C
***** charles
Hey,
Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
later......
Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
later......
B
Bob I
The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
***** charles wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>
> later......
>
>
efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
***** charles wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>
> later......
>
>
C
***** charles
Can I infer from your answer since you didn't say yes or no,
that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
manager?
later.....
"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
> efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>
> ***** charles wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
> >
> > later......
> >
> >
>
that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
manager?
later.....
"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
> efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>
> ***** charles wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
> >
> > later......
> >
> >
>
B
Bob I
I haven't seen a quad so I can't verify it but I would guess so.
***** charles wrote:
> Can I infer from your answer since you didn't say yes or no,
> that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
> manager?
>
> later.....
>
> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
>>efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>>
>>***** charles wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey,
>>>
>>>Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>>>
>>>later......
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
***** charles wrote:
> Can I infer from your answer since you didn't say yes or no,
> that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
> manager?
>
> later.....
>
> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
>>efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>>
>>***** charles wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey,
>>>
>>>Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>>>
>>>later......
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
P
Paul
***** charles wrote:
> Can I infer from your answer since you didn't say yes or no,
> that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
> manager?
>
> later.....
I like this thread, even if it doesn't provide a URL to where this
description came from:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=42204
"Many differences exist between Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional
– many of them well-documented. One of the most significant is XP's support
for multiple physical processors. As two- and four-processor workstations
(not just servers) become more common, whether or not they're supported by
the operating system running on them in the first place is critical.
While Windows XP Home does not support more than one physical processor,
there's a lot of confusion about whether or not it supports multiple processor
cores in a single physical processor. This is implemented in several ways, of
which the most widely used is Intel's Hyper-Threading technology. Also, AMD is
currently rolling out a series of 64-bit processors called the X2 dual core
series, which features two processor cores per die.
How much of this is supported? The answer is all of it -- in XP Professional,
and, surprisingly enough, in XP Home as well. If you install XP Home on a system
that has a single processor with dual cores or hyper-threading (what is referred
to as two logical processors) XP Home will recognize both of them, and will install
the appropriate Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to work with it.
However, if you have more than one physical processor (such as two dual-core or
Hyper-Threading processors), XP Home will only recognize the first one. Note: If
you enable hyper-threading on a machine on which Windows is already installed, the
HAL will be automatically upgraded (if it hasn't been already) and you'll be prompted
to reboot a second time to finalize those changes.
Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its products is that
they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of cores on each
processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server 2005, that
license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU. Likewise, Windows XP
Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores or threading
potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets."
and further in that thread...
"Windows 2000 Professional will only recognize 2 CPUS/Cores/HT, no more"
They also provided this ref:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
So it looks like a quad core and WinXP Home will still work, and all four cores can
be occupied. Meaning you can run FSX SP1 or try some of the stuff they've run in
this article: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/12737/6
I found the text blurb above probably originated here. But since this site puts up
adverts before you can read the article, I wouldn't bother clicking this link.
http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1189223,00.html
Paul
>
> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
>> efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>>
>> ***** charles wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>>>
>>> later......
>>>
>>>
>
>
> Can I infer from your answer since you didn't say yes or no,
> that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
> manager?
>
> later.....
I like this thread, even if it doesn't provide a URL to where this
description came from:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=42204
"Many differences exist between Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional
– many of them well-documented. One of the most significant is XP's support
for multiple physical processors. As two- and four-processor workstations
(not just servers) become more common, whether or not they're supported by
the operating system running on them in the first place is critical.
While Windows XP Home does not support more than one physical processor,
there's a lot of confusion about whether or not it supports multiple processor
cores in a single physical processor. This is implemented in several ways, of
which the most widely used is Intel's Hyper-Threading technology. Also, AMD is
currently rolling out a series of 64-bit processors called the X2 dual core
series, which features two processor cores per die.
How much of this is supported? The answer is all of it -- in XP Professional,
and, surprisingly enough, in XP Home as well. If you install XP Home on a system
that has a single processor with dual cores or hyper-threading (what is referred
to as two logical processors) XP Home will recognize both of them, and will install
the appropriate Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to work with it.
However, if you have more than one physical processor (such as two dual-core or
Hyper-Threading processors), XP Home will only recognize the first one. Note: If
you enable hyper-threading on a machine on which Windows is already installed, the
HAL will be automatically upgraded (if it hasn't been already) and you'll be prompted
to reboot a second time to finalize those changes.
Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its products is that
they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of cores on each
processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server 2005, that
license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU. Likewise, Windows XP
Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores or threading
potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets."
and further in that thread...
"Windows 2000 Professional will only recognize 2 CPUS/Cores/HT, no more"
They also provided this ref:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
So it looks like a quad core and WinXP Home will still work, and all four cores can
be occupied. Meaning you can run FSX SP1 or try some of the stuff they've run in
this article: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/12737/6
I found the text blurb above probably originated here. But since this site puts up
adverts before you can read the article, I wouldn't bother clicking this link.
http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1189223,00.html
Paul
>
> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
>> efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>>
>> ***** charles wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>>>
>>> later......
