Box restarting with Windows XP & Hyperthreading

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
Hyperthreading.

They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
because it's an OEM version.

I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
anyone help me please?
10 answers Last reply
More about restarting windows hyperthreading
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    --
    Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    www.coribright.com

    "Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    > My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    > found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    > there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    > Hyperthreading.
    >
    > They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    > needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    > on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    > because it's an OEM version.
    >
    > I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    > anyone help me please?
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    As a side note;

    Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one of
    the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit by
    having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
    handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that signaling
    is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is somewhere in
    the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded instances of up to
    17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is better to leave HT off. HT
    is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel, and it really does not
    benefit the average user. The techs actually did you a favor by turning it
    off. Before you lamers and flamers start responding, be aware that I also
    own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based
    systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No
    need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.

    Bobby

    "Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    > --
    > Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    > www.coribright.com
    >
    > "Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    > news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    >> My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    >> found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    >> there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    >> Hyperthreading.
    >>
    >> They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    >> needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    >> on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    >> because it's an OEM version.
    >>
    >> I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    >> anyone help me please?
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    NoNoBadDog,

    You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading will
    depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied more
    so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice the
    difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same time, some
    active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a respected website
    with factual information. This link
    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
    Hyperthreading.

    Nospam

    "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > As a side note;
    >
    > Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one of
    > the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit by
    > having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
    > handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
    > signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
    > somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
    > instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is better
    > to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel, and
    > it really does not benefit the average user. The techs actually did you a
    > favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and flamers start responding,
    > be aware that I also own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I
    > also own AMD based systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not
    > "Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate
    > "Intel Rocks" feelings.
    >
    > Bobby
    >
    > "Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    >> --
    >> Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    >> www.coribright.com
    >>
    >> "Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    >> news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    >>> My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    >>> found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    >>> there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    >>> Hyperthreading.
    >>>
    >>> They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    >>> needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    >>> on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    >>> because it's an OEM version.
    >>>
    >>> I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    >>> anyone help me please?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    I sympathize with you and wish I had an answer. Have you contacted MS
    support via the web? I cannot really agree about the multitasking
    improvements with HT turned on (I have never seen any REAL improvement on
    any of the HT machines I work with). If you are happy with the performance
    you get with HT enabled, then I agree that you should expect it to work
    correctly. As far as future software, I doubt more will be compiled for HT.
    as we move more and more towards the x64 world, Hypertransport will replace
    HT (Yes, even on Intel x86 based consumer chips). Code does not have to be
    recompiled to take advantage of Hypertransport. I think HT will die a quiet
    death, and be remembered as one of many failed attempts at squeezing more
    speed or power out of an already overtaxed 586 architecture. I will still
    stand by my original statement that you will see better overall performance
    with HT off, and that HT will eventually fade away.

    Bobby

    "Nospam" <nospam@fu.com> wrote in message
    news:1iHVc.416$S97.381@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
    > NoNoBadDog,
    >
    > You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading will
    > depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied
    > more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice
    > the difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same
    > time, some active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a
    > respected website with factual information. This link
    > http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
    > Hyperthreading.
    >
    > Nospam
    >
    > "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    > news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >> As a side note;
    >>
    >> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
    >> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit
    >> by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the
    >> proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
    >> signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
    >> somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
    >> instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is
    >> better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for
    >> Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
    >> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
    >> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system, and
    >> I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are very
    >> worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have
    >> hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
    >>
    >> Bobby
    >>
    >> "Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>> Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    >>> --
    >>> Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    >>> www.coribright.com
    >>>
    >>> "Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    >>>> My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    >>>> found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    >>>> there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    >>>> Hyperthreading.
    >>>>
    >>>> They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    >>>> needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    >>>> on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    >>>> because it's an OEM version.
    >>>>
    >>>> I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    >>>> anyone help me please?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
    when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
    been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
    differences between these two:
    Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
    New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html

    As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
    has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
    the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
    no problems after this point.

