Invisible wrote:
> How many people use a supercomputer to read their email? ;-)

Anyone using gmail? :-)

> [Depending on your definition of "supercomputer". Compared to the 
> Commodore 64 that I started out with, the dual-core multi-GHz thing I 
> have at home probably *seems* like a damn supercomputer!]

I was just thinking the other day, what kinds of computers are we 
running that not that long ago, the US considered a 486 a 
"supercomputer" enough to restrict its export to countries that might 
use it to do nuclear bomb simulations. And now there's probably an order 
of magnitude more power in the graphics chip of a game console than what 
used to be a supercomputer 15 years ago.

> The best software for running a supercomputer is *not* necessarily the 
> best software for running a desktop. I'm not saying Linux isn't good, 
> I'm saying this particular snippet of logic is flawed.

Yeah, Linux is definitely superior if what you're doing is dicking 
around with the OS.  Like Amazon's ECC or something - can't even imagine 
that being supported via Windows.

Not that Windows is great either. They just have a user base that 
expects computers to be easy to use, and a financial need to keep those 
users happy. Plus, lots of Linux weenies don't know Windows' 
capabilities and complain it doesn't work when it does. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message