Topic: Microsoft on Supercomputers?

[Praxis]

There's no such thing as a cheap Windows.

I remember reading that computer prices have dropped by huge amounts in the last 10 years, and Windows prices have increased by huge amounts in the same time period.

When Win98 came out, it was $100.
Windows XP is $200, WinXP Pro is $300.

WinXP Server is $1000 or more
WinXP Cluster is probably gonna be a lot

BTW, Slashdot quoter!

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/0327244&mode=thread&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201

Personally, I think UNIX will always be best on servers.  DOS is simply just too unstable.  Even the somewhat better NT kernel used in XP isn't stable enough for professional grade.

The Windows XP system is just really, really bad.  Maybe it's okay for a normal user, but not a professional server.

The idea of a registery that takes info of all your programs on your hard drive and smacks it together...ick.  When a Windows program is installed, it puts data in the registry, the Windows folder, the system32 folder, the registry, program files, sometimes win.ini, sometimes the control panel, add/remove programs... It's a total MESS.  The more stuff you install, the slower your system goes, because each program is connected directly to Windows.

In UNIX based systems like Mac OS X and Linux, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM.  A computer with 1,000 programs on it will boot up just as fast as a computer with just the OS (assuming those programs aren't boot hacks).

Not to mention that there are 60,000 viruses for Windows, and 600 for UNIX, most of those coded for the x86 processor.  Meaning, they 1) Won't work on Mac OS X, since it uses PPC processors and 2) You have to be stupid enough to run them from the command line in Linux.

And that is why Linux and Mac OS X will always be better server software.

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Quote:
There's no such thing as a cheap Windows.

Microsoft might make it cheap if it can only be used on "supercomputers" just to be able to say X of the top 500 supercomputers run Windows.  They can afford to.  It must annoy Gates every time Microsoft arguments of the inferiority of Linux vs Windows results in someone asking how the inferior system can run on everything from realtime controllers and handhelds up to super computers and Windows can't

Quote:
BTW, Slashdot quoter!

Slashdot story

Check your facts.  I posted that here BEFORE it was on Slashdot.  Call me a C|NET quoter if you want.

Quote:
The idea of a registery that takes info of all your programs on your hard drive and smacks it together...ick. When a Windows program is installed, it puts data in the registry, the Windows folder, the system32 folder, the registry, program files, sometimes win.ini, sometimes the control panel, add/remove programs... It's a total MESS. The more stuff you install, the slower your system goes, because each program is connected directly to Windows.

The ease of DOS program installing is something that I wish Microsoft had never removed (minus the driver hassles of course).  Why should end user programs try and take over the OS and integrate with it?  

Quote:
You have to be stupid enough to run them from the command line in Linux.

More accuratly as root (administrator in Windows parlance)      

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Link to story

Quote:
MICROSOFT SAID that if your Itanium system stops "abruptly" when it's running Windows Server 2003 64-bit Enterprise Edition, you might find yourself with a very expensive bit of tin that won't start again, despite your best efforts.

 

Hopefully that "feature" won't be ported to the Super Computer version.  

[Praxis]

Quote:

The ease of DOS program installing is something that I wish Microsoft had never removed (minus the driver hassles of course).  Why should end user programs try and take over the OS and integrate with it?  

Which is another reason that Windows is one of the worst OSes ever...sigh.