>>>
>>>
>
>
R
RJK
....so what was all the fuss about KB896256 backalong ?
....in as many words MS say in this KB that :-
"...you may experience decreased performance ...something to do with power
saving / ACPI...?"
....so I stuffed in the KB896256 patch anyway
regards, Richard
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:ffj9f1$hgg$1@aioe.org...
> ***** charles wrote:
>> Can I infer from your answer since you didn't say yes or no,
>> that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
>> manager?
>>
>> later.....
>
> I like this thread, even if it doesn't provide a URL to where this
> description came from:
>
> http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=42204
>
> "Many differences exist between Windows XP Home and Windows XP
> Professional
> – many of them well-documented. One of the most significant is XP's
> support
> for multiple physical processors. As two- and four-processor
> workstations
> (not just servers) become more common, whether or not they're supported
> by
> the operating system running on them in the first place is critical.
>
> While Windows XP Home does not support more than one physical
> processor,
> there's a lot of confusion about whether or not it supports multiple
> processor
> cores in a single physical processor. This is implemented in several
> ways, of
> which the most widely used is Intel's Hyper-Threading technology. Also,
> AMD is
> currently rolling out a series of 64-bit processors called the X2 dual
> core
> series, which features two processor cores per die.
>
> How much of this is supported? The answer is all of it -- in XP
> Professional,
> and, surprisingly enough, in XP Home as well. If you install XP Home on
> a system
> that has a single processor with dual cores or hyper-threading (what is
> referred
> to as two logical processors) XP Home will recognize both of them, and
> will install
> the appropriate Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to work with it.
>
> However, if you have more than one physical processor (such as two
> dual-core or
> Hyper-Threading processors), XP Home will only recognize the first one.
> Note: If
> you enable hyper-threading on a machine on which Windows is already
> installed, the
> HAL will be automatically upgraded (if it hasn't been already) and
> you'll be prompted
> to reboot a second time to finalize those changes.
>
> Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its
> products is that
> they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of
> cores on each
> processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server
> 2005, that
> license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU.
> Likewise, Windows XP
> Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores
> or threading
> potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets."
>
> and further in that thread...
>
> "Windows 2000 Professional will only recognize 2 CPUS/Cores/HT, no more"
>
> They also provided this ref:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
>
> So it looks like a quad core and WinXP Home will still work, and all four
> cores can
> be occupied. Meaning you can run FSX SP1 or try some of the stuff they've
> run in
> this article: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/12737/6
>
> I found the text blurb above probably originated here. But since this site
> puts up
> adverts before you can read the article, I wouldn't bother clicking this
> link.
>
> http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1189223,00.html
>
> Paul
>
>>
>> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
>>> efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>>>
>>> ***** charles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>>>>
>>>> later......
>>>>
>>>>
>>
....in as many words MS say in this KB that :-
"...you may experience decreased performance ...something to do with power
saving / ACPI...?"
....so I stuffed in the KB896256 patch anyway
regards, Richard
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:ffj9f1$hgg$1@aioe.org...
> ***** charles wrote:
>> Can I infer from your answer since you didn't say yes or no,
>> that a quad cpu will show all four cores/threads in task
>> manager?
>>
>> later.....
>
> I like this thread, even if it doesn't provide a URL to where this
> description came from:
>
> http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=42204
>
> "Many differences exist between Windows XP Home and Windows XP
> Professional
> – many of them well-documented. One of the most significant is XP's
> support
> for multiple physical processors. As two- and four-processor
> workstations
> (not just servers) become more common, whether or not they're supported
> by
> the operating system running on them in the first place is critical.
>
> While Windows XP Home does not support more than one physical
> processor,
> there's a lot of confusion about whether or not it supports multiple
> processor
> cores in a single physical processor. This is implemented in several
> ways, of
> which the most widely used is Intel's Hyper-Threading technology. Also,
> AMD is
> currently rolling out a series of 64-bit processors called the X2 dual
> core
> series, which features two processor cores per die.
>
> How much of this is supported? The answer is all of it -- in XP
> Professional,
> and, surprisingly enough, in XP Home as well. If you install XP Home on
> a system
> that has a single processor with dual cores or hyper-threading (what is
> referred
> to as two logical processors) XP Home will recognize both of them, and
> will install
> the appropriate Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to work with it.
>
> However, if you have more than one physical processor (such as two
> dual-core or
> Hyper-Threading processors), XP Home will only recognize the first one.
> Note: If
> you enable hyper-threading on a machine on which Windows is already
> installed, the
> HAL will be automatically upgraded (if it hasn't been already) and
> you'll be prompted
> to reboot a second time to finalize those changes.
>
> Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its
> products is that
> they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of
> cores on each
> processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server
> 2005, that
> license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU.
> Likewise, Windows XP
> Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores
> or threading
> potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets."
>
> and further in that thread...
