X2 processor - XP Home OK?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I'm putting together a new machine which will have an AMD Athlon X2 3800+
dual core processor. I've been searching the net and trying to find a
definite answer to my question:
Can I use that cpu with Windows XP Home, or will I need to get Pro?
I've found conflicting information on this, including:
- Home will run with that processor, but it will only recognise/utilise one
core
- Home will not have a problem with recognising/utilising the dual core cpu
because it will recognise it as ONE cpu

I hope someone may know, or maybe you're already running a system with an X2
+ XP Home.
TIA.
47 answers Last reply
More about processor home
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    pixelchew wrote:
    >
    > I'm putting together a new machine which will have an AMD Athlon X2 3800+
    > dual core processor. I've been searching the net and trying to find a
    > definite answer to my question:
    > Can I use that cpu with Windows XP Home, or will I need to get Pro?
    > I've found conflicting information on this, including:
    > - Home will run with that processor, but it will only recognise/utilise one
    > core
    > - Home will not have a problem with recognising/utilising the dual core cpu
    > because it will recognise it as ONE cpu
    >
    > I hope someone may know, or maybe you're already running a system with an X2
    > + XP Home.
    > TIA.

    Windows XP Home doesn't support SMP.

    I have difficulty grasping why you would spend so much on this CPU and
    even *consider* staying with XP Home.


    Odie
    --
    Retrodata
    www.retrodata.co.uk
    Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:32:39 +0100, Odie Ferrous
    <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >pixelchew wrote:
    >>
    >> I'm putting together a new machine which will have an AMD Athlon X2 3800+
    >> dual core processor. I've been searching the net and trying to find a
    >> definite answer to my question:
    >> Can I use that cpu with Windows XP Home, or will I need to get Pro?
    >> I've found conflicting information on this, including:
    >> - Home will run with that processor, but it will only recognise/utilise one
    >> core
    >> - Home will not have a problem with recognising/utilising the dual core cpu
    >> because it will recognise it as ONE cpu
    >>
    >> I hope someone may know, or maybe you're already running a system with an X2
    >> + XP Home.
    >> TIA.
    >
    >Windows XP Home doesn't support SMP.
    >
    >I have difficulty grasping why you would spend so much on this CPU and
    >even *consider* staying with XP Home.


    Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:32:39 +0100, Odie Ferrous
    > <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >pixelchew wrote:
    > >>
    > >> I'm putting together a new machine which will have an AMD Athlon X2 3800+
    > >> dual core processor. I've been searching the net and trying to find a
    > >> definite answer to my question:
    > >> Can I use that cpu with Windows XP Home, or will I need to get Pro?
    > >> I've found conflicting information on this, including:
    > >> - Home will run with that processor, but it will only recognise/utilise one
    > >> core
    > >> - Home will not have a problem with recognising/utilising the dual core cpu
    > >> because it will recognise it as ONE cpu
    > >>
    > >> I hope someone may know, or maybe you're already running a system with an X2
    > >> + XP Home.
    > >> TIA.
    > >
    > >Windows XP Home doesn't support SMP.
    > >
    > >I have difficulty grasping why you would spend so much on this CPU and
    > >even *consider* staying with XP Home.
    >
    > Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    > be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?

    Well, bearing in mind they only decided on (or, rather, released) the
    name last week, I reckon it will be at least a year before it's out!


    Odie
    --
    Retrodata
    www.retrodata.co.uk
    Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:46:12 +0100, Odie Ferrous
    <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >Well, bearing in mind they only decided on (or, rather, released) the
    >name last week, I reckon it will be at least a year before it's out!
    >
    >
    >Odie


    Maybe, but what's a year? Not so long in the grand scheme
    of things, blink of an eye for some years past.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...

    > Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    > be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    >
    How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?

    --
    Conor

    If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
    rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
    music.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <430287da$0$4555$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    01.iinet.net.au>, pixelchew says...
    > I'm putting together a new machine which will have an AMD Athlon X2 3800+
    > dual core processor. I've been searching the net and trying to find a
    > definite answer to my question:
    > Can I use that cpu with Windows XP Home, or will I need to get Pro?
    > I've found conflicting information on this, including:
    > - Home will run with that processor, but it will only recognise/utilise one
    > core
    > - Home will not have a problem with recognising/utilising the dual core cpu
    > because it will recognise it as ONE cpu
    >
    > I hope someone may know, or maybe you're already running a system with an X2
    > + XP Home.
    > TIA.
    >
    You need Pro. Not only that, you want the 64 bit version too.


    --
    Conor

    If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
    rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
    music.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:55 +0100, Conor
    <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

    >In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...
    >
    >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    >>
    >How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?


