Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Does XP (HOME) Fully Support (Intel) Core2Duo cpus?

  • 14-01-2008 11:39pm
    #1
    ytareh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭


    There seems to be a big debate about whether its necessary to get XP "PRO" if you have a dual core cpu for full support/utilisation of both cores?Some say Vista is better at using Dual Core cpus but Im sick of it needing at least half if not a full gig of RAM to run and want to change back to XP


Comments

  • #2
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    iirc you must have SP2 to support dual-core on XP Home.


  • #3
    ytareh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭ytareh


    ..yeah but if you have that are you ok then?


  • #4
    Grim.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Grim.


    ytareh wrote: »
    ..yeah but if you have that are you ok then?

    yes


  • #5
    PogMoThoin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    ytareh wrote: »
    ..yeah but if you have that are you ok then?

    It'll run fine, don't worry.


  • #6
    The Real B-man
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭The Real B-man


    Why is it only Xp Home? i have dual cores in work running on win 2000 :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    SickBoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭SickBoy


    The Real B-man wrote: »
    Why is it only Xp Home? i have dual cores in work running on win 2000 :confused:

    Home was designed to only support 1 physical CPU in the begining. It would support 2 logical processors(P4 with HT enabled) but not 2 physical CPUs.
    Pro was designed to support 2 physical CPUs.
    When dual core processors came along it kinda messed up things for M$ so they released a patch for this in SP2.
    Windows 2000 always supported more than 1 physical cpu but didn't handle Hyper Threading very well. I think SP3 or 4 resolved this...


  • #8
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SickBoy wrote: »
    Windows 2000 always supported more than 1 physical cpu but didn't handle Hyper Threading very well. I think SP3 or 4 resolved this...
    Windows 2000 is actually Windows 2000 PRO
    no doubt a HOME version would only support one CPU.

    Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supported up to 32 CPUs and 64 GBs RAM.


  • #9
    SickBoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭SickBoy


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Windows 2000 is actually Windows 2000 PRO
    no doubt a HOME version would only support one CPU.

    Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supported up to 32 CPUs and 64 GBs RAM.

    Indeed but there was never a 'Windows 2000 Home' as far as i know...


  • #10
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    There was no Windows 2000 Home. You have to remember that there are two different streams.

    Consumer: Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> Windows ME > XP Home
    Business: Windows NT (4.0) -> Windows 2000 (5.0) -> XP Pro (5.1)

    They were developed differently. Only in XP did they start to merge and they have merged in Vista (Home is really just Pro crippled). The business stream was designed to handle better hardware including multiple CPUs as NT4 and 2000 were aimed at servers. XP is only 2000 with a new skin - hence the version numbers (2000=5.0, XP=5.1). XP Home replaced the consumer stream with an NT based one but optimised for home computers instead of servers hence only supported HT instead of Dual cores originally. Then they started a new stream for servers with Server 2003.


  • #11
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Macros42 wrote: »
    There was no Windows 2000 Home. You have to remember that there are two different streams.

    Consumer: Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> Windows ME > XP Home
    Business: Windows NT (4.0) -> Windows 2000 (5.0) -> XP Pro (5.1)

    They were developed differently. Only in XP did they start to merge and they have merged in Vista (Home is really just Pro crippled).
    no they merged in 2000 and then split again,
    if only they had released 2000 HOME instead of ME

    2000 PRO was the same as 2000 Server, just a handful of files like HAL.DLL and a few reg settings in the difference. 2000 enterprise was just a similar.

    We are back again to having two very different products, just that instead of Home vs. Desktop + server it's
    Home + Desktop vs. server


  • Advertisement
Advertisement