 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi guys.
I'm just sitting here drooling at all the hyper-fly multi-processor
multi-core crazyness that I'll never be able to afford in a million
years. I was just wondering... Does Windows XP actually support more
than 2 physical cores? Anybody know?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.xkcd.com/313/
The madness can't be far away now...
...ah yes, there it is.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070905comp.htm?iid=pr1_releasepri_20070905m
Wahahahahaha!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:21:30 +0200, Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Does Windows XP actually support more than 2 physical cores?
As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a
single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two
processors.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a
> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two
> processors.
Right. So a machine with 2 chips each having 4 cores would work?
(Frankly, you'd be very hard pressed to *find* a machine with more than
2 physical chips...)
I did eventually manage to find this myself:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732
Doesn't make the matter especially clear, but it seems to confirm what
you're saying.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a
> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two
> processors.
Micro$oft's own website is very vague on this point, but it appears that
you're right: they limit physical CPUs, but not cores.
I found the following data for Vista:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions_final.asp
(Scroll down to nearly the bottom for some charts.)
So, Vista supports 64-bit CPUs, eh? That's interesting... I wonder if
anybody has tried it yet? (There is of course a 64-bit edition of WinXP.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work properly... I'm wondering if the Vista
one does.)
Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs. (I
find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe it's an
omission of the chart?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:22:27 +0200, Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> So, Vista supports 64-bit CPUs, eh? That's interesting... I wonder if
> anybody has tried it yet? (There is of course a 64-bit edition of WinXP.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work properly... I'm wondering if the Vista
> one does.)
Pretty much, assuming you can get stable 64-bit drivers for your hardware.
> Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs. (I
> find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe it's an
> omission of the chart?)
I think you are supposed to buy the server versions if you want support
for more processors.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> So, Vista supports 64-bit CPUs, eh? That's interesting... I wonder if
>> anybody has tried it yet? (There is of course a 64-bit edition of
>> WinXP. Unfortunately, it doesn't work properly... I'm wondering if the
>> Vista one does.)
>
> Pretty much, assuming you can get stable 64-bit drivers for your hardware.
Mmm, OK.
>> Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs.
>> (I find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe
>> it's an omission of the chart?)
>
> I think you are supposed to buy the server versions if you want support
> for more processors.
I thought Vista Enterprise *was* the server edition?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e2a1bf$1@news.povray.org...
> Also, only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support 2 physical CPUs. (I
> find it surprising that Enterprise is limited to just 2... Maybe it's an
> omission of the chart?)
How many desktop-type PCs have more than 2 physical processors? Vista's not
a server OS and typically it's servers that have multi CPUs, not desktops.
I think (under correction) that Server 2003 DataCenter supports 64
processors. Server 2008 may support more.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:46e2ab1d@news.povray.org...
> I thought Vista Enterprise *was* the server edition?
You put Vista on a server, you need your head examining. It's a desktop OS.
Isn't Vista Enterprise just the bulk-licence version? Asfaik, Vista Ultimate
is the top for features.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
...
>
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070905comp.htm?iid=pr1_releasepri_20070905m
>
>
> Wahahahahaha!
>
What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
