IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New RE: I dunno...
...well, if you 'owned' the desktop and could 'harvest' processing power across other desktops in the organization to make 'folks' more productive, you might take a shot at that. Or, perhaps you want to make workgroup server backups faster? What about batch processing speed ups? Or, building data marts/data warehouses on the fly? Surely, there is a reason for the interest in this area, no?

Cheers,
Slugbug
New Good points. I was thinking about the 1st part, not the 2nd
From admin's post:

In a recent interview, Bob Muglia, a Microsoft senior vice president who leads the development of Windows Server, said the company is interested in two particular areas: building high-performance computing clusters and harvesting the unused processing power of PCs.


I can see why they'd be interested in harvesting ("WinServer 2008 - Now 5.3% faster using Microsoft's patented Innovation Harvesting Experience ®"), but moving into supercomputer/HP computing clusters seems to be much more of a stretch for them. With the way hardware has evolved over the last 20 years they would be foolish not to keep an eye on such developments (today's supercomputer is tomorrow's scrap on eBay).

Good points as always. Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
     MS trying to compete with Linux Supercomputers - (admin) - (11)
         Beowolfowitz -NT - (deSitter) - (1)
             ROFL! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         One out of four ain't bad ;) -NT - (FuManChu)
         I'm not surprised... - (slugbug)
         MS is one of the companies who have stated that ... - (dmarker) - (6)
             Depends upon the contest. - (jbrabeck) - (5)
                 Actually... - (folkert) - (4)
                     I was referring to MS with "do they care" - (jbrabeck)
                     I dunno. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         RE: I dunno... - (slugbug) - (1)
                             Good points. I was thinking about the 1st part, not the 2nd - (Another Scott)

It ran CP/M, I believe.
59 ms