XP home and dual processors.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thaddeus L Olczyk
  • Start date Start date
T

Thaddeus L Olczyk

I just recommended to a friend looking to upgrade that he look at
Dual CPU machines. Another friend is telling him to avoid it because
XP Home one supports one processor. Is this true?

I'm more of a Linux guy, but I seem to remember that XP Home
was going to support two processors and no more.
 
Thaddeus said:
I just recommended to a friend looking to upgrade that he look at
Dual CPU machines. Another friend is telling him to avoid it because
XP Home one supports one processor. Is this true?

I'm more of a Linux guy, but I seem to remember that XP Home
was going to support two processors and no more.
Click to expand...

XP home is limited to 1 cpu
pro does 2 cpu's

basicly home doesn't do multi anything
no multi cpu
no multi monitor
you can't add it a domain either, workgroup only
 
I just recommended to a friend looking to upgrade that he look at
Dual CPU machines. Another friend is telling him to avoid it because
XP Home one supports one processor. Is this true?

I'm more of a Linux guy, but I seem to remember that XP Home
was going to support two processors and no more.
Click to expand...

It's true, XP Home is a single CPU solution.
For 2, you'll need XP Pro.
 
Geoff said:
XP home is limited to 1 cpu
pro does 2 cpu's

basicly home doesn't do multi anything
no multi cpu
no multi monitor
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Of course you can have two monitors with XP Home. You just made
that up didn't you?

Martin
 
Martin said:
Nonsense. Of course you can have two monitors with XP Home. You just
made that up didn't you?

Martin
Click to expand...

i was qouting what i remember about home from ages ago
come to think i have seeen it do multi monitor
 
Thaddeus L Olczyk said:
I just recommended to a friend looking to upgrade that he look at
Dual CPU machines. Another friend is telling him to avoid it because
XP Home one supports one processor. Is this true?

I'm more of a Linux guy, but I seem to remember that XP Home
was going to support two processors and no more.
Click to expand...

From Microsoft http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.asp

XP Pro will handle 2 CPU's, XP Home does not.

Craig
 
Geoff said:
i was qouting what i remember about home from ages ago
come to think i have seeen it do multi monitor
Click to expand...

I use multi Mon on 98, best upgrade ever, just add a 2nd pci card and away
ya go, im surprised others dont do it, great for surfing and ebay etc.
 
Howdy!

Thaddeus L Olczyk said:
I just recommended to a friend looking to upgrade that he look at
Dual CPU machines. Another friend is telling him to avoid it because
XP Home one supports one processor. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Yep. Although, it DOES support HyperThreading, with SP1a installed.
I'm more of a Linux guy, but I seem to remember that XP Home
was going to support two processors and no more.
Click to expand...

No, that's XP Pro.

RwP
 
You need to look at what he is going to do with the machine. Most home
machines are used for the web, email, Word, Excel, etc. These are all
single thread programs (interrupts are a negligible load). So, more than
one CPU won't make anything faster.

Further, your hard disk is almost always the bottleneck as far as speed
goes -- look at what percent of the time your disk light is on. Multiple
CPUs will make this worse because one CPU will have to sit there tapping its
fingers while the other one is accessing the disk. A faster disk (15,000
RPM from IBM) will minimize the waiting. The right RAID configuration
(striping?) should help. SCSI interface doesn't make the disk turn faster
so it won't help.
 
XP home is limited to 1 cpu
pro does 2 cpu's
Click to expand...

I haven't personally witnessed it, but understand Home will allow
hyperthreading on HT-equipped CPU's, so that might be a good alternative.
 
William said:
You need to look at what he is going to do with the machine. Most
home machines are used for the web, email, Word, Excel, etc. These
are all single thread programs (interrupts are a negligible load).
So, more than one CPU won't make anything faster.

Further, your hard disk is almost always the bottleneck as far as
speed goes -- look at what percent of the time your disk light is
on. Multiple CPUs will make this worse because one CPU will have to
sit there tapping its fingers while the other one is accessing the
disk. A faster disk (15,000 RPM from IBM) will minimize the
waiting. The right RAID configuration (striping?) should help.
SCSI interface doesn't make the disk turn faster so it won't help.
Click to expand...

well, i think you'll struggle to attach a 15000rpm drive without using SCSI
personally...
 
Ric said:
well, i think you'll struggle to attach a 15000rpm drive without using SCSI
personally...
Click to expand...

What does IBM say about their product? How about Western Digital, which
also has a 15,000 RPM EIDE disk.
 
If anybody actually makes a 15k rpm IDE drive, I would be interested it
their model numbers.
 
I thought XP home only supported one CPU, XP pro is the multi CPU support.
But then I am often wrong.

the_gnome
 
Thanks for the search, but they are all SCSI drives.
There were references to a 15k rpm IDE drive in the thread. and that's what
I would like to see a model number for.

15k rpm SCSI drives have been around for years now. AFAIK the highest rpm
for current IDE drives is 10k.

If there really is a 15k rpm IDE drive, I'd like to know who makes it and
what the model number is, so I can buy one.
 
Ric said:
well, i think you'll struggle to attach a 15000rpm drive without using SCSI
personally...
Click to expand...


As kind of a side note...While you're right about 15,000 western digital
has a 10,000 SATA drive, and I'm sure 15,000 isn't too far away.
 
Back
Top