"Security is the lens through which I always view products like Windows Vista, and in that view it looks good. But there is a bigger picture with Vista for the industry: It's really, really different from previous versions. At many levels it requires a different approach." The Inq took a look at Vista RTM, and they find: "Suffice to say we're impressed. Vista has come a significantly long way since the RC2 build. It's polished, speedy, and looks good on the eye."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-01
Supercomputers are not that new, it is MS decision not to indulge in that area.
"More than half of the clusters sold running Windows Compute Cluster Server (CCS) 2003 have more than 1,000 processors, Microsoft marketing director Shawn Hansen told us today at the Supercomputing event. Hansen declined to say how many CCS clusters have been sold.
The top system – a Dell cluster at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) - has 2,500 servers and owns the 27th spot on the current Top500 supercomputers list."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/14/microsoft_hpc_2006/
Member since:2006-06-22
What is your point here??? I don't get what are you trying to say?
Therefore I'll address couple of scenarios:
1-You are trying to make a point contrary to my statement which you have quoted.
If this is the case, then you proved yourself to be an ignoramus and don't mind time and effort to insult people around here who actually were involved in this field for some time. When did MS release Windows CSS the first time?
2- You are trying to show that MS product is actually a good performer in that area
Couldn't be further from the truth here is some reading for you
http://www.top500.org/stats/27/os/
Note from your posting: "Hansen declined to say how many CCS clusters have been sold." Which goes to prove that they in it just for the money. Supercomputer OS does not comply with MS licensing scheme therefore MS can't make money in that area.
And since I feel really generous I will spend some time enlightening you:
Windows server 2003 datacenter 64 bit edition supports up to 64 cpu's and addresses up to 1 TB RAM
(ref:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2003x64_preview.asp your friend le parot)
SLES 10 up to 1,024 processors and supports up to 10 TB of RAM.
(ref:
http://www.novell.com/products/server/)
And just to conclude this short lesson, in my view cluster != supercomputer, eventhough the debate is still on. In short NotParker please don't bother to post if you don't have something of substance that you would like to share with us.
Member since:
2006-06-22
Why do you say it is not fair??
We are looking at regular uses of an OS. Supercomputers are not that new, it is MS decision not to indulge in that area. Not because it was closed to MS, but because MS knew that in order to compete it would have to invest a lot and gain back very little. Don't forget that as far as servers go MS is still the new kid in the block, we all remember that the roots of windows are in a desktop OS. They (MS) do have some nice products like MS SQL, and VS, but in terms of server OS they still need to learn.
And just what would you cry if we mentioned all the appliances that run Linux and compare them with Windows ... oh but wait, ... which version of windows would we have to compare them with
Edited 2006-11-14 20:43