Bill Gates plans on Tuesday to announce Microsoft’s foray into the world of supercomputing, though its first operating system for computer clusters remains in beta testing.
Gates to Tout Microsoft’s Supercomputing Move
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It should be interesting to see if Microsoft can compete on this many fronts; Gaming Consoles, Desktop OS, Server OS, supercomputing, search, email, mobile OS, embedded, hardware, productivity, business intelligence, databases etc…
They’ve got the money and the brains, but it’s really more like “ok, let’s try a bunch of things and see what sticks”
I for one would far rather see Microsoft compete one just one front – interoperability. Interoperability with other platforms. Open-ness.
So far, Microsoft are several zillion miles behind the competition on this front.
Edited 2005-11-15 09:24
You go tiger…
Well if they can’t get marketshare they will BUY marketshare anyways
This is how they do most … BTW new super computer 500 at http://www.top500.org/lists/2005/11/basic
I think it’s quite funny how the US had always held the top spot on the supercomputing list until the Earth Simulator came around, then we were bumped down to second for about a year or 2. Our govt got a bit freaked out that we were loosing our technological edge, so they funded a whole slew of new supercomputers. Now we hold the top 6. Gotta keep that technological superiority.
Price/performance, reduced heat output, and UNIX with easy management are often cited as key advantages of Xserve and Xserve RAID over competing products.
There are currently more than a dozen Mac OS X clusters of 32 processors or more–nine with 200 processors or more, four with 1000 processors or more–topping out at 3,132 CPUs for MACH 5:
* AstroVision’s cluster
(Will be the fastest supercomputer in Australia–Xserves and Xgrid used for live satellite image processing)
* 448 processors – Bowie State’s “Xseed”
(224 dual 2.0 nodes, used for animation and other computation)
* 1280 processors – U. of Illinois’ “Turing Cluster”
(640 dual 2.0 nodes, possibly to be doubled, used for a range of academic research and replacing a Dell/HP Linux cluster)
* 250 processors – U. Pitt’s Human Genetics cluster
(125 dual G5 nodes used for genetics research)
* 200 processors – GeoCenter cluster
(100 dual 2.0 nodes used for seismic data processing)
* 1344 processors – French CGG cluster
(672 dual nodes, integrated into an existing 40 TFLOP cluster for oil prospecting)
* 48 processors – Louisiana State’s “Nemaux”
(24 dual G5 nodes with Xgrid, used for 3D animation, audio, and scientific computing)
* 2200 processors – VA Tech’s “System X” aka “Big Mac”
(1100 dual 2.3 nodes and counting, used for a range of academic research – with much larger Mac clusters System L and System C under consideration)
* 256 processors – UCLA’s “Dawson”
(128 dual 2.0 nodes, used for plasma physics research)
* 32 processors – Australian Defence Force’s “Checkmate”
(16 dual nodes, used for command and control simulations)
* 86 processors – UNC’s cluster
(43 dual nodes, used for proteomics research)
* 76 processors – UC Davis’s cluster
(38 dual nodes, used for Genome Center research)
* 72 processors – UC Santa Cruz’s cluster
(36 dual nodes and counting, used for a range of academic research)
* 3132 processors – US Army’s “MACH 5”
(1566 dual nodes, used by the Army and NASA for hypersonic flight research)
* 512 processors – U. Maine’s “Baby MACH 5”
(256 dual nodes, used for software development and optimization for MACH 5)
Also, some non-cluster large-scale Xserve deployments:
* US Navy
(Xserves on submarines used for their Linux-based sonar imaging system)
* Polish news channel TVN 24
(30 Xserves G5s, 50 PowerMac G5s, 22 Xserve RAIDs, 55 Xsans, 10 PowerBooks, 50 Final Cut Pros etc., and growing, for server-based video editing)
Try that on for size Microsoft.
Edited 2005-11-15 09:53
http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/
Supercomputer are GNU/Linux territory 60% of Supercomputer run GNU/Linux-something the rest is UNIX , 3 are Apple sponsored and there is 1 BSD :
http://www.forbes.com/enterprisetech/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux.htm…
will be fun to see if they can make as much a dent in Super Computer as GNU/Linux is doing damage to there desktop market share globally.