    ----
    Nathan McNulty


    Nospam wrote:
    > NoNoBadDog,
    >
    > You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading will
    > depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied more
    > so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice the
    > difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same time, some
    > active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a respected website
    > with factual information. This link
    > http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
    > Hyperthreading.
    >
    > Nospam
    >
    > "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    > news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >
    >>As a side note;
    >>
    >> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one of
    >>the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit by
    >>having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
    >>handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
    >>signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
    >>somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
    >>instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is better
    >>to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel, and
    >>it really does not benefit the average user. The techs actually did you a
    >>favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and flamers start responding,
    >>be aware that I also own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I
    >>also own AMD based systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not
    >>"Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate
    >>"Intel Rocks" feelings.
    >>
    >>Bobby
    >>
    >>"Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    >>news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    >>>--
    >>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    >>>www.coribright.com
    >>>
    >>>"Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    >>>
    >>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    >>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    >>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    >>>>Hyperthreading.
    >>>>
    >>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    >>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    >>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    >>>>because it's an OEM version.
    >>>>
    >>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    >>>>anyone help me please?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Nathan;

    I agree that there has been some progress with HT, but with AMD and Intel
    migrating to Hypertransport for the x86, I see little potential for further
    development of HT. The advantage of Hypertransport is that it does not
    require that software be recompiled to use it. Intel has confirmed that
    it's x86 extensions will conform to the standards developed by AMD, and
    Hyperthreading is one of those standards.

    I still maintain that unless you are a "power user" and you use
    predominantly those apps that currently work with HT, then it is probably
    better to have HT disabled. For the majority of people, who buy their
    computer to do email, VIM, surf the web, d/l music and make CDs, then Ht is
    definitely not needed.

    If you remember the introduction of the NetBurst P5 architecture, we were
    promised that by this point in time we would be using 10 GHz processors.
    But the engineers quickly learned the limitations of the 586 die, which is
    why we have been stuck at the 3 Ghz level for so long. HT was supposed to
    be another tool to squeeze out a little more performance, and the idea and
    intentions are good, but the software developers were not exactly chomping
    at the bit to recompile their code. Perhaps if HT had been introduced early
    in the development of the Pentium 4 (586) strategy, then it could have been
    much more successful. As it stands, HT is pretty much a moot issue, as is
    the Pentium 4. It is time to move on to other architectures (PCI express,
    Hyperthreading, x86 64 bit processing, etc).

    Please note that I do own HT procs myself, and I am not bashing it. I
    just think it's value has been blown completely out of proportion. I wish
    it could have lived up to it's promise.

    Bobby

    "Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:u$h1%23dAiEHA.356@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
    > when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
    > been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
    > differences between these two:
    > Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
    > New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
    >
    > As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
    > has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter the
    > BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have no
    > problems after this point.
    >
    > ----
    > Nathan McNulty
    >
    >
    > Nospam wrote:
    >> NoNoBadDog,
    >>
    >> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
    >> will depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be
    >> complied more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I
    >> definitely notice the difference on my PC since I have several apps
    >> running at the same time, some active, some in the background. Tom's
    >> Hardware Guide is a respected website with factual information. This
    >> link http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
    >> Hyperthreading.
    >>
    >> Nospam
    >>
    >> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    >> news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >>>As a side note;
    >>>
    >>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
    >>> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance
    >>> hit by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and
    >>> the proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way
    >>> that signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance
    >>> hit is somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been
    >>> recorded instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases,
    >>> it is better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool
    >>> for Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
    >>> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
    >>> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system,
    >>> and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are very
    >>> worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have
    >>> hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
    >>>
    >>>Bobby
    >>>
    >>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>>
    >>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    >>>>--
    >>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    >>>>www.coribright.com
    >>>>
    >>>>"Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    >>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    >>>>
    >>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    >>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    >>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    >>>>>Hyperthreading.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    >>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    >>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    >>>>>because it's an OEM version.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    >>>>>anyone help me please?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Please note that the 4th to the last sentence should have read
    Hypertransport versus Hyperthreading. I apologize for not checking more
    thoroughly before sending.

