Talk:Supercomputer/Archive 1

message: Hi.  As someone who knows jack about supercomputers, I'd like to point out that some parts of the article are just impenetrable for the uninitiated.  For instance, when it says that the IBM supercomputer is capable of "70 teraflops", that tells me nothing, and the article on Flops doesn't help any in understanding what it means in terms of how fast the computer works.  Maybe you could include a reference in the good old "calculations per second" unit, or maybe something else, but right now I just have no idea of how fast and efficient the IBM supercomputer is, no matter how many flops I know it can throw around.  Regards, Redux 05:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLOPS 

message: "Repeated addition" makes perfect sense on ENIAC. The "NI" stood for Numerical Integrator and the machine was originally designed as a faster digital version of the mechanical analog Differential Analyzer (ignoring the Multiplier and Divider/Square Rooter modules). A Digital Differential Analyzer (DDA) operates entirely by repeated addition in each "integrator" (Accumulator on ENIAC). In its mode as a DDA (exactly what you need for ballistics solutions) it could handle problems requiring up to 20 "integrators" and in such a problem would naturally operate at its peak speed. Aberdeen however found it difficult to program this way, which resulted in its conversion in 1948 to ROM based stored program and a severe drop in peak performance.  -- 205.175.225.5 20:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it is misleading to use the addition time for ENIAC, because modern measures of FLOPS are based on a wider range of operations.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENIAC and repeated addition 

message: Regarding my reversion of the recently added footnotes to the timeline table: AFAIK, the locations listed are the installation sites of the computers, not the locations of the development/manufacturing companies. --Wernher 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About supercomputer locations 

message: One of the recently reverted footnotes (see above) stated: I believe the ILLIAC IV speed accepted was 15 not 150 GFLOPS [sic]. Double check this before using either number. In the ILLIAC IV article, a figure of 150 MFLOPS is indicated as the peak performance value, which is also the value cited in the timeline. So, it seems everything's OK, then, doesn't it? --Wernher 23:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ILLIAC IV performance figures 

message: How do computer speeds compare between
* Supercomputers
* Hybrid computers
* Engineeering workstations
Editors in both the Super and Hybrid articles claim this type of computer is the fastest.
I had always thought the advantage of super computer was in its specialized tasks, where algorithms normally found in programs can get transferred to hardware to operate thousands of times faster than as software, to perform specialized tasks, while a supercomputer is incapable of general purpose computer tasks, supercomputers, being a class of special purpose computer can perform tasks impossible for any other kind of computer, like say modeling the billions of years of the life of millions of star clusters, to explore competing theories of astronomy. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no one meaning to "fastest", so both are probably right. Supercomputers are usually general purpose machines, in that you can program them to do just about any kind of problem. Special purpose machines usually only solve one problem, because it's wired into their hardware. So Grape would be special purpose, as would most hybrid computers. FWIW, I've never seen anyone equate "supercomputer" with what you describe. Greg 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid vs. Super  

message: I think it would be cool and interesting to add some (highlighted) "typical PC" entries in the table of supercomputer performance. Like, how did/does a Commodore 64, 8086, 80486, Pentium, Pentium III, Pentium IV, Athlon X2, Cell processor, 4-core MAC... compare to recent and past numbercrunchers. Would help to get a feel for the real performance and evolution of computing power.
Is this meaningful/achievable at all, and any takers? :)
JH-man 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful, but you have to include the things which really indicate what's going on, like memory bandwidth. Most bogus comparisons involve peak FLOPS without any indication that vector supercomputers can sustain a higher percentage of peak due to their memory subsystems. Greg 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical PC performance through history? 