Supercomputer are GNU/Linux territory 60% of Supercomputer run GNU/Linux-something the rest is UNIX , 3 are Apple sponsored and there is 1 BSD
You have outdated information
http://www.top500.org/lists/2005/11/l/Operating_System
http://www.top500.org/lists/2005/11/o/Operating_System
GNU/Linux pwns more supercomputers
Thanks for the links , I just like the Forbes article better as it come from a Know Microsoft Journalist who normally hate GNU/Linux
Well, MS has knowledge and can acquire resources to enter any IT market they wish. And most of all, they can stay in that market even loosing money.
I think we should just wait and see. However, one could argue that SC territory is a Unix-land because there wasn’t a Windows solution for that. We’ll see what happens.
BTW, I’ve seen no signal that GNU/Linux “is doing damage to their desktop market share globally”. We’ve been receiving mixed signals about server market as well. Did you read (a few months ago) that article which emphasized how (for the first time) Windows and Unix revenues are equal in that market?
“MS has knowledge and can acquire resources to enter any IT market they wish.”
Not in that one
, Its best solution need apply only. Microsoft usually go by the way side with feature in Super Computer they dont care about feature they whant something that does the job the fastest at lowest price per CPU. Wich seem to be what there trying to push here again.
“I think we should just wait and see.”
Yes , because I have seen some windows NT cluster from a third party and it whas pretty awesome in 2000 , did not make much of a dent back then , but maybe Microsoft as something new or as a tie in with some hardware maker wich whont release driver for GNU/Linux and gain 20% on all CPU cycle …
“SC territory is a Unix-land because there wasn’t a Windows solution for that.”
It whas Unix land then came GNU/Linux , there as been solution from Microsoft for SC , they just havent made much sense until now.
“I’ve seen no signal that GNU/Linux “is doing damage to their desktop market share globally” ”
Stop looking at the US market numbers , look over China , Japan , Australia , Africa , South America , look up whats the product that will be shipping in december – January. ( I consider Desktop : Desktop , Laptop , workstation , Governemnt desktop , Education desktop , so called Poor on the internet program from Intel – AMD – Via – Dragon CPU ) Microsoft would not be pushing so much there “lite” version if it whas sure of the outcome.
“Did you read (a few months ago) that article which emphasized how (for the first time) Windows and Unix revenues are equal in that market?”
http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6478
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/31/idc_q1_05server/
Entirely wishfull thinking on the part of Microsoft , GNU/Linux is not UNIX BTW and UNIX marketshare as been decreasing it could be in the same area of revenue as Microsoft on the server do. Apple as been making a killing ( well read an increase ) , But GNU/Linux is still way in front , they also divided the different GNU/Linux as far as I can tell.
Microsoft is a big Marketing machine , sometime they do get the product that deliver on some of there claims , could be one of those this time.
Not in that one
, Its best solution need apply only. Microsoft usually go by the way side with feature in Super Computer they dont care about feature they whant something that does the job the fastest at lowest price per CPU. Wich seem to be what there trying to push here again.
Picturing Microsoft as marketing-only machine is not good, neither for competitors. That’s simply not true and won’t help gaining shares back. Microsoft is not marketing-only machine. They’re a smart company which proves to be smart when they need to, i.e. when there’s someone threatening them. This HPC thing is all about this. Another company would have just sat down in their market trying to mantain its position. Instead, MS is entering a new market, where they know they’re not a top player. That’s brave. Will they succeede? I don’t know. But you cannot say MS is a marketing only machine. Check consoles market and HPC market (among others) where they’re not a top player and where they’re competing.
but maybe Microsoft as something new or as a tie in with some hardware maker wich whont release driver for GNU/Linux and gain 20% on all CPU cycle …
This myth doesn’t even apply here. First of all, HW makers love MS because they make people buy PCs (and HW). Other systems are simply incapable in doing that (perhaps, only Apple is now trying to change that). However, that doesn’t apply here. If you buy a supercomputer, you can afford hiring someone to write best driver money could buy…
Microsoft is a big Marketing machine , sometime they do get the product that deliver on some of there claims , could be one of those this time.
