kernel.

To get a Microsoft platform to do this in the same hyper optimized way as its normaly done, Microsoft would have to reveal alot of source and/or be activly involved in building the clusters, by programming their software in relation to that specific cluster.

BTW, I saw someone up there say that Microsoft systems crash all the time.
They only do in the hands of a system admin that doesn't know what hes doing. The same as a linux OS will fumble up if you don't know what your doing.

Crashes in Windows OS's are mainly caused by applications and the fact that Windows has an extremely broad level of support for all kinds of hardware.

I really don't think MS could make a stable enough OS to run efficiently for high-performance computing. Win2k is great. Hasn't crashed in years, but then i'm not doing extreme calculations with my computer.

As far as I can tell, the next version of windows is going to need a super computer to run. This isn't an MS bash either. Longhorn's (the project name for the next MS OS) average system requirements are said to be a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today. These specs were confimed my MS here.

To me this is just ridiculous. Sure maybe by 2006 those will be the average computers people will have, and i'd love to have a computer that powerful, but there is no way in hell an OS should need to suck up that much resources to operate in my opinion.

So I don't think MS will beat out Linux for high-performance computing at all.