Multiple CPU support - more than 2 CPUs

Will XP ever support more than two CPUs? I am not talking about CPUs with
dual cores, I mean physical CPUs. I know that the flavors of Windows 200x
Server supports more than two CPUs, but I am looking for something that does
not have all of the overhead of them; ie client access etc.

Keith

In article <A0C022DE-AE15-4B2D-8C72-6CCB603C7F02@microsoft.com>,
c5blownstroker@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Will XP ever support more than two CPUs? I am not talking about CPUs with
> dual cores, I mean physical CPUs. I know that the flavors of Windows 200x
> Server supports more than two CPUs, but I am looking for something that does
> not have all of the overhead of them; ie client access etc.

If you have more than 2 CPU's then you want the overhead (which is
performance related) of a real Server OS that fully utilizes those
CPU's.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Keith;
I doubt you will see that at all with Windows XP.
If ever my guess is it may be in the next generation OS following longhorn.
But for now, if that is what you want from Microsoft, you want a server OS.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"c5blownstroker" <c5blownstroker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C022DE-AE15-4B2D-8C72-6CCB603C7F02@microsoft.com...
> Will XP ever support more than two CPUs? I am not talking about CPUs with
> dual cores, I mean physical CPUs. I know that the flavors of Windows 200x
> Server supports more than two CPUs, but I am looking for something that
> does
> not have all of the overhead of them; ie client access etc.
>
> Keith

If the OS can handle two, then there is no reason why it can not handle 4, 8,
16, etc other than the fact that that limitation has been hardwired. Maybe I
am just confused with the defiantions of 'Workstation' and 'Server'. I
really do nto see any reason why a 'Workstation' can not handle more than two
CPUs.

Keith

"Leythos" wrote:
>
> If you have more than 2 CPU's then you want the overhead (which is
> performance related) of a real Server OS that fully utilizes those
> CPU's.
>

Unfortunately, that is what I was thinking. I am just having a hard time
swallowing the price for a copy of Windows 200x Server. I guess I just need
a little sugar to help with the $500ish cost differential between XP and
Windows 200X to turn on functionality that is already there in XP, but turned
off.........

Keith

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:

> Keith;
> I doubt you will see that at all with Windows XP.
> If ever my guess is it may be in the next generation OS following longhorn.
> But for now, if that is what you want from Microsoft, you want a server OS.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>

In article <F29FA9AF-7853-40AB-AFFB-8E51E0A601BC@microsoft.com>,
c5blownstroker@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Unfortunately, that is what I was thinking. I am just having a hard time
> swallowing the price for a copy of Windows 200x Server. I guess I just need
> a little sugar to help with the $500ish cost differential between XP and
> Windows 200X to turn on functionality that is already there in XP, but turned
> off.........

What makes you think it's ALREADY THERE, but turned off?

There are also major differences between a High-End workstation
motherboard and a Server board, and that can add significant cost to the
hardware. While some small servers could easily run on a high-end
workstation board, the reliability is "sometimes" anywhere near that of
a Server board.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

"c5blownstroker" wrote:
> Will XP ever support more than two CPUs? I am not talking about CPUs with
> dual cores, I mean physical CPUs. I know that the flavors of Windows 200x
> Server supports more than two CPUs, but I am looking for something that does
> not have all of the overhead of them; ie client access etc.

What overhead - in functionality or price tag ?
--PA

>
> Keith
>

If I were you I would chose Windows 2000 server since it is very close
to Windows 2000 Workstation. XP Pro and Windows 2003 are completely
different animals. Also Windows Server Standard only handles up to 4
CPUs unless you but the higher end versions. The biggest problem though
will be hardware. You're not going to find a quad processor workstation
board. Quad processor Server board are damn expensive too. They will
also not include Graphic port slots even if you found one the would be
no SLI support. You best bet at the moment is to go Dual core Dual AMD®
Opteron ™Processors system. Like the Gigabyte GA-2CEWH or the Tyan
Thunder K8WE (S2895)that have True Dual PCI-E x 16 slots.

Even if MS came out with a Quad CPU version of their Workstation OS you
going to find a hard time finding MBs to support them. Few people use
Dual CPU system now because of cost. With Dual and Multi-Core CPUs
coming out this my even make that number less. Intel may have Quad cores
out by 2008.

By the way if your having trouble justifying the $400 to $500 extra for
MS server software how can you justify the Extra $600+ for a Quad CPU
MB? I'm up to $3000+ just for a Dual core Dual AMD® Opteron ™Processors
system with just a MB, 2 CPUs, 4GB Ram, a Case and 80GB HDD. I still
need to get a PSU. Then I need to figure out what kind of HDD controller
for my Raid 5 array I want and buy the drives for that.

If you really need just the Workstation and not the server because of
the overhead that the server uses. Talk to M$ or one of their partner's
and they make be able to make a custom version of XP Pro for you. Of
course it will cost you $$. This is one reason I said to Look a Windows
2000. This is from Memory and I think it applies to 2000 and not NT 4.
If I remember right the diffence between the Workstation and Server on
NT4 and like I believe 2000 was very little. Again if I remember right
there were hacks to the Workstation OS to turn it into a server. Don't
remember if this unlocked the CPU limit though. Recommend doing a google
search.


c5blownstroker wrote:
> Will XP ever support more than two CPUs? I am not talking about CPUs with
> dual cores, I mean physical CPUs. I know that the flavors of Windows 200x
> Server supports more than two CPUs, but I am looking for something that does
> not have all of the overhead of them; ie client access etc.
>
> Keith
>

Peter Parker wrote:

> Even if MS came out with a Quad CPU version of their Workstation OS you
> going to find a hard time finding MBs to support them. Few people use
> Dual CPU system now because of cost. With Dual and Multi-Core CPUs
> coming out this my even make that number less. Intel may have Quad cores
> out by 2008.

True.

Back in the (good old) P3 days, dual CPU motherboards were relatively
cheap because SMP-capable P3 processors do their own bus arbitration
without requiring chipset support - so dual motherboards could use
standard workstation chipsets. P4 processors don't support bus
arbitration, so specialised chipsets are required to support more than
one physical processor.

Sunny

Yeah and P3's didn't have hyperthreading or multicores either. The more
performance stuffed into the CPU, the more external components required to
control it and allow the OS to fully utilize its capabilities.

--

Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service

Google is your Friend
http://www.google.com
"Sunny" <sunny@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%jIof.3835$El.370482@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Peter Parker wrote:
>
>> Even if MS came out with a Quad CPU version of their Workstation OS you
>> going to find a hard time finding MBs to support them. Few people use
>> Dual CPU system now because of cost. With Dual and Multi-Core CPUs coming
>> out this my even make that number less. Intel may have Quad cores out by
>> 2008.
>
> True.
>
> Back in the (good old) P3 days, dual CPU motherboards were relatively
> cheap because SMP-capable P3 processors do their own bus arbitration
> without requiring chipset support - so dual motherboards could use
> standard workstation chipsets. P4 processors don't support bus
> arbitration, so specialised chipsets are required to support more than one
> physical processor.
>
> Sunny
>