message: I changed the heading of the "Period" column to "Year", since all but one* of the computers were listed with a single year (i.e., the initial year of operation/installation), implicitly indicating that each particular computer held its place as 'King of the Hill' until the computer listed next appeared on the scene. (* I changed the ENIAC entry accordingly.) --Wernher 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table heading: Period-->Year 

message: On the National Center for Atmospheric Research's computer division webpage, I believe I saw a statement that the lifetime of a computer is 3 to 5 years.  Is this a physical lifetime?  PCs, after all seem to last longer (unless replaced).  And if not worn out, what happens to old supercomputers? Simesa 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of them - especially groundbreaking ones - become collector's items (I'm serious) Raul654 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the problems is these computers use so much power that after a period of time it's cheaper to buy a new computer than it is to keep running the old ones.  That said I doubt the 3 to 5 years figure is widespread, companies invest a lot in these machines so there is a degree of inertia in keeping "old" computers going long after it would be cost effective to replace them 194.202.174.11 11:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer lifetime 

message: The Timeline of supercomputers doesn't mention the following supercomputer made in India...
"PARAM Padma computer was developed by India's Center for Development of Advanced Computer (C-DAC)"
For ref... http://www.cdac.in/html/parampma.asp
PARAM Padma is C-DAC's next generation high performance scalable computing cluster, currently with a peak computing power of One Teraflop.
The table, i think must mention about this supercomputer and its evolution.
:  Please look at thie link :  http://www.cdac.in/html/ctsf/padma/padma500.asp -- Padma is very impressive, but it ranks 171 on the Top 500 list. The table in our article only lists the computer that is at the top of the top 500 list for the specified list, at least for entries in 1993 or later. The computers at the top of the list are curently several hundred times as powerful as Padma. -Arch dude 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of supercomputers...  

message: The graph has been part of the article for quite some time. I modified the description, because UNIX(R) and Linux(R) are in fact legally and historically quite distinct. Even if you believe that the casual user has no interest in the Linux/UNIX distinction, you should not remove the graph. Instead, you should adjust the description. The graph is important more because it shows that Linux/UNIX overwhelms alternative OSs than because of the distinction between Linux and UNIX. I personally feel that the free-versus-proprietary distinction is extremely interesting, but this in minor by comparison to the UNIX/Linux versus alternatives. If we leave it, we get both trends on a single graph. -Arch dude 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OS usage graph. 

message: Has anyone produced a graph showing supercomputer FLOP speed over time, and then added "popular" computers onto it, like the Altair 8080, TRS-80, Sinclair ZX, PC (at various clock speeds), PlayStation, and PDAs?  I think such a graph would be very interesting indeed. Since "popular" computers came into existence in the mid 1970s, I don't think that they've ever been more than 15 years behind the Supercomputers. I would absolutely LOVE to see such a graph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Thought (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually, modern games with collision detection and physics use floating point quite extensively, as do 3D games. In fact, there is a direct link between the performance of 3D graphics and floating point performance. However, I don't believe that adding a table to compare these systems to supercomputers is a good idea as they are completely different systems for completely different purposes and becuase most of these old machines mentioned didn't even have a FPU. Rilak (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  request

message: Removed vandalism. someone double check I resotred the right version when possible?
Jaqie Fox 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: I'm not sure if posting a link to an Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode at the top of the page is particularly relevant or does anything for the credibility of this page as a source of information on super computers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.26.165 (talk) 02:24, 28 March, 2007 (UTC)
:It's not really a reference, just a disambiguation link for anyone who happens to come here looking for the other topic. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack!  Please stop removing the colons for indenting.  If you feel that it takes up too much space, customize the stylesheet you use to view Wikipedia.  Read Help:User_style for more information about that.  In fact, stop removing other people's comments altogether! -- JSBillings 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By WP:VAND definition, removal of user discussion comments is considered vandalism:  "Discussion page vandalism:  Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own".  -Animesouth 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  appropriate reference? 

