• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    but it did not stick.

    Yeah. It was bad. The job of a Supercomputer is to be really fast and really parallel. Windows for Supercomputing was… not.

    I honestly thought it might make it, considering the engineering talent that Microsoft had.

    But I think time proves that Unix and Linux just had an insurmountable head start. Windows, to the best of my knowledge, never came close to closing the gap.

    • SayCyberOnceMore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      But, surely Windows is the wrong OS?

      Windows is a per-user GUI… supercomputing is all about crunching numbers, isn’t it?

      I can understand M$ trying to get into this market and I know Windows server can be used to run stuff, but again, you don’t need a GUI on each node a supercomputer they’d be better off with DOS…?

      • Badabinski
        link
        fedilink
        215 minutes ago

        I could see the NT kernel being okay in isolation, but the rest of Windows coming along for the ride puts the kibosh on that idea.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        4 minutes ago

        But, surely Windows is the wrong OS?

        Oh yes! To be clear - trying to put any version of Windows on a super-computer is every bit as insane as you might imagine. By what I heard in the rumor mill, it went every bit as badly as anyone might have guessed.

        But I like to root for an underdog, and it was neat to hear about Microsoft engineers trying to take the Windows kernel somewhere it had no rational excuse to run, perhaps by sheer force of will and hard work.