    Bobby

    "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    news:uQN0TsAiEHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > Nathan;
    >
    > I agree that there has been some progress with HT, but with AMD and Intel
    > migrating to Hypertransport for the x86, I see little potential for
    > further development of HT. The advantage of Hypertransport is that it
    > does not require that software be recompiled to use it. Intel has
    > confirmed that it's x86 extensions will conform to the standards developed
    > by AMD, and Hyperthreading is one of those standards.
    >
    > I still maintain that unless you are a "power user" and you use
    > predominantly those apps that currently work with HT, then it is probably
    > better to have HT disabled. For the majority of people, who buy their
    > computer to do email, VIM, surf the web, d/l music and make CDs, then Ht
    > is definitely not needed.
    >
    > If you remember the introduction of the NetBurst P5 architecture, we were
    > promised that by this point in time we would be using 10 GHz processors.
    > But the engineers quickly learned the limitations of the 586 die, which is
    > why we have been stuck at the 3 Ghz level for so long. HT was supposed to
    > be another tool to squeeze out a little more performance, and the idea and
    > intentions are good, but the software developers were not exactly chomping
    > at the bit to recompile their code. Perhaps if HT had been introduced
    > early in the development of the Pentium 4 (586) strategy, then it could
    > have been much more successful. As it stands, HT is pretty much a moot
    > issue, as is the Pentium 4. It is time to move on to other architectures
    > (PCI express, Hyperthreading, x86 64 bit processing, etc).
    >
    > Please note that I do own HT procs myself, and I am not bashing it. I
    > just think it's value has been blown completely out of proportion. I wish
    > it could have lived up to it's promise.
    >
    > Bobby
    >
    > "Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:u$h1%23dAiEHA.356@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
    >> when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
    >> been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
    >> differences between these two:
    >> Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
    >> New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
    >>
    >> As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
    >> has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
    >> the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
    >> no problems after this point.
    >>
    >> ----
    >> Nathan McNulty
    >>
    >>
    >> Nospam wrote:
    >>> NoNoBadDog,
    >>>
    >>> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
    >>> will depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be
    >>> complied more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I
    >>> definitely notice the difference on my PC since I have several apps
    >>> running at the same time, some active, some in the background. Tom's
    >>> Hardware Guide is a respected website with factual information. This
    >>> link http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
    >>> Hyperthreading.
    >>>
    >>> Nospam
    >>>
    >>> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >>>
    >>>>As a side note;
    >>>>
    >>>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
    >>>> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance
    >>>> hit by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and
    >>>> the proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way
    >>>> that signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance
    >>>> hit is somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been
    >>>> recorded instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases,
    >>>> it is better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool
    >>>> for Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
    >>>> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
    >>>> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system,
    >>>> and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are
    >>>> very worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if
    >>>> I have hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
    >>>>
    >>>>Bobby
    >>>>
    >>>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    >>>>>--
    >>>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    >>>>>www.coribright.com
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    >>>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    >>>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    >>>>>>Hyperthreading.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    >>>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    >>>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    >>>>>>because it's an OEM version.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    >>>>>>anyone help me please?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Hey Nathan-

    Do you have some info on improvements to HT
    in XP2 that aren't covered in MSKB 811113?

    The stuff I see there isn't very dramatic...

    Just wondering.

    -v

    "Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:u$h1%23dAiEHA.356@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
    > when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
    > been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
    > differences between these two:
    > Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
    > New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
    >
    > As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
    > has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
    > the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
    > no problems after this point.
    >
    > ----
    > Nathan McNulty
    >
    >
    > Nospam wrote:
    > > NoNoBadDog,
    > >
    > > You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
    will
    > > depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied
    more
    > > so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice the
    > > difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same time,
    some
    > > active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a respected
    website
    > > with factual information. This link
    > > http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
    > > Hyperthreading.
    > >
    > > Nospam
    > >
    > > "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    > > news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > >
    > >>As a side note;
    > >>
    > >> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
    of
    > >>the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit
    by
    > >>having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
    > >>handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
    > >>signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
    > >>somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
    > >>instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is
    better
    > >>to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel,
    and
    > >>it really does not benefit the average user. The techs actually did you
    a
    > >>favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and flamers start
    responding,
    > >>be aware that I also own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I
    > >>also own AMD based systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not
    > >>"Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate
    > >>"Intel Rocks" feelings.
    > >>
    > >>Bobby
    > >>
    > >>"Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    > >>news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > >>
    > >>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    > >>>--
    > >>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    > >>>www.coribright.com
    > >>>
    > >>>"Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    > >>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    > >>>
    > >>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    > >>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    > >>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    > >>>>Hyperthreading.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    > >>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    > >>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    > >>>>because it's an OEM version.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    > >>>>anyone help me please?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Not dramatic changes, but any improvement is good. I was just pointing
    out that quite a few more programs have become HT aware and make better
    use of HT. The performance degredation talked about by others when HT
    is enabled on an application that is not HT Aware has been improved by
    better code as well.