message: I reverted the Software Tools section to something that was actually about software tools.  I removed the "Virtual Supercomputer" reference, because the definition of supercomputer is better explained later.  The software tools section starts out OK, but then turns into an advertisement for Apple's software. JSBillings 13:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Tools 

message: Am I the only one who thinks this addition is rather suspicious? Some more detailed references seem to be necessary...
JH-man 08:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Considering it links to pages created by the same user as the editor who added it, and the name of the user, I tend to think it is quite suspicious.  I haven't heard of it before, and judging from the fact that all the pages that it refers to were created at the same time as the entry with no external references, it's probably bogus. JSBillings 11:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw TSRTWO Project ?

message: If you look at the very first of the wikipedia article, and then over at the linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating_machine page, the year in which New York Times first used  the 'supercomputer' term is different.  As I do not know the proper year and am incredibly tired(insomnia) someone please look up the right one and fix this.... oh and please remove this entire comment of mine once you have, if you would. thanks! Jaqie Fox 12:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small error / inconsistency with tabulators linked 

message: I removed a lot of text from the "Software Tools" section because part of it read like an advertisement for Apple's Shake (software) app.  I think the section really needs to be expanded, discussing other tools, such as performance tuning tools (vtune, for example) and debugging tools for supercomuting/hpc code (such as totalview).  JSBillings 14:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up "Software Tools" section 

message: All the information about the BlueGene/P was added without any references.  The current references are all old, and only refer to the BlueGene/L. -- JSBillings 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: I'm not the editor who added Blue Gene/P in the first place.) This page has had over-enthusiastic additions of "the fastest computer" several times over the years. However, the lead para on the timeline says that we now use the TOP500 as our benchmark. Therefore, I removed most of the info, since it is in the Blue Gene article anyway. I also adjusted the references for BlueGene/L, added a refrence for Blue Gene/P, and removed the assertion that Blue Gene/P is currently the fastest, since it is not yet deployed.I should probably also move it to the "research" area until it actually shows up on the TOP500, but I decided to trust IBM for a few months. Feel free to be harsher as necessary. -Arch dude 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So much for trust. I finally noticed this again and removed the paragraph entirely, since it proved to be incorrect. -Arch dude (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information about BlueGene 

message: Between petaflop, petaflops, petaFLOPS, PFLOPS, TFLOPS, etc. I think there should be a standard usage throughout this article.  It gets confusing when two different notations are used for the same measurement.
: The article has a specific paragraph explaining the units of measurement, and the article uses TFLOPS consistently instead of teraflops. I therefore added the definition of PFLOPS to the definition paragraph and changed all occurances of "petaflops" to PFLOPS. -Arch dude 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A greater problem exists in the performance figures for each machine in the table.  The performance figures do not correspond to the performance of any of those machines in the year of their introduction be they Cray-1 or CDC 205, etc.  The cited performance figures are optimistic at best only in the latter year of their introduction.  Additionally, at best only site in the world existed for the 205 to anywhere near approach that performance because the configuration of the machine only existed at one site (all other sites having far smaller pipe configurations).  I would go so far as to suggest removing that entry because I never that performance and is likely that it's a cooked up marketing number.  The article as a whole needs a good going over. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified formatting for flop/flops/FLOPS 

message: There were a lot of things removed by several vandals.  Including this was a bunch of perfectly good links, that I've restored.  I also restored the Quasi-supercomputing section, which must have been lost in the vandalism fixes. -- JSBillings 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repairing vandalism 

message: There is no explanation of "OPS" and derivatives, used for pre-1960 computers in the table, and no explanation of how it relates to FLOPS w.r.t. processing speed/time.
—DIV (128.250.204.118 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLOPS ''versus'' OPS 

