Processor question

[Ext User(Brian Wescombe)]

For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count as
one or two physical processors? How about an Extreme Edition with both
dual-core and HT technology? Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4 processors?
Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?

Thanks in advance

[Ext User(Conor)]

In article <pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Brian Wescombe
says...
> For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count as
> one or two physical processors?

Yes.

> How about an Extreme Edition with both
> dual-core and HT technology?

Yes.
Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4 processors?
> Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
>
No. You need Pro.


--
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

[Ext User(Biffa Bacon \(mobile\))]

"Brian Wescombe" <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count as
> one or two physical processors? How about an Extreme Edition with both
> dual-core and HT technology? Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4
> processors? Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
> Thanks in advance

DualCore = 1 Physical Processor (2 Logical Processors)

See http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

--
Cheerz - Brownz
http://www.brownz.org/

[Ext User(Dr Zoidberg)]

Conor wrote:
> In article <pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Brian Wescombe
> says...
>> For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor
>> count as one or two physical processors?
>
> Yes.

Yes 1 or Yes 2?


--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

[Ext User(Rob Morley)]

In article <3qnldnFfmbugU1@individual.net>, AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!
@drzoidberg.co.uk says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Brian Wescombe
> > says...
> >> For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor
> >> count as one or two physical processors?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Yes 1 or Yes 2?
>
Yes :-)

[Ext User(Odie Ferrous)]

"Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
>
> "Brian Wescombe" <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> > For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count as
> > one or two physical processors? How about an Extreme Edition with both
> > dual-core and HT technology? Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4
> > processors? Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
> > Thanks in advance
>
> DualCore = 1 Physical Processor (2 Logical Processors)
>
> See http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx


For their licencing purposes, yes; but XP Home won't take advantage of
the two physical CPUs in a dual-core processor.

There are physically 2 CPUs in there...


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

[Ext User(John Jordan)]

Odie Ferrous wrote:
>
> For their licencing purposes, yes; but XP Home won't take advantage of
> the two physical CPUs in a dual-core processor.
>
> There are physically 2 CPUs in there...

From the OS's point of view, there's little difference between two
physical CPUs and a single HT CPU. Windows 2000 worked (badly) with HT
even though it wasn't written for it.

IIRC both AMD and Intel set the HT bit on their dual-core CPUs to enable
support on XP Home. I think XP Home is still limited to a maximum of two
logical cores though, so you'd need XP Pro for full support of the 840XE.


--
John Jordan

[Ext User(Biffa Bacon \(mobile\))]

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4346ACD8.AE6B69DC@hotmail.com...
> "Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
>>
>> "Brian Wescombe" <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
>> news:pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> > For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count
>> > as
>> > one or two physical processors? How about an Extreme Edition with both
>> > dual-core and HT technology? Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4
>> > processors? Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
>> > Thanks in advance
>> DualCore = 1 Physical Processor (2 Logical Processors)
>> See http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
> For their licencing purposes, yes; but XP Home won't take advantage of
> the two physical CPUs in a dual-core processor.

Yup, we know that.

> There are physically 2 CPUs in there..

Well, depends how you word it.

There are two seperate execution cores each with their own independant bus
in the same physical package - which I'll always call the CPU - tomatos
tomaitoes ;-)

PS - Cheerz for the tip about the tape drive repair guy, I've passed his
details on to our service buyer.

--
Cheerz - Brownz
http://www.brownz.org/

[Ext User(Brian Wescombe)]

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db0a6669ebe51f298af62@news.individual.ne t...
> In article <pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Brian Wescombe
> says...
>> For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count as
>> one or two physical processors?
>
> Yes.
>
>> How about an Extreme Edition with both
>> dual-core and HT technology?
>
> Yes.
> Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4 processors?
>> Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
>>
> No. You need Pro.

Presumably then I'd also need Vista 'Ultimate Edition' rather than 'Home
Premium' in order to support a dual-core?

[Ext User(Alex Fraser)]

"Brian Wescombe" <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:i1B1f.4663$qR5.2478@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1db0a6669ebe51f298af62@news.individual.ne t...
> > In article <pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Brian Wescombe
> > says...
> >> For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count
> >> as one or two physical processors?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> How about an Extreme Edition with both
> >> dual-core and HT technology?
> >
> > Yes.
> > Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4 processors?
> >> Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
> >>
> > No. You need Pro.
>
> Presumably then I'd also need Vista 'Ultimate Edition' rather than 'Home
> Premium' in order to support a dual-core?