    As for SP2, there are a few things behind the scenes. The old versions
    of XP were compiled using VS 6.0 whereas SP2 was compiled with VS2005.
    The new engine has improvements for handling HT, but more than this I
    don't know. I am not a programmer, but this is just what I have been told.

    ----
    Nathan McNulty

    V Green wrote:
    > Hey Nathan-
    >
    > Do you have some info on improvements to HT
    > in XP2 that aren't covered in MSKB 811113?
    >
    > The stuff I see there isn't very dramatic...
    >
    > Just wondering.
    >
    > -v
    >
    > "Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:u$h1%23dAiEHA.356@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >
    >>You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
    >>when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
    >>been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
    >>differences between these two:
    >>Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
    >>New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
    >>
    >>As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
    >>has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
    >>the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
    >>no problems after this point.
    >>
    >>----
    >>Nathan McNulty
    >>
    >>
    >>Nospam wrote:
    >>
    >>>NoNoBadDog,
    >>>
    >>>You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
    >
    > will
    >
    >>>depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied
    >
    > more
    >
    >>>so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice the
    >>>difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same time,
    >
    > some
    >
    >>>active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a respected
    >
    > website
    >
    >>>with factual information. This link
    >>>http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
    >>>Hyperthreading.
    >>>
    >>>Nospam
    >>>
    >>>"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:eKjgE8whEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>As a side note;
    >>>>
    >>>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
    >
    > of
    >
    >>>>the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit
    >
    > by
    >
    >>>>having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
    >>>>handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
    >>>>signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
    >>>>somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
    >>>>instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is
    >
    > better
    >
    >>>>to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel,
    >
    > and
    >
    >>>>it really does not benefit the average user. The techs actually did you
    >
    > a
    >
    >>>>favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and flamers start
    >
    > responding,
    >
    >>>>be aware that I also own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I
    >>>>also own AMD based systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not
    >>>>"Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate
    >>>>"Intel Rocks" feelings.
    >>>>
    >>>>Bobby
    >>>>
    >>>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <Newsgroups1@coribright.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:%23pQRn0whEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
    >>>>>--
    >>>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
    >>>>>www.coribright.com
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Kirk" <stormstaff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
    >>>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
    >>>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
    >>>>>>Hyperthreading.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
    >>>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
    >>>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
    >>>>>>because it's an OEM version.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
    >>>>>>anyone help me please?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Haha, just make sure you used distilled water :p

    I use a Zalman 7000-Cu on my processor. It is very quiet and keeps the
    idle temps at around 32 C and load temps ralely hit over 40 C. I have
    taken this computer up to 3.9 GHz, but my memory didn't handle it too
    well and would lock up when getting into a heavy load. Borrowed my
    friends sticks of PC4000 and took it over 4 GHz, but at that point, I
    was too afraid of damage and finally quit, put my sticks of PC3200 back
    in, and set it back down to 3.6 :)

    Overclocking is something that can be safe for those who know what they
    are doing, fun for those who sort of do (gives you a nice adrenaline
    rush), and bad for those who don't. It's an excellent way to give added
    life to your hardware even after they are no longer top of the line or
    even in the field of average computers, but it does have its risks and
    problems.

    ----
    Nathan McNulty


    Cari (MS MVP) wrote:
    > Nothing yet! We sit and wait patiently, After all its not like it won't
    > work without SP2 .
    >
    > Yes, a is a little toasty in there. Have you seen:
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16952
    >
    > Glad I don't OC! The CPU itself doesn't seem to mind but I did dream of a
    > case with a built in sprinkler system one night!
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Windows XP