message: I think the definition needs work:
Surely a supercomputer is a computer that is 'massively' faster than an 'average' (or even 'good') contemporary computer, irrespective of whether the prospective supercomputer is actually the fastest or 'near' the fastest.
In particular, considering the TOP500 list of 27 June 2007 listed the worlds fastest "supercomputer" speed as 280.6 TFLOPS, while the world's 500th fastest "supercomputer" speed was only 4.0 TFLOPS — basically 70 times slower.  Note further that the slower machine was dated 2007, whereas the newer machine was dated 2005.  <BR>
It is not accurate to state that the slower machine "led the world (or was close to doing so) in terms of processing capacity, particularly speed of calculation, at the time of its introduction" (as the article currently reads), and yet it is accepted that it is a "supercomputer"!
— DIV (128.250.204.118 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Blue Gene/L seems to have been upgraded over summer, and is now clocking in at 478 TFLOPS.
References
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7092339.stm
http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/1889245.html
http://www.hemscott.com/news/latest-news/item.do?newsId=53878217307964
Should maybe change the article to reflect this. Malbolge 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's the BlueGene/P, and I don't believe there is a real-world installation yet. (correct me if I'm wrong).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbillings (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it is the BlueGene/L. According to the TOP500, its achieved 478.2 TFLOPS after a recent upgrade as mentioned before. Rilak 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on speed of Blue Gene/L 

message: I'm surprized there's nothing on the Sun Microsystems' new supercomputer called Ranger in Wikipedia yet. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranger 

message: Hi,
According to the Top 500, the Thinking Machine supercomputer of 1993 had a "Rpeak Sum (GF)" of 691. I assume that they mean a top speed of 691 GFLOPS. But the list here says the Thinking Machines CM-5/1024 in 1993 was capable of only 65.5 GFLOPS. Why the inconsistency?
Thanks,
210.206.137.53 (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list here is correct. If I am not mistaken (I'm not familiar with Thinking Machine's systems) the CM-5's architecture supports a maximum of 16,384 processors. The system listed here is clearly stated to have had 1,024 processors, thus the difference in performance. Also, I think that the TOP500 always gives the maximum theoretical performance when discussing a system, and the actual benchmarked performance when discussing an installation. Rilak (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in List vis-a-vis Top 500 

message: This quote seems a bit... anti-open source, I doubt anyone in the open source community would deliberately create 'disruptive' software when it comes to this field but not sure, maybe someone else noticed that? "open source community which often creates disruptive technology in this arena." Akritu (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked it. "Disruptive technology" is a marketing term from the dot.bomb era. It is (was) actually a highly favorable description: if y9ou had Disruptive technology, you would make a lot on money,and itf you did nbot, your were a dinosaur.  -Arch dude (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software tools - Open source community 

message: I removed a non-Top500 entry from the list. The entry was for TACC and was based on a press release. While I have no reason to doubt that TACC is as fast as described, We need to have some sort of objective standard, and today, as flawed as it may be, Top500 is that standard.
There have been many, many announcements of "Fastest computer" since 1993 that are not on this list, and the list will become unwieldy if we add them all. Allowing self-proclaimed "#1"s in this list would be the equivalent of allowing any professional american football team to add itself to a list of #1 football teams based on the weekly standings rather than on the superbowl. -Arch dude (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restriction to Top500 

message: Where are these numbers coming from? Are you sure they're even right? For example the Cray corporate website's history section says that the Cray-1 had a top speed of 160 MFLOPS, http://www.cray.com/about_cray/history.html This section claims it as 250 MFLOPS Phatalbert (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing for peak speed numbers 

message: Should the IBM Roadrunner be added to the supercomputer timeline? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss above in the section "Restriction to the TOP500". -Arch dude (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM Roadrunner 

message: This new IBM computer is to be built: "IBM is to build a hugely powerful supercomputer capable of performing at 20 petaflops per second, twenty times faster than the current record holder, namely the 1 petaflop Roadrunner machine it delivered back in June to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory"
* http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/020409-ibm-to-build-new-monster.html?page=1
--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequoia

message: The IBM System x iDataPlex Supercomputer can perform 300 trillion calculations per second, operates on 3,240 intel 5500 series 2.53 GHz processor cores arranged in 45 file-like stacks, is Canada's fastest supercomputer, is the number one super computer outside of United States and is the 12th fastest globally.  Is it too slow to be listed?  Super-Computer related citations at SciNet Consortium SriMesh | talk 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not a list of all supercomputers. The only list in this article is the list of computers that were the number one csupercomputer in the world at some time. -Arch dude (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I concur. This article suffers continually from "recentism," and therefore needs frequent work of this type. It's inherent in the nature of the article that we must basially violate the "recentism" guideline that we use for almost all other Wikipedia articles. Please be bold and edit the article. -Arch dude (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[University of Toronto]]'s '''[[SciNet Consortium]]''' supercomputer

