Dual processor support

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Does Windows XP Pro support dual processors? I say it does. Our new computer
manager says "NO" and is removing one processor from all of the systems (we
have 2 Athlon MP 2200+) I have seen a performance decrease in the
applications but he won't take my word for it. I need written proof,
preferably from Microsoft.
 
Xp Pro supports 2 physical CPU's and also supports dual core, XP Home
supports only dual core
 
Steve P. said:
Does Windows XP Pro support dual processors? I say it does. Our new
computer
manager says "NO" and is removing one processor from all of the
systems (we
have 2 Athlon MP 2200+) I have seen a performance decrease in the
applications but he won't take my word for it. I need written proof,
preferably from Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Written proof from Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx
first bullet point.
 
In Steve P. had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
Does Windows XP Pro support dual processors? I say it does. Our new
computer manager says "NO" and is removing one processor from all of
the systems (we have 2 Athlon MP 2200+) I have seen a performance
decrease in the applications but he won't take my word for it. I need
written proof, preferably from Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Seeing as you want it from Microsoft:


Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows
XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not
affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per
processor. 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.

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

--
Galen - MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)
http://dts-l.org/ http://kgiii.info/

"Chance has put in our way a most singular and whimsical problem, and
its solution is its own reward." - Sherlock Holmes
 
=?Utf- said:
Does Windows XP Pro support dual processors? I say it does. Our new computer
manager says "NO" and is removing one processor from all of the systems (we
have 2 Athlon MP 2200+) I have seen a performance decrease in the
applications but he won't take my word for it. I need written proof,
preferably from Microsoft.
Click to expand...

It says so right on the box and on anywhere on the MS site that you find
the specs for XP.

And yes, there is a very noticeable difference in performance between a
single CPU machine and a Dual CPU machine.
 
Steve said:
Does Windows XP Pro support dual processors? I say it does.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course it does. Remember, WinXP Pro is simply the penultimate
OS in the 32-bit WinNT family of operating systems, all of which
supported dual processors in their workstation variants. From :
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/crawford_november26.mspx

"Supporting Dual Processors

Another reason to choose Windows XP Professional is if yours is a
dual–processor system. Some high–end computers, graphics workstations,
and supercharged machines built by gaming or computing enthusiasts have
two processors on the motherboard. How can you tell if your computer has
two processors? You can be fairly certain that if you aren't sure, then
your computer is a single–processor machine. For dual–processor
computers, you'll need to purchase Windows XP Professional instead of
Home Edition to enable the second processor to work."

Our new computer
manager says "NO" and is removing one processor from all of the systems (we
have 2 Athlon MP 2200+)
Click to expand...


Your new computer "manager" is in the wrong line of work, and needs to
go back to McDonalds.

I have seen a performance decrease in the
applications ....
Click to expand...


Well, of course you have. And that's not enough for this idiot?

but he won't take my word for it. I need written proof,
preferably from Microsoft.
Click to expand...


What you really need is a computer manager who can at least spell "PC."


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
 
Steve said:
Does Windows XP Pro support dual processors? I say it does. Our new
computer manager says "NO" and is removing one processor from all of
the systems (we have 2 Athlon MP 2200+) I have seen a performance
decrease in the applications but he won't take my word for it. I need
written proof, preferably from Microsoft.
Click to expand...

That manager should be fired on the spot. Also the stock os cpu's should be
checked for accuracy.

Pop`
 
That manager should be fired on the spot. Also the stock os cpu's should be
checked for accuracy.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the AMD CPU's, but with the Intel the second CPU needs to
be of the same Stepping level or problems can happen, it would be a
total pain to have to pull all heat-sinks in order to determine chip
step level just to be able to start using the second CPU again.
 
'Leythos' wrote:
| Not sure about the AMD CPU's, but with the Intel the second CPU needs to
| be of the same Stepping level or problems can happen, it would be a
| total pain to have to pull all heat-sinks in order to determine chip
| step level just to be able to start using the second CPU again.
_____

Uh, how about 'Intel Processor Identification Utility' and 'AMD CPUID'?
Reported information includes the stepping for CPUs from the respective
manufacturers. Heatsink removal is unnecessary.

Phil Weldon

| In article <#[email protected]>,
| (e-mail address removed) says...
| > Steve P. wrote:
| > > Does Windows XP Pro support dual processors? I say it does. Our new
| > > computer manager says "NO" and is removing one processor from all of
| > > the systems (we have 2 Athlon MP 2200+) I have seen a performance
| > > decrease in the applications but he won't take my word for it. I need
| > > written proof, preferably from Microsoft.
| >
| > That manager should be fired on the spot. Also the stock os cpu's
should be
| > checked for accuracy.
|
| Not sure about the AMD CPU's, but with the Intel the second CPU needs to
| be of the same Stepping level or problems can happen, it would be a
| total pain to have to pull all heat-sinks in order to determine chip
| step level just to be able to start using the second CPU again.
|
| --
|
| (e-mail address removed)
| remove 999 in order to email me
 
'Leythos' wrote:
| Not sure about the AMD CPU's, but with the Intel the second CPU needs to
| be of the same Stepping level or problems can happen, it would be a
| total pain to have to pull all heat-sinks in order to determine chip
| step level just to be able to start using the second CPU again.
_____

Uh, how about 'Intel Processor Identification Utility' and 'AMD CPUID'?
Reported information includes the stepping for CPUs from the respective
manufacturers. Heatsink removal is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

That would be great if it worked and provided info that could be matched
up to the already removed processors and the identification markings on
them.
 