Again, I don’t agree. I wrote why.
Best regards.
OMG, talk about MS shill double-standard !!
When it’s MS, you mistake “be smart” with “use illegal tactics and abuse of its monopoly position”.
And you say they are like that when someone is threatening them. But after that, you give only examples of MS threatening others, but no example of some company threatening them.
HPC is not threatening MS.
More nonsense : you say MS entering new markets is brave. What is brave about that ? Companies do that every day, and have not the cash MS has.
By that statement of yours, you still did not prove that MS is not a marketing company, which do not prevents you from repeating it. Marketing is very important in the console world, and they’re competing (I would call that struggling). Marketing is not important at all in HPC, results are, and I don’t see MS competing anywhere. So I tend to believe someone who says MS is a marketing company.
More nonsense follows. MS does not make people buy PCs. People don’t buy PCs for Windows, only Windows shills and zealots do that. People buy PCs to do things, and unfortunately, they are forced to use Windows on them for now. This being dealt with, I don’t see any sign of HW makers loving MS. The reaction of HW makers in markets such as phones, TV appliances, PVR, … tell me they are not so fond of MS as you think. HPC made AMD get more share, same for NVidia which gained new markets. Which is in complete contradiction to what you said about other OS incapable of making people buy hardware.
I think your judgment is clouded by MS adoration …
“Picturing Microsoft as marketing-only machine is not good”
Dont try to put words in my mouth , Features are actual implementation on a software , it as nothing to do with the marketing machine , even do sometime with microsoft they make meaningless feature seems like the moon or the sun ( pun intended ).
“They’re a smart company which proves to be smart when they need to, i.e. when there’s someone threatening them.”
They have smart management , smart company is another debate ;-), I will agree that they can be pretty competitive when they choose or a re force to be.
“Instead, MS is entering a new market”
MS is already in SC , been in it for years, there just really bad at it , for now. Adding feature as I said only increase the time to wait for results , they dont whant those in the SC market …
“Check consoles market and HPC market (among others) where they’re not a top player and where they’re competing. ”
I dont know how you define “they’re not a top player” but I would have to disagree with you , XBOX is pretty awesome on its own and is a top 3 consol , too bad Microsoft dont do its all on this one , HPC whas created almost entirely by Microsoft and they lead in that too , same in Tablet PC.
“This myth doesn’t even apply here.”
Its not a myth there is some hardware maker who refuse to make driver for GNU/linux or open there specs for it.
“HW makers love MS because they make people buy PCs (and HW).”
Actually until recently they where pretty much the only game in town at affordable price. Dont forget there illegal tactics and long time contract with hardware maker too.
“that doesn’t apply here. If you buy a supercomputer, you can afford hiring someone to write best driver money could buy… ”
You cant exactly make drivers if the vendor whont allow you acces to the code or the specs …
“Best regards.”
you too.
Microsoft is a big Marketing machine , sometime they do get the product that deliver on some of there claims , could be one of those this time.
Putting words in your mouth? Didn’t you write that sentence in your post?
They have smart management , smart company is another debate ;-), I will agree that they can be pretty competitive when they choose or a re force to be.
Yes, like all quasi-monopolist. The bare fact you have a quasi-monopoly distracts you and you’re not under pressure anymore until someone is threatening you again. Competition is good.
I dont know how you define “they’re not a top player” but I would have to disagree with you , XBOX is pretty awesome on its own and is a top 3 consol , too bad Microsoft dont do its all on this one , HPC whas created almost entirely by Microsoft and they lead in that too , same in Tablet PC.
When MS entered console market, they started from scratch in a market where others had high shares. If they’re meaningful now, that means that they delivered good products. That’s not a marketing hype (well, if you ask some Linux zealot he could tell you it was all marketing… LOL).
Again: when MS entered Smartphone / PDA market they started from scratch. And again, they’re a leader now. All because of marketing? Naw. (unless you ask same Linux zealot again).
