If I upgrade to a system with a single Intel Q6600 quad core CPU, what operating system must I use to be able to use all 4 cores?

Is Windows 2000 capable of handling all 4 cores? What about Windows XP Home Edition?

If I upgrade to a system with a single Intel Q6600 quad core CPU, what operating system must I use to be able to use all 4 cores?

Is Windows 2000 capable of handling all 4 cores? What about Windows XP Home Edition?

I think Windows 2000 will fail (limited to 2 cores).

Windows XP Home is fine - here is one of mine.

If I upgrade to a system with a single Intel Q6600 quad core CPU, what operating system must I use to be able to use all 4 cores?

Is Windows 2000 capable of handling all 4 cores? What about Windows XP Home Edition?

Win2k Professional supports only 2 CPUS; you need Win2k server to use 4 CPUS.

If I upgrade to a system with a single Intel Q6600 quad core CPU, what operating system must I use to be able to use all 4 cores?

Is Windows 2000 capable of handling all 4 cores? What about Windows XP Home Edition?

Win2k Professional supports only 2 CPUS; you need Win2k server to use 4 CPUS.

Aren't you confusing cores with actual CPU's? (in seperate sockets) I'm running XPHome which can handle only one socket, but multiple cores is no problem.

---

I have WinXP Home too on my QX6700.. :-)

..will change soon to WinVista Home Basic 64Bit.. ;-)

..fast, faster, 64Bit.. ;-)

---

If I upgrade to a system with a single Intel Q6600 quad core CPU, what operating system must I use to be able to use all 4 cores?

Is Windows 2000 capable of handling all 4 cores? What about Windows XP Home Edition?

Win2k Professional supports only 2 CPUS; you need Win2k server to use 4 CPUS.

Aren't you confusing cores with actual CPU's? (in seperate sockets) I'm running XPHome which can handle only one socket, but multiple cores is no problem.

A long and maybe usefull answer...

Many differences exist between Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional – many of them well-documented. One of the most significant is XP's support for multiple physical processors. As two- and four-processor workstations (not just servers) become more common, whether or not they're supported by the operating system running on them in the first place is critical.
While Windows XP Home does not support more than one physical processor, there's a lot of confusion about whether or not it supports multiple processor cores in a single physical processor. This is implemented in several ways, of which the most widely used is Intel's Hyper-Threading technology. Also, AMD is currently rolling out a series of 64-bit processors called the X2 dual core series, which features two processor cores per die.

How much of this is supported? The answer is all of it -- in XP Professional, and, surprisingly enough, in XP Home as well. If you install XP Home on a system that has a single processor with dual cores or hyper-threading (what is referred to as two logical processors—XP Home will recognize both of them, and will install the appropriate Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to work with it.

However, if you have more than one physical processor (such as two dual-core or Hyper-Threading processors), XP Home will only recognize the first one. Note: If you enable hyper-threading on a machine on which Windows is already installed, the HAL will be automatically upgraded (if it hasn't been already) and you'll be prompted to reboot a second time to finalize those changes.

Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its products is that they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of cores on each processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server 2005, that license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU. Likewise, Windows XP Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores or threading potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets.

;-)

---

I have WinXP Home too on my QX6700.. :-)

..will change soon to WinVista Home Basic 64Bit.. ;-)

..fast, faster, 64Bit.. ;-)

From what I have read you need to max out your motherboards ram for 64bit vista, and don't forget that there are no drivers for 64bit version as it does not allow you to install drivers unless it is digitally signed.

The only reason to upgrade to vista is DX10. If you want max crunch for the cpu stick to XP and remove all the unwanted services


LINK


This site gives you a good description of all services running on XP,

just click

start

run

type services.msc

hit return

This gives you a list of all the services and you can set them to automatic, manual or disable on startup.

---

Click below to see my werewolf

How about Windows 2000 Professional? I think I read somewhere that 2000 Pro does not support hyperthreading. But does it support dual core chips from both Intel and AMD?

How about Windows 2000 Professional? I think I read somewhere that 2000 Pro does not support hyperthreading. But does it support dual core chips from both Intel and AMD?

Win2k pro is good for dual core, but not a quad.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

How about Windows 2000 Professional? I think I read somewhere that 2000 Pro does not support hyperthreading. But does it support dual core chips from both Intel and AMD?

Windows 2000 does support Hyperthreading. As far as the OS is concerned, an HT-enabled CPU is no different than a multi-CPU or multicore CPU, so it is supported just the same.

---

If I upgrade to a system with a single Intel Q6600 quad core CPU, what operating system must I use to be able to use all 4 cores?

Is Windows 2000 capable of handling all 4 cores? What about Windows XP Home Edition?

Or there is Linux and you can simply run as many cores as you wish with that.

(No cores/sockets Windows confusions either...)

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Aren't you confusing cores with actual CPU's? (in seperate sockets) I'm running XPHome which can handle only one socket, but multiple cores is no problem.

No, Windows 2000 was released well before the recognition of cores vs. sockets in the OS code. Micro$oft didn't make this license (and OS code support) until 2004 to work with XP specifically.
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

Windows 2000 Professional will only recognize 2 CPUS/Cores/HT, no more.