'Leythos' wrote:
| That would be great if it worked and provided info that could be matched
| up to the already removed processors and the identification markings on
| them.
_____

If that's a problem for you, select matched pairs from the installed pool
and select matched pairs from the pulled pool.

Phil Weldon

| In article <[email protected]>,
| (e-mail address removed) says...
| >
| > 'Leythos' wrote:
| > | Not sure about the AMD CPU's, but with the Intel the second CPU needs
to
| > | be of the same Stepping level or problems can happen, it would be a
| > | total pain to have to pull all heat-sinks in order to determine chip
| > | step level just to be able to start using the second CPU again.
| > _____
| >
| > Uh, how about 'Intel Processor Identification Utility' and 'AMD CPUID'?
| > Reported information includes the stepping for CPUs from the respective
| > manufacturers. Heatsink removal is unnecessary.
|
| That would be great if it worked and provided info that could be matched
| up to the already removed processors and the identification markings on
| them.
|
| --
|
| (e-mail address removed)
| remove 999 in order to email me
 
'Leythos' wrote:
| That would be great if it worked and provided info that could be matched
| up to the already removed processors and the identification markings on
| them.
_____

If that's a problem for you, select matched pairs from the installed pool
and select matched pairs from the pulled pool.
Click to expand...

It's not a problem for me, as I'm not stupid enough to remove the Second
CPU from a Dual thinking/claiming that XP won't support Dual CPU's.

What I was suggesting is that, as the Op posted, that the reinstall of
the second CPU might be a total PITA that might lead to unexpected
problems due to different stepping levels and might not show up until
later.

And then there is the problem of HSP (Heat Sink Paste) since we all know
you can't reuse the goop on the chip, the used pad is no longer any
good, and most people don't properly clean and re-paste the CPU/HS when
reinstalling one.
 
'Leythos' wrote:
| It's not a problem for me, as I'm not stupid enough to remove the Second
| CPU from a Dual thinking/claiming that XP won't support Dual CPU's.
|
| What I was suggesting is that, as the Op posted, that the reinstall of
| the second CPU might be a total PITA that might lead to unexpected
| problems due to different stepping levels and might not show up until
| later.
|
| And then there is the problem of HSP (Heat Sink Paste) since we all know
| you can't reuse the goop on the chip, the used pad is no longer any
| good, and most people don't properly clean and re-paste the CPU/HS when
| reinstalling one.
_____

Pardon me, I just assumed you didn't think it through.

Phil Weldon

| In article <[email protected]>,
| (e-mail address removed) says...
| > 'Leythos' wrote:
| > | That would be great if it worked and provided info that could be
matched
| > | up to the already removed processors and the identification markings
on
| > | them.
| > _____
| >
| > If that's a problem for you, select matched pairs from the installed
pool
| > and select matched pairs from the pulled pool.
|
| It's not a problem for me, as I'm not stupid enough to remove the Second
| CPU from a Dual thinking/claiming that XP won't support Dual CPU's.
|
| What I was suggesting is that, as the Op posted, that the reinstall of
| the second CPU might be a total PITA that might lead to unexpected
| problems due to different stepping levels and might not show up until
| later.
|
| And then there is the problem of HSP (Heat Sink Paste) since we all know
| you can't reuse the goop on the chip, the used pad is no longer any
| good, and most people don't properly clean and re-paste the CPU/HS when
| reinstalling one.
|
| --
|
| (e-mail address removed)
| remove 999 in order to email me
 
In Phil Weldon had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
Pardon me, I just assumed you didn't think it through.
Click to expand...

Sorta sorry for stomping in here late. I was in early on but I flag all the
things I respond to in hopes of learning from follow-ups. Leythos almost
always thinks it through. Interesting is my thinking was that they'd
disabled it via BIOS and I never once thought about actually physically
disabling it. When viewed that way, WTF?

--
Galen - MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)
http://dts-l.org/ http://kgiii.info/

"Chance has put in our way a most singular and whimsical problem, and its
solution is its own
reward." - Sherlock Holmes
 
In Phil Weldon had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:


Sorta sorry for stomping in here late. I was in early on but I flag all the
things I respond to in hopes of learning from follow-ups. Leythos almost
always thinks it through. Interesting is my thinking was that they'd
disabled it via BIOS and I never once thought about actually physically
disabling it. When viewed that way, WTF?
Click to expand...

Hey, that's one I might have missed. I wasn't under the impression that
they did a BIOS disable on it, I thought I had read that they removed
the second CPU, so I assumed that meant a physical removal.

