That's not true. You used to have XP Pro to work with dual CPU
configurations, but XP Home with SP2 can cope with dual core without a
problem (it could also handle Hyperthreading, which acts as dual CPU as
well).
The fact that XP predates dual core is not very true either. XP is properly
mujlti-threaded, so it will be able to use the second core very well. It
will also schedule different processes to different core to balance the load
a bit. You do not need to wait for Vista for that benefit.

There are a few other things that can explain the fact that it does not seem
that much faster:
- A lot of software is not optimised for dual CPU or dual core operation. In
effect, the software will only ue one core, and thus it will not appear to
run fast. Especially games do not use the second core. Most 'professional'
software and recent consumer derivates are prepared for more than one core
(examples: Photoshop / PS elements, Premiere and premiere elements, visual
studio, etc.).
- AMD CPUs benefit a lot of the AMD CPU driver (get it at www.amd.com).
- A dual core CPU will benefit a lot of dual channel memory, it needs the
added bandwidth.

By the way, you should notice speed improvements when you run multiple tasks
at the same time, that's when the second core really comes into play.

Enjoy your new rig.

"kenny" <nope@at.all> wrote in message
news:e6s9ghzAGHA.984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> you need windows XP pro for a dual core to work.. also you will either
> have to do a clean install (if you have not already done that) or do a
> repair installation so
> that the correct HIVE is loaded for the dual core.
>
>
> "Chelsea" <gallium1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Om6h8ZxAGHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Dual channel memory is a bit more expensive than single channel and is
>> installed as pairs which should have been pre-tested as a combination.
>> Windows XP was written before dual core architecture became a reality. I
>> think I'm right in saying that XP doesn't take much advantage of
>> it-you'll need to wait for Windows Vista for that.
>>
>> Chelsea
>>
>> "Ozvideo" <ozvideo@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:ONEjnmsAGHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>I recently had a new motherboard & a dual core processor installed. I
>>>also went from 512MG Ram to 1 GB. I can't see any improvement in speed
>>>when doing things like rendering video ETC.
>>>
>>> As I boot up I notice that one of the things that goes flashing by
>>> are the words 'memory runs at single channel'. I'm not certain exactly
>>> just what this means but I was under the impression that my motherboard
>>> was a dual channel. So it occurred to me that there may have been
>>> things in BIOS or elsewhere that wasn't altered but should have been to
>>> alter. Could this be the case?
>>> --
>>> Thanks in advance
>>
>>
>
>