Now they’re heading towards to HPC market (research mostly). Will they succeede because of marketing. Again, no. If they do (of course if) they will do that the same way.
See, I’m not a MS shareholder so if MS gets bigger or smaller I don’t care that much. If someone proves or produces anything better than MS stuff, I will be more than happy to switch. But I can acknowledge MS that they did a good job in the past and they can still do that. That doesn’t mean they will do. But they can.
Its not a myth there is some hardware maker who refuse to make driver for GNU/linux or open there specs for it.
Yes, sure… that part of sentence was meant to be connected. The myth doesn’t apply here because you can surely afford to hire someone to write a driver.
You cant exactly make drivers if the vendor whont allow you acces to the code or the specs …
Vendors care about money. If they will be sure you won’t harm their IP, they will provide information. The problem arises when they feel they could be in danger because of revealing such information. Again, big projects can have enough influence to assure vendors and selling some more items won’t surely upset them.
Before you tell: no, I’m not a fan of IP. I think that’s bad and should be banned but when I see how GPL is destroying small businesses, I prefer the bad IP rules, at least now.
Regards.
“Putting words in your mouth?”
Yes , I never said they where ONLY a marketing machine wich whas what I read you where implying.
” Didn’t you write that sentence in your post? ;-)”
Yes , it dont say thats all there good at.
“Competition is good. ”
I agree with you entirely on that.
” they started from scratch ”
Not entirely true , they had the PC game industry and bought some companies too , New line of product yes , totally new and from scratch , I would have to disagree on that one.
“when MS entered Smartphone / PDA market they started from scratch.”
Also bought some companie on that one too , they also bought expertise. They also whent for some of the best partners they tought at that time. There solution are not yet among the best in this category , but its Microsoft maybe next one will be better.
“Now they’re heading towards to HPC market”
I tought you meant HTPC , You could be right if they offer the right *feature* for research they might be able to create a niche in that category.
” If someone proves or produces anything better than MS stuff, I will be more than happy to switch. ”
GNU/Linux
“But I can … they can.”
Cant disagree on that one. But you will have to concede that Microsoft as made some illgeal move in the past and still does hold a great many contract that give it unfair advantage with certain hardware vendors. Does not means the others are not to blame for some things too , just that the field is not really even.
“The myth doesn’t apply here because you can surely afford to hire someone to write a driver.”
Its not a myth , but I agree given the specs and amount for those type of computers , if the specs and blueprints are provided there is no reason that GNU/Linux cant compete unless its a lack of desire to do so. Thats why SC is dominated by GNU/Linux probaly
“Vendors care about money. If they will be sure you won’t harm their IP, they will provide information.”
Not always , I have a different philosophy then yours if you pay for the hardware , your supposed to get the specs and blueprint for it to work and be able to make drivers for it , preferably the card maker should provide prototype so that drivers can be made from any OS that wish to do so.
“big projects can have enough influence to assure vendors and selling some more items won’t surely upset them.”
I disagree that it should be only when people are whilling to pay an astronomical amount of money. The cost of the drivers and specs and blueprints are factored in the sale price , in my own opinion they should always be included. Its ridiculous to think that people can copy a factory in there backyard and that competitor will be authorized to make similar product without repercussion.
“I’m not a fan of IP”
I dont mind IP , I mind people who are too greedy. Who use IP as a tool to stop others and innovations. I think IP should be 5 years only.
“but when I see how GPL is destroying small businesses”
The GPL is not destroying any small business , the GPL is a license , for software , nothing more , its not a commercial guideline or business plan.
“Regards”
To you too.
why is it almost every artical with something Microsoft in it. starts a mindless flamewar that ends up with stuff like:
quote: Ookaze
People don’t buy PCs for Windows, only Windows shills and zealots do that
end quote:
why is someone a “shill” just becuase they use windows?
if they are happy with there OS weather its MacOSX/*nix/windows whatever so be it, people and compaanys should use what they can support and what is best for *them*
when it comes to HPC/supercompuers I am sure plenty of people would love to have a MS cluster runnning .NET
OSX/*nix arent going away in the cluster area, and MS is not going away on the desktop.
