I have not but I might give them a try but anyways my point was more of a new user wont know that and most people dont want to spend the time to figure it out when they can do the exact same thing on a fresh windows install. It makes it more of a learning curve and from my experience avg joe blow doesnt want to learn anything and others dont want the downtime while they are learning.

I have been using linux ubuntu/gentoo/redhat/centos for years as my main os. Heres one thing I always see with entry level users they cant simple connect their network drive and access it easily. My parents have a network drive for all their photos and of course they can find it on the network but cant have it mount at boot without scripting/editing and once its connected they mainly use firefox so attachements and downloads cant save from firefox to the network drive if you simply connect to it, it has to be properly mounted. This isnt a issue for me but for them they dont know how and want to know how to just in case.

"Microsoft actually did something other than buy the record." What did they do? Sorting on many disks does become harder but hey they had less disks than the last record holder so they actually had it easier If they invented interconnects then they broke the rules of the competition because its supposed to be 100% off the shelf hardware so its all about the algorithm Thanks for the link that the post points to and the first thing I read since yes I read the article and the blog post and the pdfs

Well thats good but I guess well just have to wait and see if the algorithm is actually any better which is what im doubting.

You know whats also convenient out of the different tests they beat the only one that was held by yahoo. I try not to think this way but it makes me wonder.

Thats what im saying I actually think what yahoo did was amazing given the hardware they used this is just a disgusting purchase to the top. Im not a fan of microsoft or yahoo I just dont like it when people are all microsoft is the greatest when all they did was open their wallet.

Isnt that irrelavent because "does this actually help anyone other than microsoft" this being in question not other publications that I care not get into.

Yes this is my first day under this account but that is irrelevant, I have been coming here for years I just decided to stop posting as anonymous.
Microsoft spends lots of money on many things like you say does this actually help anyone other than microsoft? Of course not so why would anyone praise a marketing scheme?

Do me a favor and look at the previous record holder in close detail and tell me that microsoft actually did anything other than buy the record...

microsoft - 1033 disks
yahoo - 1406
difference 373 - that alone I would say would just be from advancements made in hard drives

yahoo nodes
2x quad core xeons
8GB of assuming ddr2 ram which was current at the time
1gb ethernet port on each node
40 nodes per rack

microsoft
2 - 12 cores a cluster
24GB - 96GB assuming ddr3 ram
10gb ethernet ports
78% were 10,000 rpm disks
crazy interconnects

I actually think yahoos setup was much more amazing on what they acheived and what they acheived it with. Im not a fan of microsoft or yahoo so I feel the same either way im just disgusted at microsoft buying the top then everyone is like wow they are doing something when in realty they are doing very little.

Sorry ignore the last posting it lost formatting and I cant edit it

"they developed a different way of referencing the massive amount"
Different doesnt mean much I could do somthing different doesnt mean it is any better or any worse.

They say less hardware and sure maybe quantity wise but not by much
microsoft - 1033 disks
yahoo - 1406
difference 373 - that alone I would say would just be from advancements made in hard drives

yahoo nodes
2x quad core xeons 8GB of assuming ddr2 ram which was current at the time
1gb ethernet port on each node
40 nodes per rack

microsoft
2 - 12 cores a cluster
24GB - 96GB assuming ddr3 ram
10gb ethernet ports
78% were 10,000 rpm disks
crazy interconnects

so the hardware quantity may be lower but again being that their hardware is so much more advanced I dont see that they actually did anything.

"they developed a different way of referencing the massive amount" Different doesnt mean much I could do somthing different doesnt mean it is any better or any worse. The say less hardware and sure maybe quantity wise but not by much microsoft - 1033 disks yahoo - 1406 difference 373 - that alone I would say would just be from advancements made in hard drives yahoo nodes 2x quad core xeons 8GB of assuming ddr2 ram which was current at the time 1gb ethernet port on each node 40 nodes per rack microsoft 2 - 12 cores a cluster 24GB - 96GB assuming ddr3 ram 10gb ethernet ports 78% were 10,000 rpm disks crazy interconnects so the hardware quantity may be lower but again being that their hardware is so much more advanced I dont see that they actually did anything.

Did they actually do anything or just build a machine using todays hardware and lots of funding. A team from yahoo got the record in 2009 hardware has changed alot in the 3 years and when money is not a object couldnt anyone do about the same?