First of all, I like Microsoft, and I voluntarily use Vista as my desktop of choice. I've built and run the Windows environments for the top CS and Civil Engineering departments in the US, and I was the first to port Postgres to Windows NT.
That said, I just don't see how Microsoft's HPC server can succeed. I'm not saying this for technical reasons, as I'm sure Microsoft, with enough work, can build a clustering environment that will work just fine. But, why would anybody buy a Windows cluster when there are so many great clustering environments (e.g. Rocks, Perceus, Unicluster Express, ...) and so many cluster-related packages (*MPI, SGE, PBS, gcc, Torque, ...) available for free? What's more, from what I can see, there is very little non-Microsoft-sponsored development going on in HPC computing. Microsoft recently announced (somewhere, I can't find it) the availability of a test cluster for universities to use for financial applications. I bet they get some interest since many business schools use Windows, plus the cluster is free. But, the question remains. How can Microsoft compete with free? How much better will they have to be than standard Linux clusters before they get any mainstream interest? What technical features could they add that couldn't be added to a Linux cluster? Cordially, -- Jon Forrest Research Computing Support College of Chemistry 173 Tan Hall University of California Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1460 510-643-1032 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