I admin both windows and Linux and the MBA/PHB types dont really like the Linux zelots types pitching linux only soltions to everything, and praising it as the 2nd comming. they want to hear a fair comparsation
including support of said item, costs, strong and weak points of each.
so they can make a bissiness decision based on that information.
-Nex6
Welcome to planet Earth. Here there are annoying people who say stupid things. That doesn’t mean you have to take a wet noodle position on everything and say things like: “people and compaanys should use what they can support and what is best for *them*.”
No one has argued that people shouldn’t use what’s best for them, well at least no one we can’t discount as a troll.
The arguments often stem over what deems best and supportability. There are those who believe that the history of a company has a lot to do with whether you want to buy its software: Would you buy a car from “Crooked Joe’s?” There are those who believe that open software is a huge advantage and should be practically figured into the value of the software. Saying, sure it may be missing a few features, but we can edit the software and we could even write those things in; but at least we know we can use this for as long as we want without a change in price.
No one likes a zealout, but there’s nothing worse than being called a zealout while you’re giving an entirely logical (even practical) argument for free software.
Buy whatever you want, but there are long term consequences. Thinking in the here and now will only help you in the here and now, and you’ll simply provide a tactical advantage for marketers..
why is someone a “shill” just becuase they use windows?
When you’ll be able to read, you will see that in what you quoted, I talked about people that buy a PC for Windows, not people that use Windows. And I rephrase the sentence you didn’t understand : “People buy PCs to do things, not to use Windows. Only shills buy PC only for Windows”.
if they are happy with there OS weather its MacOSX/*nix/windows whatever so be it, people and compaanys should use what they can support and what is best for *them*
Agreed. That’s not what’s happening in the case of ordinary users : they go buy a PC, they get Windows without a choice proposed to them. But this is another topic.
when it comes to HPC/supercompuers I am sure plenty of people would love to have a MS cluster runnning .NET
This is a typical example of MS shill sentence. HPC users are not stupid average users searching the latest buzzword like you imply. You are sure of opinion of other people you don’t even understand, amazing !
.NET is not a performance killer, so why people would love to use it in HPC ?
Try to not look like a Windows shill at least.
OSX/*nix arent going away in the cluster area, and MS is not going away on the desktop.
Fine.
I admin both windows and Linux and the MBA/PHB types dont really like the Linux zelots types pitching linux only soltions to everything, and praising it as the 2nd comming. they want to hear a fair comparsation
Good. And so I think we can exchange Linux for Windows in your sentence withtout problem.
Because I don’t know if you realise that you are a Windows zealot if you pitch a Windows solution on HPC.
including support of said item, costs, strong and weak points of each.
so they can make a bissiness decision based on that information.
Fine. Sometimes it is not necessary, like in the case of HPC, as MS has no viable solution, despite what you can hear from Windows zealots (one HPC platform is supposed to be a Windows cluster, but we never had any info about it or what it does).
why is someone a “shill” just becuase they use windows?
When you’ll be able to read, you will see that in what you quoted, I talked about people that buy a PC for Windows, not people that use Windows. And I rephrase the sentence you didn’t understand : “People buy PCs to do things, not to use Windows. Only shills buy PC only for Windows”.
I still, dont get why a person is a shill if they buy a PC for windows? if there PC is a peice of junk, and they buy a new one for a newer version that has different HW requirements?
if they are happy with there OS weather its MacOSX/*nix/windows whatever so be it, people and compaanys should use what they can support and what is best for *them*
Agreed. That’s not what’s happening in the case of ordinary users : they go buy a PC, they get Windows without a choice proposed to them. But this is another topic.
agreed
when it comes to HPC/supercompuers I am sure plenty of people would love to have a MS cluster runnning .NET
This is a typical example of MS shill sentence. HPC users are not stupid average users searching the latest buzzword like you imply. You are sure of opinion of other people you don’t even understand, amazing !
.NET is not a performance killer, so why people would love to use it in HPC ?