The restrictions are essentially arbitrary; a licensing issue. The case for
one piece of software (that includes an OS) has no inherent bearing on any
other, though the OS must support the hardware configuration for other
software to be able to make full use of it.

Alex

[Ext User(Johannes)]

"Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
>
> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4346ACD8.AE6B69DC@hotmail.com...
> > "Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Brian Wescombe" <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> >> news:pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> >> > For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor count
> >> > as
> >> > one or two physical processors? How about an Extreme Edition with both
> >> > dual-core and HT technology? Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4
> >> > processors? Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
> >> > Thanks in advance
> >> DualCore = 1 Physical Processor (2 Logical Processors)
> >> See http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
> > For their licencing purposes, yes; but XP Home won't take advantage of
> > the two physical CPUs in a dual-core processor.
>
> Yup, we know that.
>
> > There are physically 2 CPUs in there..
>
> Well, depends how you word it.
>
> There are two seperate execution cores each with their own independant bus
> in the same physical package - which I'll always call the CPU - tomatos
> tomaitoes ;-)

CPU = Central Processing Unit.
^^^^
Why does it matter if they are on the same or different chip? Old mainframe
computers didn't even have chips. There are still two physical processors
or units that can execute independent streams of instructions.

[Ext User(Jaimie Vandenbergh)]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:56:47 GMT, Johannes
<johs@slap-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
>>


>> > There are physically 2 CPUs in there..
>>
>> Well, depends how you word it.
>>
>> There are two seperate execution cores each with their own independant bus
>> in the same physical package - which I'll always call the CPU - tomatos
>> tomaitoes ;-)
>
>CPU = Central Processing Unit.
> ^^^^
>Why does it matter if they are on the same or different chip? Old mainframe
>computers didn't even have chips. There are still two physical processors
>or units that can execute independent streams of instructions.

True but unimportant - remember we're talking about Microsoft
licensing here, not about anything technical (or even related to the
real world).

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
states that a dual-core chip counts as one "processor" for Windows
licensing purposes. It implies heavily that this means XP Home will
use both cores of a dual-core chip, since that's one processor
_under_their_definition_.

"Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless
of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home
supports one processor."

Certainly XP Home can use "both" cores of a hyperthreaded chip, which
is nearly the same thing. What you actually see in Task Manager is
CPU's 0 and 1, but terminological consistency has never been a MS
priority.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"... you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of
poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful,
authoritarian organisation to do it." - Vice-Pope Eric

[Ext User(Johannes)]

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:56:47 GMT, Johannes
> <johs@slap-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
> >>
>
> >> > There are physically 2 CPUs in there..
> >>
> >> Well, depends how you word it.
> >>
> >> There are two seperate execution cores each with their own independant bus
> >> in the same physical package - which I'll always call the CPU - tomatos
> >> tomaitoes ;-)
> >
> >CPU = Central Processing Unit.
> > ^^^^
> >Why does it matter if they are on the same or different chip? Old mainframe
> >computers didn't even have chips. There are still two physical processors
> >or units that can execute independent streams of instructions.
>
> True but unimportant - remember we're talking about Microsoft
> licensing here, not about anything technical (or even related to the
> real world).
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
> states that a dual-core chip counts as one "processor" for Windows
> licensing purposes. It implies heavily that this means XP Home will
> use both cores of a dual-core chip, since that's one processor
> _under_their_definition_.
>
> "Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless
> of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home
> supports one processor."
>
> Certainly XP Home can use "both" cores of a hyperthreaded chip, which
> is nearly the same thing. What you actually see in Task Manager is
> CPU's 0 and 1, but terminological consistency has never been a MS
> priority.

OK, but this is a narrow definition for Microsoft licensing purposes.
Unlike 'Biffa Bacon' who generalises this to: " - which I'll always
call the CPU ", which is silly IMO.

[Ext User(Biffa Bacón)]