message: Can something even be semi-infinite?  I know what your going for with the hyperbole but is it the best way to convey information in an encyclopedia?  Sorry for not editing this myself but my kowledge of the subject is limited. Stupidstudent (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a maths term for when you have a finite number of variables and infinite constraints or finite constraints and infinite variables. We have a wiki article of semi-infinite programming which I suggest we should link to. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it worth linking to in the article? Stupidstudent (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "semi-infinite " 

message: Roadrunner is no longer the fastest supercomputer.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0559346.htm
http://www.top500.org/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.196.154 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roadrunner beaten. 

message: The Atlas Computer was the world's fastest computer in 1962. Should it be added to the list?
:A period of time existed when all computers were deeded "fast". After a while, that term lost its meaning. When it came time for the justification of a faster machine for specifically fusion bomb design, which also used the single word prefix "super", guys from the bomb labs went before Congress to justify their purchase with the prefix.  The page is actually pretty messed up as it is. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical omission 

message: Quote: Operating system section  
Comment: irrelevant to supercomputing aspects of operating systems. The quote is about
* servers in general;
* computer programming in general;
* marketing (probably stale) in general;
* business budgeting for R&D.
Also "are sold to a very small" needs a citation or rewording.
This drivel is probably worse than the space nothing would invite.
Besides Supercomputing is to large, (for those of us who use very old supercomputers to edit with);
and actually factually, "some sections may need expansion", per its WP:BCLASS classification (italics mine).
For the same bulleted reasons above I removed 
My thought upon reading it was an innocent and natural opposition: "It would be more interesting to note the operating system aspects of supercomputing", and I think that will apply to most readers.
Likewise 
The encyclopedic facts of supercomputing operating systems
might be that the "incompatible system-unique features" are in actuality instruction sets.
Rather it might have said:   That was an educated guess.
: Yeah, and it's got a generally right conclusion (custom built hardware) but wrong way of getting there. The OS is generally a port (a transport or copy) of existing software with minimal revisions. Your fallacy is that the software is no longer designed.  The last firm which attempted a complete supercomputer OS design was ETA Systems and their attempt (EOS) was a major factor on two levels which killed the company. Arguably, Thinking Machines made a similar set of mistakes, but that's a harder case to explain, because of the separation of the CM from its workstation servers. The CM was more of an attached processor. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Operating system'' makeover 

message: Weren't all computers made before the 60s supercomputers of their time? --Matthew Bauer (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. the computer maufacturers each made a range of machines, and the smaller ones were never the fastest of their time. an example is the IBM 1401. -Arch dude (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Computers Made Before The 60s Were Supercomputers of Their Time 

message: The article included a phrase "a single modern desktop PC is now more powerful than a ten-year-old supercomputer" and then proceeds to claim that a $4000 workstation (presumably from 2010) outperforms a supercomputer from the 1990's. That's not 10 years, that's up to 20 years difference. For example, the state-of-the art supercomputer of the year 2000 did 7 TFLOPS (double precision), while a high-end desktop may do 0.1 TFLOPS in double precision and 1 TFLOPS in single precision with GPGPU.  Also in terms of memory capacity and bandwidth, there is quite a gap between 10-year-old supercomputers and present-day desktops, which cannot be equipped with multi-TB RAM memory and 100s of TB hard disk space.
I removed this statement. Han-Kwang (t) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern desktop faster than 10 yo supercomputer??? 