Try to not look like a Windows shill at least.
u dont get it do you?.NET is a framework, so if someone has heavy apps or big processing/modeling what ever: and there are doing it with .NET then a
MS cluster would appeal to them.
OSX/*nix arent going away in the cluster area, and MS is not going away on the desktop.
Fine.
fine
I admin both windows and Linux and the MBA/PHB types dont really like the Linux zelots types pitching linux only soltions to everything, and praising it as the 2nd comming. they want to hear a fair comparsation
Good. And so I think we can exchange Linux for Windows in your sentence withtout problem.
Because I don’t know if you realise that you are a Windows zealot if you pitch a Windows solution on HPC.
for some stuff you would pitch each, for others you would pitch only the supported platform.
no need for zelotry here
including support of said item, costs, strong and weak points of each.
so they can make a bissiness decision based on that information.
Fine. Sometimes it is not necessary, like in the case of HPC, as MS has no viable solution, despite what you can hear from Windows zealots (one HPC platform is supposed to be a Windows cluster, but we never had any info about it or what it does).
yes, MS clustering sucks ass currently so people doing heavy ms apps may like this.
Microsoft saw Apple move into an already crowded marketplace with the old contenders (Sun) already starting to give up and said “me too, me too!”
I honestly don’t see how they hope to compete with Apple. Let’s just think about this, walking in to sell your Windows cluster to replace that old 25 node PIII linux cluster:
–Apple salesman walks out snickering at you
–You walk in, say “hello, I’m from Microsoft”
You tell the customer that you’ve got a solution that’s easy to manage, all they have to do is buy hardware and do the install. The customer gives you a funny look and asks “no one else wants me to install it, even Linux clusters have 2 distributors within 200 miles of me.” You tell him that he can order a complete one from Dell.
He asks what you’ve got that’s special, what you’ve got that makes up for not being a Unix. You tell him that you have an MPI replacement that’s even faster! He responds that you told him Windows9x was fast, and asks if it’s fast like that. You respond and say “no, it works.” You hand him your brochure showing off your complete software solution (which seems to be lacking in hardware, implying he spends 25 hours installing and configuring 30 nodes).
Last time I looked at clusters (6 months ago) Apple was really the king as far as features, and their prices were very competitive. Plus, they’re not offering something different, they’re basically offering you Darwin BSD. They’ve got a well controlled solution with a ridiculous number of sensor points in their compute nodes (that was what floored me). An OS that can run 64bit code (with some interesting exceptions, like no graphics, but you don’t care anyway), and hardware that can have memory to make use of a fraction of that extra address space.
This really does look to me like Microsoft trying to jump in on an already crowded marketplace which isn’t even growing that quickly. The market for small clusters is only going to drop as machines increase in power. We ended up not buying a cluster and buying some high end G5’s (people didn’t want to play with MPI anyway, they had bad memories of it).
Now, I’m sure clusters are going to stay big in true supercomputing, but that is really a niche. Sure, each one costs 10 million, but there’s only gonna be a customer or three a year!
…is what this is mainly about.
I have strong doubts that they are going to take on the part of the HPC market that goes to research. This is more about getting HPC out into the corporations, that for various reasons don’t want to invest in any of the solutions that are already out there.
It will be interesting to see how well this works out, and I can’t wait for a good analysis about how much it costs to build a HPC cluster with this special Windows version compared to more traditional ones, how much it will cost to run and administer, etc.
I imagine it might also be easier to integrate such a solution with other services as well, though we’ll just have to wait and see.
MS servers got popular in companies because they targetted those who controlled budgets but had no idea of technology.
They may make in roads into supercomputing even if they have poorer tech by again targetting those who control the purchasing budgets.
Conclusion: Expect to see supercomputers running MS OS.
They will probably offer a standard binary interface and protocols suite, after some time once most supercomputing research is MS OS based then they can pump up the price and bleed them as they do with Desktop users.
yes, i can imagine… great!! Just imagine all the worms and virus spreading into internet with a full 64-bits super computer with MS Windows…. !!!! sigh..