If they just disabled it via BIOS, then it would be very easy to enable
it without any effort, but, if you're going to disable a expensive CPU,
it would make more sense to take them out and put them in slower
machines or to put them in new machines (that didn't have a CPU yet), or
to sell them on e-bay.
 
'Leythos' wrote:
| It's not a problem for me, as I'm not stupid enough to remove the Second
| CPU from a Dual thinking/claiming that XP won't support Dual CPU's.
|
| What I was suggesting is that, as the Op posted, that the reinstall of
| the second CPU might be a total PITA that might lead to unexpected
| problems due to different stepping levels and might not show up until
| later.
|
| And then there is the problem of HSP (Heat Sink Paste) since we all know
| you can't reuse the goop on the chip, the used pad is no longer any
| good, and most people don't properly clean and re-paste the CPU/HS when
| reinstalling one.
_____

Pardon me, I just assumed you didn't think it through.
Click to expand...

Phil - we're OK, I did think it through, and almost always think of all
angles before I post, been doing this since 84. The one thing I didn't
think of, that was brought up in a later post, was that they might have
disabled it via BIOS and not actually removed it - but I had thought the
OP posted that it was "removed".
 
In Leythos had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
Hey, that's one I might have missed. I wasn't under the impression that
they did a BIOS disable on it, I thought I had read that they removed
the second CPU, so I assumed that meant a physical removal.

If they just disabled it via BIOS, then it would be very easy to enable
it without any effort, but, if you're going to disable a expensive CPU,
it would make more sense to take them out and put them in slower
machines or to put them in new machines (that didn't have a CPU yet), or
to sell them on e-bay.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine why anyone would want to, what would make someone not double
check before saying XP didn't support it, etc...

Ah well, I suppose they've got plenty of proof now.

--
Galen - MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)
http://dts-l.org/ http://kgiii.info/

"Chance has put in our way a most singular and whimsical problem, and its
solution is its own
reward." - Sherlock Holmes
 
'Galen' wrote:
| Sorta sorry for stomping in here late. I was in early on but I flag all
the
| things I respond to in hopes of learning from follow-ups. Leythos almost
| always thinks it through. Interesting is my thinking was that they'd
| disabled it via BIOS and I never once thought about actually physically
| disabling it. When viewed that way, WTF?Good question.
_____

I guess the stunning stupidity shown by the 'new computer manager' mentioned
in the original post set us all back on our heels.

Phil Weldon

| In | Phil Weldon had this to say:
|
| My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
|
| > Pardon me, I just assumed you didn't think it through.
|
| Sorta sorry for stomping in here late. I was in early on but I flag all
the
| things I respond to in hopes of learning from follow-ups. Leythos almost
| always thinks it through. Interesting is my thinking was that they'd
| disabled it via BIOS and I never once thought about actually physically
| disabling it. When viewed that way, WTF?
|
| --
| Galen - MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)
| http://dts-l.org/ http://kgiii.info/
|
| "Chance has put in our way a most singular and whimsical problem, and its
| solution is its own
| reward." - Sherlock Holmes
|
|
 
'Leythos' wrote:
| Phil - we're OK, I did think it through, and almost always think of all
| angles before I post, been doing this since 84. The one thing I didn't
| think of, that was brought up in a later post, was that they might have
| disabled it via BIOS and not actually removed it - but I had thought the
| OP posted that it was "removed".

I guess the stunning stupidity shown by the 'new computer manager' mentioned
in the original post set us all back on our heels B^)

Phil Weldon
[doing this one way or another since '65]

| In article <[email protected]>,
| (e-mail address removed) says...
| > 'Leythos' wrote:
| > | It's not a problem for me, as I'm not stupid enough to remove the
Second
| > | CPU from a Dual thinking/claiming that XP won't support Dual CPU's.
| > |
| > | What I was suggesting is that, as the Op posted, that the reinstall of
| > | the second CPU might be a total PITA that might lead to unexpected
| > | problems due to different stepping levels and might not show up until
| > | later.
| > |
| > | And then there is the problem of HSP (Heat Sink Paste) since we all
know
| > | you can't reuse the goop on the chip, the used pad is no longer any
| > | good, and most people don't properly clean and re-paste the CPU/HS
when
| > | reinstalling one.
| > _____
| >
| > Pardon me, I just assumed you didn't think it through.
|
| Phil - we're OK, I did think it through, and almost always think of all
| angles before I post, been doing this since 84. The one thing I didn't
| think of, that was brought up in a later post, was that they might have
| disabled it via BIOS and not actually removed it - but I had thought the
| OP posted that it was "removed".
|
| --
|
| (e-mail address removed)
| remove 999 in order to email me
 
Phil Weldon said:
'Galen' wrote:
| Sorta sorry for stomping in here late. I was in early on but I flag all
the
| things I respond to in hopes of learning from follow-ups. Leythos almost
| always thinks it through. Interesting is my thinking was that they'd
| disabled it via BIOS and I never once thought about actually physically
| disabling it. When viewed that way, WTF?Good question.
_____

I guess the stunning stupidity shown by the 'new computer manager'
mentioned
in the original post set us all back on our heels.
Click to expand...


Ever heard of the Peter Principle?
 
Back
Top