Linux 88.6% market share, windows 1%

[froggyswamp]

On super computers Linux and windows market share is exactly opposite:

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/33/osfam

[LowSky]

All that expensive hardware and they cant play Crisis...WTF?

[elliotn]

Am clueless

[Screwdriver0815]

this shows the world that Windows is just a toy and that Linux is a real and useful operating system.

Performance rules. So does Linux :D

[Ozor Mox]

How the hell can Windows even be on any supercomputers? The sheer thought of that makes me laugh! I mean sure it does a reasonable job for a vast majority of desktop users checking their email and browsing Facebook, but on a supercomputer?!

[jimv]

Windows is first and foremost a desktop OS. It is second a server OS. It is not meant for supercomputers. This is a silly comparison.

[philcamlin]

lol UBUNTU FTW!:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[eragon100]

Windows is first and foremost a desktop OS. It is second a server OS. It is not meant for supercomputers. This is a silly comparison.

There is a windows version specifically designed for supercomputers, namely "Windows HPC" (High performance computing), MS page here (http://www.microsoft.com/hpc/en/us/default.aspx)

So it is a very usefull comparison, actually :wink:

[masux594]

Don't worry.. it's only a long-term prediction :KS

Sysc, A

[Ozor Mox]

There is a windows version specifically designed for supercomputers, namely "Windows HPC" (High performance computing), MS page here (http://www.microsoft.com/hpc/en/us/default.aspx)

So it is a very usefull comparison, actually :wink:

I notice they couldn't bring themselves to make a 'Get The Facts' page for this version of Windows...

:popcorn:

[Tibuda]

Don't worry.. it's only a long-term prediction :KS

Sysc, A

Prediction? Read the link again. This is actual data.

[Screwdriver0815]

Windows is first and foremost a desktop OS. It is second a server OS. It is not meant for supercomputers. This is a silly comparison.
as far as I remember, Linus did not think about supercomputers as he wrote Linux ;) :D

and as said there is a Windows HPC-version.

But even if there was no Windows HPC it would be a reasonable comparison. It shows how scalable Linux is and how limited windows is.

[Paqman]

It shows how scalable Linux is and how limited windows is.

For supercomputers, yes.

[froggyswamp]

I notice they couldn't bring themselves to make a 'Get The Facts' page for this version of Windows...

:popcorn:
I also thought so, but actually they already have this:

Supercomputing Company Chooses Windows HPC Server 2008 over Linuxhttp://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000003006

PS: China is the most windows-addicted country in the world, so no surprise they chose windows, but I suspect M$ "funded" their choice.

[juancarlospaco]

My Asus EEE its a Super Computer, these is the reason why thats running on Ubuntu.

[gletob]

All that expensive hardware and they cant play Crisis...WTF?

Are you serious?

If so then super computers may be very powerful but they lack in Graphical processing power there fore a Supercomputer would most likely having major issues playing super tux cart.

[jimv]

There is a windows version specifically designed for supercomputers, namely "Windows HPC" (High performance computing), MS page here (http://www.microsoft.com/hpc/en/us/default.aspx)

So it is a very usefull comparison, actually :wink:

It's still not useful. It was released a short time ago...notice the "2008"? Linux has been in this arena for a long time.

[RiceMonster]

Are you serious?

If so then super computers may be very powerful but they lack in Graphical processing power there fore a Supercomputer would most likely having major issues playing super tux cart.

He was obviously sarcastic.

[Screwdriver0815]

For supercomputers, yes.

ahem... you can use Linux as a Deskop system btw: there are lots of different GUI's out there - not just one! So you have more choice - something, Microsoft claims all the time for their systems.

you can use Linux as a Server system... there are btw lots of Server systems, you have more choice because it is not just one

and you can use Linux for Supercomputers. Of course in different configurations too, which fit perfectly to your needs.

Lets have a look at Windows:

you can use one sort of Windows for the Desktop. It has one GUI - the one which the design guy in Redmond decided to be useful.

you can use another sort of Windows for servers. But you can not use the same sort as in the desktop section. And of course its more expensive than the desktop...

you can use one other sort of Windows for Supercomputers...

so you need 3 different sorts of Windows but you could do all this with one sort of Linux. This is the difference between limited and scaleable.

And additionally: isn't it significant that everywhere where you need Performance and reliability... you find Linux on the Machine?

- Simulating the future climate of the earth: Linux does it, not Windows

- Simulating the crash behaviour of cars: Linux does it, not Windows

- simulating [insert job here]: Linux does it, not Windows

- running the Internet: Linux does it, Windows does a small part

so, Windows is just a toy. The really important jobs are done with proper operating systems, not with toys.
Playing crisis is done with toys.

