• Spezi@feddit.org
      0·
      1 day ago

      Those were the basic entry level configurations needed to run Windows Vista with Aero effects.

      • Psythik@lemmy.world
        0·
        1 day ago

        Meh, you just needed a discrete GPU, and not even a good one either. Just a basic, bare-bones card with 128MB of VRAM and pixel shader 2.0 support would have sufficed, but sadly most users didn’t even have that back in 06-08.

        It was mostly the consumer’s fault for buying cheap garbage laptops with trash-tier iGPUs in them, and the manufacturer’s for slapping a “compatible with Vista” sticker on them and pushing those shitboxes on consumers. If you had a half-decent $700-800 PC then, Vista ran like a dream.

        • porl@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          20 hours ago

          No, it was mostly the manufacturers fault for implying that their machine would run the operating system it shipped with well. Well that and Microsoft’s fault for strong arming them to push Vista on machines that weren’t going to run it well.

        • olympicyes@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          22 hours ago

          Most computers sold are the lowest end models. At work we never got anything decent so it was always a bit of a struggle. Our office stayed with XP for way longer than we should have so we skipped Vista altogether and adopted Windows 7 a few years late.

  • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    1 day ago

    Maybe windows is not used in supercomputers often because unix and linux is more flexiable for the cpus they use(Power9,Sparc,etc)

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      0·
      9 hours ago

      That’s certainly a big part of it. When one needs to buy a metric crap load of CPUs, one tends to shop outside the popular defaults.

      Another big reason, historically, is that Supercomputers didn’t typically have any kind of non-command-line way to interact with them, and Windows needed it.

      Until PowerShell and Windows 8, there were still substantial configuration options in Windows that were 100% managed by graphical packages. They could be changed by direct file edits and registry editing, but it added a lot of risk. All of the “did I make a mistake” tools were graphical and so unavailable from command line.

      So any version of Windows stripped down enough to run on any super-computer cluster was going to be missing a lot of features, until around 2006.

      Since Linux and Unix started as command line operating systems, both already had plenty fully featured options for Supercomputing.

    • Matt@lemmy.ml
      0·
      1 day ago

      Plus Linux doesn’t limit you in the number of drives, whereas Windows limits you from A to Z.

      • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
        0·
        1 day ago

        You can mount drives against folders in windows. So while D: is one drive, D:\Logs or D:\Cake can each be a different disk.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        0·
        1 day ago

        For people who haven’t installed Windows before, the default boot drive is G, and the default file system is C

        So you only have 25 to work with (everything but G)

    • superkret@feddit.orgOP
      0·
      1 day ago

      Unix is basically a brand name.
      BSD had to be completely re-written to remove all Unix code, so it could be published under a free license.
      It isn’t Unix certified.

      So it is Unix-derived, but not currently a Unix system (which is a completely meaningless term anyway).

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          0·
          19 hours ago

          It means nothing, it’s just a paycheck you sign and then you get to say “I certify my OS is Unix”. The little bit more technical part is POSIX compliance but modern OSs are such massive and complex beasts today that those compliances are tiny parts and very slowly but very surely becoming irrelevant over time.

          Apple made OSX Unix certified because it was cheap and it got them off the hook from a lawsuit. That’s it.

          • dan@upvote.au
            0·
            20 hours ago

            Microsoft could technically get Windows certified as UNIX.

            I don’t think they could now that the POSIX subsystem and Windows Services for UNIX are both gone. Don’t you need at least some level of POSIX compliance (at least the parts where POSIX and Unix standards overlap) to get Unix certified?

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      0·
      1 day ago

      To make it more specific I guess, what’s the problem with that? It’s like having a “people living on boats” and “people with no long term address”. You could include the former in the latter, but then you are just conveying less information.

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    0·
    2 days ago

    Wow, that’s kind of a lot more Linux than I was expecting, but it also makes sense. Pretty cool tbh.

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    So basically, everybody switched from expensive UNIX™ to cheap “unix”-in-all-but-trademark-certification once it became feasible, and otherwise nothing has changed in 30 years.

      • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        1 day ago

        I always forget that Windows Server even exists, because the name is so stupid. “windows” should mean “gui interface to os.”

        edit: fixed redundacy.

          • dan@upvote.au
            0·
            20 hours ago

            The GUI is optional these days, and there’s plenty of Windows servers that don’t use it. The recommended administration approach these days is PowerShell remoting, often over SSH now that Windows has a native SSH server bundled (based on OpenSSH).

            • yogurtwrong@lemmy.world
              0·
              5 hours ago

              That gives me the idea of windows server installed on bare metal configured as a lightweight game runner. (much like a linux distro with minimal wm)

              I’ve seen people using slightly modified windows server as an unbloated gaming OS but I’m not sure if running a custom minimal GUI on windows server is possible. You seem knowledgeable on the subject, with enough effort, is it possible?

          • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            0·
            1 day ago

            I’d say having a GUI is not inherently stupid. The stupid part is, if I understand it correctly, the GUI being a required component and the primary access method.

            • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
              0·
              8 hours ago

              Yeah. Thankfully, Windows server cleaned up that stupidity starting around 2006 and finished in around 2018.

              Which all sounds fine until we meditate on the history that basically all other server operating systems have had efficient remote administration solutions since before 1995 (reasonable solutions existed before SSH, even).

              Windows was over 20 years late to adopt non-grapgical low latency (aka sane) options for remote administration.

              I think it’s a big part of the reason Windows doesn’t appear much on this chart.

      • whaleross@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 days ago

        Apple had its current desktop environment for it’s proprietary ecosystem built on BSD with their own twist while supercomputers are typically multiuser parallel computing beats, so I’d say it is really fucking surprising. Pretty and responsive desktop environments and breathtaking number crunchers are the polar opposites of a product. Fuck me, you’ll find UNIX roots in Windows NT but my flabbers would be ghasted if Deep Blue had dropped a Blue Screen.

      • Ben@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        Mac is also also derived from BSD since it is built on Darwin

  • Rogue@feddit.uk
    0·
    2 days ago

    Any idea how it’d look if broken down into distros? I’m assuming enterprise support would be favoured so Red Hat or Ubuntu would dominate?

    • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
      0·
      2 days ago

      I can’t imagine Supercomputers to use a mainstream operating system such as Ubuntu. But clearly people even put Windows on it, so I shouldn’t be surprised…

      • superkret@feddit.orgOP
        0·
        1 day ago

        They do use Ubuntu, Red Hat and SUSE mostly.
        But for customers like that, the companies are of course willing to adjust the distro to their needs, with full support.
        Microsoft uses their own Linux distro now.

    • superkret@feddit.orgOP
      0·
      2 days ago

      The previously fastest ran on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the current fastest runs on SUSE Enterprise Linux.
      The current third fastest (owned by Microsoft) runs Ubuntu. That’s as far as I care to research.

  • Z3k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    As someone who worked on designing racks in the super computer space about 10 q5vyrs ago I had no clue windows and mac even tried to entered the space

    • gerdesj@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      2 days ago

      about 10 q5vyrs ago

      Have you been distracted and typed a password/PSK in the wrong field 8)

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          0·
          2 days ago

          but it did not stick.

          Yeah. It was bad. The job of a Supercomputer is to be really fast and really parallel. Windows for Supercomputing was… not.

          I honestly thought it might make it, considering the engineering talent that Microsoft had.

          But I think time proves that Unix and Linux just had an insurmountable head start. Windows, to the best of my knowledge, never came close to closing the gap.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
            0·
            2 days ago

            At this point I think it’s most telling that even Azure runs on Linux. Microsoft’s twin flagship products somehow still only work well when Linux does the heavy lifting and works as the glue between

            • sep@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 days ago

              Where did you find that azure runs on linux? I have been qurious for a while, but google refuse to tell me anything but the old “a variant of hyper-v” or “linux is 60% of the azure worklad” (not what i asked about!)

              • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
                0·
                1 day ago

                Where did you find that azure runs on linux?

                I dont know of anywhere that Microsoft confirms, officially, that Azure, itself, is largely running on Linux. They share stats about what workloads other are running on it, but not, to my knowledge, about what it is compared of.

                I suppose that would be an oversimplification, anyway.

                But that Azure itself is running mostly on Linux is an open secret among folks who spend time chatting with engineers who have worked into he Azure cloud.

                When I have chatted with them, Azure cloud engineers have displayed huge amouts of Linux experience while they sometimes needed to “phone a friend” to answer Windows server edition questions.

              • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
                0·
                1 day ago

                Good question! I can’t remember.

                I think I read a Microsoft blog or something like a decade ago that said they shifted from a Hyper-V based solution to Linux to improve stability, but honestly it’s been so long I wouldn’t be shocked if I just saw it in a reddit comment on a related article that I didn’t yet have the technical knowhow to fully comprehend and took it as gospel.

          • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.ukEnglish
            0·
            2 days ago

            But, surely Windows is the wrong OS?

            Windows is a per-user GUI… supercomputing is all about crunching numbers, isn’t it?

            I can understand M$ trying to get into this market and I know Windows server can be used to run stuff, but again, you don’t need a GUI on each node a supercomputer they’d be better off with DOS…?

            • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
              0·
              2 days ago

              But, surely Windows is the wrong OS?

              Oh yes! To be clear - trying to put any version of Windows on a super-computer is every bit as insane as you might imagine. By what I heard in the rumor mill, it went every bit as badly as anyone might have guessed.

              But I like to root for an underdog, and it was neat to hear about Microsoft engineers trying to take the Windows kernel somewhere it had no rational excuse to run, perhaps by sheer force of will and hard work.

            • Badabinski@kbin.earth
              0·
              2 days ago

              I could see the NT kernel being okay in isolation, but the rest of Windows coming along for the ride puts the kibosh on that idea.

      • Z3k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        Yeh it was system x I worked on out default was redhat. I forget the other options but win and mac sure as shut wasn’t on the list