I saw this article talking about the new list of top 500 fastest computers in the world. I put together my own version with the top 25, because I wanted to see the OS for each (not easily viewable in list form on the list). IBM dominates the list, using Linux on most of their systems. There were a few with Unix machines, and even one Mac OS X. But no Windows in site.
Is that because of the cost? I wouldn’t think so, considering that Unix and Mac OS X are on the list (not usually free). Maybe it’s because Microsoft hasn’t released their supercomputer version of windows? Again, Mac OS X is a desktop OS, not intended for supercomputing. Maybe because the manufacturers on the list are competitors with Microsoft? That is the case with IBM, but I don’t think Cray and SGI even enter the same markets as Microsoft. And Dell is on the top 25, and they are married to Microsoft in their PC business. So why no Microsoft?
The best reason I can come up with is that it’s not feasible to use Windows for this kind of application. Indeed, Microsoft as much as admits this in the supercomputer article linked above, “Microsoft also cautioned that it is not aiming as much for the type of supercomputer that makes the annual list of the 500 largest supercomputers.”
Do you think Microsoft would aim for the top 500 list if they could? You bet they would. That list is an excellent marketing tool for the manufacturers, not to mention Microsoft would make a LOT of money with each individual supercomputer produced. I just don’t think they are capable of making an OS that is nimble enough to perform at that high of a level.
Linux is younger than Windows by a few years, and it’s all over the list. But one of the main goals of Linux from the beginning was speed and efficiency. Microsoft has never shown any inkling to make each release of their OS more efficient. Indeed, MS openly admits that they want you to buy a new PC to get each new version of Windows, and we all know that is usually the best idea.