[TheLions]

And additionally: isn't it significant that everywhere where you need Performance and reliability... you find Linux on the Machine?

- Simulating the future climate of the earth: Linux does it, not Windows

- Simulating the crash behaviour of cars: Linux does it, not Windows

- simulating [insert job here]: Linux does it, not Windows

- running the Internet: Linux does it, Windows does a small part


:lolflag:

[monsterstack]

So the Roadrunner is still number one? Shame. I wonder when we'll manage to break the exaflop barrier (1,000,000,000,000,000,000 floating point operations per second).

[chucky chuckaluck]

There is a windows version specifically designed for supercomputers, namely "Windows HPC" (High performance computing), MS page here (http://www.microsoft.com/hpc/en/us/default.aspx)

So it is a very usefull comparison, actually :wink:

awesome! i'm in the market for a supercomputer and i was dreading running it with linux. thanks for the link.

[jowilkin]

Windows HPC is fairly new to the game while Linux has been in the game a long time. Windows HPC is gaining market share rather quickly actually, so the market share percentages will most likely sway towards Windows in coming years.

Not that this is a good thing IMO, but it is what I see happening.

[monsterstack]

Windows HPC is fairly new to the game while Linux has been in the game a long time. Windows HPC is gaining market share rather quickly actually, so the market share percentages will most likely sway towards Windows in coming years.

Not that this is a good thing IMO, but it is what I see happening.

Really quickly? Last year Windows marketshare on supercomputers was 1%. This year it is 1%. That's an utterly incredible rise of exactly 0%. I see what you mean. We'd better be on our guard.

[jowilkin]

Really quickly? Last year Windows marketshare on supercomputers was 1%. This year it is 1%. That's an utterly incredible rise of exactly 0%. I see what you mean. We'd better be on our guard.

Well first, the numbers from the top 500 list are not really market share. There are a lot more than 500 HPC setups out there. Total HPC market share was more like 5% last year for Microsoft.

Second, Windows HPC 2008 was just released in September 2008, so not a lot of time to build an HPC setup around it and get a linpack measurement to get into the top 500.

Microsoft only recently has released some of the important tools needed for HPC like a good MPI stack with good infiband support.

I administer a fairly large cluser (running linux of course), and as a result I keep up with multiple HPC mailing lists and there is more and more talk of companies going with Windows HPC. The feeling is that if you are going to do a large cluster in an enterprise environment, you will be paying for support anyway, so paying Microsoft for the OS is not really much more expensive.

There will always be college research labs with free "support" in the form of grad students, and other environments where it still makes sense to go Linux. I don't think Microsoft is going to have a significant market share anytime soon (if ever). When I said market share would sway toward Microsoft, I didn't mean they would have a majority share, just that I think their market share will steadily rise for a bit, and Linux will steadily fall for a bit.

[Screwdriver0815]

something to think....

when someone talks about switching the company desktops to Linux there will always be the argument of "switching costs". Even when the company buys new workstations anyway.

So now in this topic it is regarding marketshare of Linux and Microsoft in supercomputing. Here the argument is: when they buy a new Supercomputer they have to pay anyway and then the costs to switch to Microsoft is not so critical. Not meant as an offence @jowilkin as it seems to be the essence of your experience at work.

Do I get something wrong or is it just a matter of will? Sometimes I get the impression that companies and their managers always calculate the numbers in favour of Windows. Why? Or is Windows really cheaper than Linux? But why?

[forrestcupp]

lol UBUNTU FTW!:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

lol. I doubt if Ubuntu is running on any supercomputer.

[RiceMonster]

awesome! I'm in the market for a supercomputer and i was dreading running it with linux. Thanks for the link.

lol

[monsterstack]

lol. I doubt if Ubuntu is running on any supercomputer.

Most of them run SUSE.

[NightwishFan]

Well Ubuntu supercomputers would boot up 3x faster. :D

[ukripper]

IBM made Billy boy rich, apparently they run Linux on their supercomputers - http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/deepcomputing/top500.html

Edit:

Specifications can be found here http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/deepcomputing/bluegene/bluegene_literature.html

[ad_267]

More important than any of this Linux vs Windows nonsense, New Zealand has 5 supercomputers in the list compared with 1 in Australia. Ha! Take that!

[magmon]

I would guess that's because you get the most speed from your hardware off of linux. A slow super computer would suck lol.