message: The `Supercomputer challenges, technologies` section contains this line:
:"A typical TOP500 supercomputer consumes between 1 and 10 megawatt of electricity and converts all of it into heat."
Bold emphasis mine.  Surely all the power is not converted to heat or else there would be no actual computing being done.
::It's all converted to heat in the process of being used for computing. Even if all of the other components (power supplies, fans, etc.) were 100% efficient, the electricity expended in switching each transistor (the basic element of the computational process) converts electricity to heat. This is why a powerful processor needs a big heatsink. -Arch dude (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'All electricity to heat' 

message: Deep Thought as well as the Earth(in the fictional context of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) should be added to this section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.196.62 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Thought should be added to pop culture/fictional supercomputer list 

message: I'm adding a section on the uses of supercomputers in research. While this information is scattered throughout the article, there is a lot to be said on this that isn't said. Also, I haven't found an article anywhere else that addresses this, so I figure this is as good a place as any to organize this information.
This appears to be an article that has had a lot of effort put into it, so as a newcomer to this page (and as one that has little education in the subject) I don't want to step on any toes; any helpful emendations to this section would be welcome.
Kant66 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome and thanks. I (one of many editors of this article) Think that your section is appropriate and is in the correct place in the article. Please continue to contribute. Now for a few suggestions. First, I think the section would benefit by a more "historical" perspective: your thesis is correct, but supercomputers have contributed to "bleeding-edge" research since their inception, and each generation tends to attack relevant problems that are then solved and no longer need supercomputers, or that can be attacked by newer commodity computers, or (as in the case of weather predction) still require supercomputers but have become operational problems rather than research problems. May I suggest that you try to fine an example problem in (say) each decade since (say) 1960 that was attacked as a resaerch problem using supercomputing? For each such problem and attack, mention, the computer and the outcome. -Arch dude (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a table with some decade-by-decade examples. I also added another section to cover current uses of supercomputing. I wasn't sure if it would be better to fold this section into the timeline or to keep it separate. Also, I'm aware that the term "supercomputer" didn't come around until until the 1960s, but thought that the 1940s and 1950s operational capabilities provide a nice basis for comparison. However, I'm open to starting in the 1960s.Kant66 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Supercomputer uses in research section

message: That section currently reads "The fastest cluster, Folding@home, reported 8.8 petaflops of processing power as of May 2011.". Compare this with the Bitcoin mining network, which BitcoinWatch.com estimates to use 65.5 petaflops as of today (with a rather impressive historical growth rate too.) 99.58.56.97 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely new record for the quasi-supercomputing category 

message: Does it have a WP article? I can't find it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SC conference/show? 

message: Although the K computer is correctly referenced as the fastest supercomputer in the lead and the Timeline of supercomputers (at the end of the article), it also should be referenced in:
* Modern supercomputer architecture
* The fastest supercomputers today, Current fastest supercomputer system
and possibly in:
* Timeline of supercomputer uses (at the beginning)
* Supercomputer challenges, technologies
replacing the Tianhe-1A. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  K Computer 

