MicroSoft betting the company on cloud computing - Page 2

janh · 03-06-10, 03:11 PM

Consider the data volume to be calculated for each frame while running anything on your PC. Consider resolution, color depth and frame rate. How much data would you need per second? Is this "problem" of the category "memory/bandwith" or "CPU" (GPU) intensive? Where is the choke point?

I am presently running theoretical chemistry computations with about 1000 active CPUs (8 CPU per node, 16 GB per node) on a cluster. The main issue is the data volume created by this type of application, which requires very short connections with extreme bandwidth between the nodes to be efficient. No option for cloud computing, either.

So much about "cloud computing".

Wolfehunter · 03-06-10, 05:27 PM

Not interested in cloud computing. I'll switch to an other OS or just quit PC. I agree it has its advantages. But for me.. I don't like it.

I'm guessing there will be two class system in the future.. I'm going to be the dinosaur on the extinction list...

Reece · 03-06-10, 06:56 PM

There would be millions that wouldn't give in to cloud computing, I would move to Linux and there is plenty of freeware software available, besides other companies would see a huge demand for cloud free software and money to be made, I don't see a problem unless we all give in and say "Yes master!"

Cloud computing would be mainly for business IMO!

kiwi_2005 · 03-06-10, 09:46 PM

might of already been said but isn't Googles OS going this way - online to access your OS. MS office 11 is already online only aint it? Or is it 10. Looks like this is how will be using our software in the near future. This will be good if everyone's internet is super fast and the proof your os is legit does not require the user to be dragged through the mud just to prove it is! Otherwise i can see private servers run by cretins with names like 'Haxxor_your_mom' popping up all over the net.

Reece · 03-06-10, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

might of already been said but isn't Googles OS going this way - online to access your OS. MS office 11 is already online only aint it? Or is it 10. Looks like this is how will be using our software in the near future. This will be good if everyone's internet is super fast and the proof your os is legit does not require the user to be dragged through the mud just to prove it is! Otherwise i can see private servers run by cretins with names like 'Haxxor_your_mom' popping up all over the net.

I like Cretins!!

GSpector · 03-09-10, 12:56 AM

Though, I do not like the idea of a Cloud based OS, in order to support the Millions of users that is assumed will be on it, the only way for a company, like M$ to be able to even attempt the scale they want it to do what SETI does. Link all the computers together to make a virtual super computer.

Now, here's there part I would hate. Having to pay a monthly fee to allow MS to link my PC to everyone elses so I can run software. If they want me to link my PC into their network to make their super computer a dream come true, they can pay me. Until then, I'm happy buying my own software and using it by myself. I do not want to have to pay them so they can use my PC to help other. Sounds like file sharing and I thought M$ hated that Idea, except only they would control what software is shared, LOL

03-06-10, 05:27 PM	#17
Wolfehunter Crusty Capt. Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,752 Downloads: 40 Uploads: 25	Not interested in cloud computing. I'll switch to an other OS or just quit PC. I agree it has its advantages. But for me.. I don't like it. I'm guessing there will be two class system in the future.. I'm going to be the dinosaur on the extinction list... __________________

03-06-10, 06:56 PM	#18
Reece CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Down Under Posts: 32,804 Downloads: 171 Uploads: 0	There would be millions that wouldn't give in to cloud computing, I would move to Linux and there is plenty of freeware software available, besides other companies would see a huge demand for cloud free software and money to be made, I don't see a problem unless we all give in and say "Yes master!" Cloud computing would be mainly for business IMO! __________________ *Sub captains go down with their ship!*

03-06-10, 09:46 PM	#19
kiwi_2005 Eternal Patrol Join Date: May 2004 Location: Aeoteroa Posts: 7,382 Downloads: 223 Uploads: 1	might of already been said but isn't Googles OS going this way - online to access your OS. MS office 11 is already online only aint it? Or is it 10. Looks like this is how will be using our software in the near future. This will be good if everyone's internet is super fast and the proof your os is legit does not require the user to be dragged through the mud just to prove it is! Otherwise i can see private servers run by cretins with names like 'Haxxor_your_mom' popping up all over the net. __________________ RIP kiwi_2005 Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others.

03-09-10, 12:56 AM	#21
GSpector Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 676 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Though, I do not like the idea of a Cloud based OS, in order to support the Millions of users that is assumed will be on it, the only way for a company, like M$ to be able to even attempt the scale they want it to do what SETI does. Link all the computers together to make a virtual super computer. Now, here's there part I would hate. Having to pay a monthly fee to allow MS to link my PC to everyone elses so I can run software. If they want me to link my PC into their network to make their super computer a dream come true, they can pay me. Until then, I'm happy buying my own software and using it by myself. I do not want to have to pay them so they can use my PC to help other. Sounds like file sharing and I thought M$ hated that Idea, except only they would control what software is shared, LOL __________________ Specter

03-06-10, 03:11 PM	#16
janh Stinking drunk in Trinidad Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 349 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Consider the data volume to be calculated for each frame while running anything on your PC. Consider resolution, color depth and frame rate. How much data would you need per second? Is this "problem" of the category "memory/bandwith" or "CPU" (GPU) intensive? Where is the choke point? I am presently running theoretical chemistry computations with about 1000 active CPUs (8 CPU per node, 16 GB per node) on a cluster. The main issue is the data volume created by this type of application, which requires very short connections with extreme bandwidth between the nodes to be efficient. No option for cloud computing, either. So much about "cloud computing".