>
> "Windows 2000 Professional will only recognize 2 CPUS/Cores/HT, no more"
>
> They also provided this ref:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
>
> So it looks like a quad core and WinXP Home will still work, and all four
> cores can
> be occupied. Meaning you can run FSX SP1 or try some of the stuff they've
> run in
> this article: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/12737/6
>
> I found the text blurb above probably originated here. But since this site
> puts up
> adverts before you can read the article, I wouldn't bother clicking this
> link.
>
> http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1189223,00.html
>
> Paul
>
>>
>> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:O5HMAhOFIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> The operative term is socket. One socket = one CPU. As far as making
>>> efficient use of them well it isn't optimized for that.
>>>
>>> ***** charles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> Can XP Home see and use all the cores in a quad core cpu?
>>>>
>>>> later......
>>>>
>>>>
>>
P
Paul
RJK wrote:
> ...so what was all the fuss about KB896256 backalong ?
>
> ...in as many words MS say in this KB that :-
> "...you may experience decreased performance ...something to do with power
> saving / ACPI...?"
>
> ...so I stuffed in the KB896256 patch anyway
>
> regards, Richard
>
There is a big difference, between the licensing limitations
(which would prevent "excess" processors from registering)
and the OS actually working well
The patches exist, to try to improve the OS support for the
hardware configurations that have arisen since the product
was first put on the drawing table. I'm sure that quad cores
were not upper-most in anyone's minds, when they started work
on that OS.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256/en-us
By the way, I found another thread on patching for multiple cores,
which might help guide someone who is tuning a new box.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416
Paul
> ...so what was all the fuss about KB896256 backalong ?
>
> ...in as many words MS say in this KB that :-
> "...you may experience decreased performance ...something to do with power
> saving / ACPI...?"
>
> ...so I stuffed in the KB896256 patch anyway
>
> regards, Richard
>
There is a big difference, between the licensing limitations
(which would prevent "excess" processors from registering)
and the OS actually working well
The patches exist, to try to improve the OS support for the
hardware configurations that have arisen since the product
was first put on the drawing table. I'm sure that quad cores
were not upper-most in anyone's minds, when they started work
on that OS.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256/en-us
By the way, I found another thread on patching for multiple cores,
which might help guide someone who is tuning a new box.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416
Paul
R
RJK
Snap !
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416
....that's where I stumbled upon the reference to KB896256 !
regards, Richard
I don't think it made any "improvement" to my D935 but, as I said I thought
I'd stuff it in anway, just in case. I was niggled at the time, perhaps
wrongly, that MS hadn't stuffed it in for me via Windows updates ! ...on
another thread in windowsxp.hardware ....oh ! in here !!! :-
KB896256 / MS LAZINESS !!! 13/08/2007
regards, Richard
....I've forgotten, yet again, how to form a URL to ng/specific post !!
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:ffjec9$t5t$1@aioe.org...
> RJK wrote:
>> ...so what was all the fuss about KB896256 backalong ?
>>
>> ...in as many words MS say in this KB that :-
>> "...you may experience decreased performance ...something to do with
>> power saving / ACPI...?"
>>
>> ...so I stuffed in the KB896256 patch anyway
>>
>> regards, Richard
>>
>
> There is a big difference, between the licensing limitations
> (which would prevent "excess" processors from registering)
> and the OS actually working well
>
> The patches exist, to try to improve the OS support for the
> hardware configurations that have arisen since the product
> was first put on the drawing table. I'm sure that quad cores
> were not upper-most in anyone's minds, when they started work
> on that OS.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256/en-us
>
> By the way, I found another thread on patching for multiple cores,
> which might help guide someone who is tuning a new box.
>
> http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416
>
> Paul
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416
....that's where I stumbled upon the reference to KB896256 !
regards, Richard
I don't think it made any "improvement" to my D935 but, as I said I thought
I'd stuff it in anway, just in case. I was niggled at the time, perhaps
wrongly, that MS hadn't stuffed it in for me via Windows updates ! ...on
another thread in windowsxp.hardware ....oh ! in here !!! :-
KB896256 / MS LAZINESS !!! 13/08/2007
regards, Richard
....I've forgotten, yet again, how to form a URL to ng/specific post !!
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:ffjec9$t5t$1@aioe.org...
> RJK wrote:
>> ...so what was all the fuss about KB896256 backalong ?
>>
>> ...in as many words MS say in this KB that :-
>> "...you may experience decreased performance ...something to do with
>> power saving / ACPI...?"
>>
>> ...so I stuffed in the KB896256 patch anyway
>>
>> regards, Richard
>>
>
> There is a big difference, between the licensing limitations
> (which would prevent "excess" processors from registering)
> and the OS actually working well
>
> The patches exist, to try to improve the OS support for the
> hardware configurations that have arisen since the product
> was first put on the drawing table. I'm sure that quad cores
> were not upper-most in anyone's minds, when they started work
> on that OS.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256/en-us
>
> By the way, I found another thread on patching for multiple cores,
> which might help guide someone who is tuning a new box.
>
> http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416
>
> Paul