message: I started to look at this page, and suddenly music started playing in the back of my mind: a shadow hanging over me, Oh, yesterday came suddenly. This article is just dated, i reads like yesterday... Oh, I believe in yesterday...
I do not have time to fix/rewrite it and I do not want to put a rewrite tag on it yet, so let us see if I can talk someone to adding refs so the unref-tags can come off and then gradually bring it up to date, etc. So who is playing with this page these days? History2007 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess now that there is no response, need to say it is out of date with some type of tag. Even the computer on the main image is now outrun by the iPad. So every aspect is outdated. But I changed the Cray 1985 image so at least the reader gets a feeling for what a modern machine looks like from the outside. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is out-of-date about it? I strongly dispute that "every aspect is outdated". Most of the article appears to be about general principles and definitions, approaches and limitations to them, origins and history, etc. Very little appears to be intended to be outdated-current (however, "fastest" or "largest" should definitely be written as "as of [month/year]..." or somesuch) or forward-looking that has been disproven by reality (like a trip to Epcot Center). The thumb is not supposed to be a current top-performer, but more an iconic or representative image of the idea. I agree with the existing, that a purpose-built supercomputer is more representative than a generic device that can do better. DMacks (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, don't get upset now. I only tagged it after no one responded to offer to work on it. How about your fixing the unref issue, then we see. Overall, my feeling was/is that it is just yester-news, but I really do not want to spend time cleaning it up yet. So would you like to help? History2007 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't quite my field any more, I was just coming in from a notice-board message. I agree with the concern there that this tagging seemed like a heavy-handed (overly broad-brush) approach. Which is why I specifically said what topics seemed okay that got swept in, and asked for clarification about the scope of the problem. Major sections of the article appears to be intended to give historical perspective, not just document the latest/recent advances (I agree with the dateness of the newsy sections). The new lede image is a great one. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem is that right from the start it seems stuck with the CDC mentality in the lede and that yesterday's approach tone continues throughout, just presenting history not architectural issues. That was why it really made me sing Yesterday as I read it. I will get to it sooner or later, but hopefully someone will do some clean up before I can focus on it. History2007 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah yeah, looking closer at some of the general intro stuff, I agree that it's deeperly stale than I thought. DMacks (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, I have started cleaning up the peripheral material such as the processor types, etc. and started History of supercomputing to discuss the history items (which are pretty incomplete here anyway) there. Once those are in good shape I will discuss the architectural issues, modern trends, etc. here, building on that. So I will gradually fix it among other things that I am doing. My guess is that in a month or so it will probably in better shape with suitable sub-articles. History2007 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: The next generation BlueGene is expected to be water cooled, according to the prototype boards shown at SC10, and other public information so water cooled and low power are not mutually exclusive, though high power pretty much mandates water cooling (the old NEC earth simulator building cutaway would be fun to show as a contrary example). Indulis.b (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us see if they get a water cooled B-G working. By the way, is there a source that compares air-cooled to the old VW aircooling somehow? That would be fun to add. In any case, since you mentioned it, I built Aquasar along those lines. History2007 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Yesterday (song)|Yesterday...]]

message: I have just edited the section under "Current fastest supercomputer system" to a more up-to-date max power usage and removed what I believed not to be factual data. Is a Wired article even a valid source? I don't think any of their articles are scrutinized heavily in the industry. If someone can find a reputable source indicating that power is $1 per watt in Japan, I would love to see it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEIhrig (talk • contribs) 06:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The total operating costs are about $10M per year. That was probably what they meant. So just under $1M per month to keep it running, which sounds to be in the right ballpark. Anyway, I fixed that for now. But almost nothing in this article has been double checked - there are many, many errors of commission and omission. I have been intending to work on it... intending to work on it...  Soon.... soon... History2007 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed citation from Wired.com that indicated power costs were $1 per Watt 

message: I have eventually freed up from other things to start cleaning up here. The basic strategy is to have a series of well sourced and error free sub-articles that deal with each of the aspects such as architecture, distribution vs centralization, software issues, etc. Then this article will be a backbone that refers to those via Mains. It does need to get to be in "very good shape" given that it gets viewed about 1 million times a year and we should be careful to spread only correct information here.
I have written a couple of articles now, e.g. history, architecture, etc. and will do a few more, as I clean up here. I have not removed the outdated flag yet because there are still a few issues to resolve, but I should be able to fix them and remove the flag after I fixing the lede as well. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article clean up

message: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FLOPS#ISRO_.3E100_EFlops_by_2017_is_highly_unlikely Isamil (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just bought a 129 exaflop tablet at Best Buy yesterday... kidding. That is very ambitious, but it just said that it is planned, not that they have even plugged it in yet, so per WP:CRYSTAL I trimmed the "they are sure" part. They say they have planned and lots of people have planned lots of things - so they can just say that it is a plan. Plans may succeeed or they may fail, so no big deal now that it has been trimmed there. I trimmed it here too. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of 132 exaflop computer is suspect