"Johannes" <johs@smash-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote in message
news:434BF525.BC2BCDA7@smash-spam-sizefitter.com...
> Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:56:47 GMT, Johannes
>> <johs@slap-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote:
>> >"Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
>> >> > There are physically 2 CPUs in there..
>> >> Well, depends how you word it.
>> >> There are two seperate execution cores each with their own independant
>> >> bus
>> >> in the same physical package - which I'll always call the CPU -
>> >> tomatos
>> >> tomaitoes ;-)
>> >CPU = Central Processing Unit.
>> > ^^^^
>> >Why does it matter if they are on the same or different chip? Old
>> >mainframe
>> >computers didn't even have chips. There are still two physical
>> >processors
>> >or units that can execute independent streams of instructions.
>> True but unimportant - remember we're talking about Microsoft
>> licensing here, not about anything technical (or even related to the
>> real world).
>> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
>> states that a dual-core chip counts as one "processor" for Windows
>> licensing purposes. It implies heavily that this means XP Home will
>> use both cores of a dual-core chip, since that's one processor
>> _under_their_definition_.
>> "Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless
>> of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home
>> supports one processor."
>> Certainly XP Home can use "both" cores of a hyperthreaded chip, which
>> is nearly the same thing. What you actually see in Task Manager is
>> CPU's 0 and 1, but terminological consistency has never been a MS
>> priority.
> OK, but this is a narrow definition for Microsoft licensing purposes.
> Unlike 'Biffa Bacon' who generalises this to: " - which I'll always
> call the CPU ", which is silly IMO.

Ahh , ok, so if you went and bought a boxed product processor off the shelf
from your local store or online supplier, then you wouldn't think to look in
the "CPU" section for a Dual Core Processor then ?

You know, that little square thing that sits in the middle of your PC, made
by Intel or AMD, what would you call that then if its not a CPU ??

"Define Silly ?"

[Ext User(Biffa Bacón)]

"Johannes" <johs@slap-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote in message
news:43486B51.96432136@slap-spam-sizefitter.com...
> "Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
>> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4346ACD8.AE6B69DC@hotmail.com...
>> > "Biffa Bacon (mobile)" wrote:
>> >> "Brian Wescombe" <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:pRr1f.11558$4Q.2175@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> >> > For the purposes of Windows XP, does a dual-core Intel processor
>> >> > count
>> >> > as
>> >> > one or two physical processors? How about an Extreme Edition with
>> >> > both
>> >> > dual-core and HT technology? Would that be classed as 1, 2 or 4
>> >> > processors? Does Home Edition of XP support these types of CPUs?
>> >> > Thanks in advance
>> >> DualCore = 1 Physical Processor (2 Logical Processors)
>> >> See http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
>> > For their licencing purposes, yes; but XP Home won't take advantage of
>> > the two physical CPUs in a dual-core processor.
>> Yup, we know that.
>> > There are physically 2 CPUs in there..
>> Well, depends how you word it.
>> There are two seperate execution cores each with their own independant
>> bus
>> in the same physical package - which I'll always call the CPU - tomatos
>> tomaitoes ;-)
> CPU = Central Processing Unit.
> ^^^^
> Why does it matter if they are on the same or different chip? Old
> mainframe
> computers didn't even have chips. There are still two physical processors
> or units that can execute independent streams of instructions.

Wooo, old mainframe computers, I don't think that's what we're talking about
here is it ?
Take a look at the date you've scribed into the cell wall mate - check the
decade we're living in, and then come back with an up to date answer based
on the products asked about in the OP.

[Ext User(Jaimie Vandenbergh)]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:26:36 GMT, "Biffa Bacón" <biffa@bacon.net>
wrote:

>Wooo, old mainframe computers, I don't think that's what we're talking about
>here is it ?

No, we're talking about Windows licensing issues. So we have to use
Miscrosoft's definition of a "processor" (in quotes, cos it certainly
isn't one I'd use normally).

But don't bitch - MS are being surprisingly generous here, allowing
you more CPU's (your definition) in a cheaper Windows.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"How to Stop the System for Recovery Purposes"
- chapter heading, Sun Microsystems System Administration Guide

[Ext User(GSV Three Minds in a Can)]

Bitstring <0b90l1hj05d3cvbtpqus5o85o93kiern4n@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> said
>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:26:36 GMT, "Biffa Bacón" <biffa@bacon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Wooo, old mainframe computers, I don't think that's what we're talking about
>>here is it ?
>
>No, we're talking about Windows licensing issues. So we have to use
>Miscrosoft's definition of a "processor" (in quotes, cos it certainly
>isn't one I'd use normally).
>
>But don't bitch - MS are being surprisingly generous here, allowing
>you more CPU's (your definition) in a cheaper Windows.

I don't think they had any choice really, since XP Home was limited to
one processor .. once the X2s and Pentium Ds appeared it was either
force everyone to XP Pro (and then pick the bones out of the resulting
'gee I seem to have EFS'd all my files' and 'Help, I've secured
everything against everyone') or else treat the X2s as a single
processor (and they'd already started down that route with
Hyperthreading) or retroactively change licensing on every XP Home out
in the field .. sell upgrades for 'Home to Home X2'. Nah, they actually
went with the sensible option, amazing as that seems.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.