    Care to translate that into english?
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <rou6g152tn3pp8l4657vbv304gqhv9lpbj@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
    says...
    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:55 +0100, Conor
    > <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > >
    > >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    > >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    > >>
    > >How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?
    >
    >
    > Care to translate that into english?
    >
    It is in English. You want the U.S. version, apply a little 5th grade
    arithemtic. BTW, a crippled OS on a CPU of that capability? Again,
    WHY?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:25:27 GMT, G <me@mydomain.net> wrote:

    >In article <rou6g152tn3pp8l4657vbv304gqhv9lpbj@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
    >says...
    >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:55 +0100, Conor
    >> <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...
    >> >
    >> >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    >> >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    >> >>
    >> >How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?
    >>
    >>
    >> Care to translate that into english?
    >>
    >It is in English. You want the U.S. version, apply a little 5th grade
    >arithemtic. BTW, a crippled OS on a CPU of that capability? Again,
    >WHY?

    No I wanted the english version, what you attempted to
    clarify isn't valid either.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <rou6g152tn3pp8l4657vbv304gqhv9lpbj@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:55 +0100, Conor
    > <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > >
    > >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    > >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    > >>
    > >How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?
    >
    >
    > Care to translate that into english?
    >
    It already is. You'll have to find an English into redneck translator.


    --
    Conor

    If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
    rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
    music.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:38:43 +0100, Conor
    <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

    >In article <rou6g152tn3pp8l4657vbv304gqhv9lpbj@4ax.com>, kony says...
    >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:55 +0100, Conor
    >> <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...
    >> >
    >> >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    >> >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    >> >>
    >> >How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?
    >>
    >>
    >> Care to translate that into english?
    >>
    >It already is. You'll have to find an English into redneck translator.

    LOL.

    Maybe I should make the question nice and simple so you can
    understand it better. Where do you plan on finding XP Pro
    for £20?
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:38:43 +0100, Conor
    > <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <rou6g152tn3pp8l4657vbv304gqhv9lpbj@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:55 +0100, Conor
    > >> <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > >> >
    > >> >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    > >> >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    > >> >>
    > >> >How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Care to translate that into english?
    > >>
    > >It already is. You'll have to find an English into redneck translator.
    >
    > LOL.
    >
    > Maybe I should make the question nice and simple so you can
    > understand it better. Where do you plan on finding XP Pro
    > for £20?

    I believe Conor means the difference in price between XP Home and XP
    Pro.

    For example, XP Home may cost £65 but XP Pro may cost £85. £85 - £65 =
    £20 (or close enough.)

    This is the figure Conor has been touting.


    Odie
    --
    Retrodata
    whoo00ooosh
    www.retrodata.co.uk
    Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    > be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?

    Vista is still in the distant future, and the price increment for XP
    Pro over XP Home is trivial in comparison, especially in OEM pricing.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:34:42 +0200, Mxsmanic
    <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    >kony writes:
    >
    >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    >
    >Vista is still in the distant future, and the price increment for XP
    >Pro over XP Home is trivial in comparison, especially in OEM pricing.


    Trivial only if OP "was" planning to buy Home in the future
    instead of already owning it. I suspect that is not the
    case but we don't know for certain either way?

    Vista is certainly not "distant future", we dont' even know
    of the system build will be finished 1 month from now.
    Although the release date has been moved back from (already
    due now) to Q4 of 2006 (IIRC), that is potentially only ~12
    months. With that in mind, we can't be certain the cost of
    XP Pro has much benefit relative to any other applicable
    system build cost increase.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > Maybe, but what's a year? Not so long in the grand scheme
    > of things, blink of an eye for some years past.

    In computerland, it's eternity.

    But once you have XP, why would you want to install Vista, anyway?
    You don't need to upgrade with every new software product that comes
    out. Once you have a system that does what you want, you're done, no
    matter what else comes out.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:35:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
    <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    >kony writes:
    >
    >> Maybe, but what's a year? Not so long in the grand scheme
    >> of things, blink of an eye for some years past.
    >
    >In computerland, it's eternity.
    >
    >But once you have XP, why would you want to install Vista, anyway?

    Why would you want XP at all then? Different between 2K and
    XP is bound to be less than between either and Vista. True,
    there's the original issue of SMP support, BUT many apps
    don't even benefit much from that... particularly when
    performance issues are offset by other potential upgrades
    possible by spending purchase price of XP on more (or
    faster) hardware.


    >You don't need to upgrade with every new software product that comes
    >out. Once you have a system that does what you want, you're done, no
    >matter what else comes out.

    True, and yet it can only be seen in a limited context since
    people do buy new systems and even going to XP Pro is in
    itself an upgrade.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > Why would you want XP at all then?

    XP was on the shelf at the computer store when I built my PC. My only
    requirement was that I have a version of Windows based on NT (i.e.,
    not Windows 9x or any of that junk), and since XP was what they were
    selling, that's what I bought. The machine it replaced also had a
    pre-installed version of XP Home on it (which I again received by
    default, because all machines were shipping with that), so it only
    made sense to keep the same OS.

    > Different between 2K and XP is bound to be less than between
    > either and Vista.

    Maybe, although I don't see the significance of this since I've never
    run Windows 2000 at home.

    > True, there's the original issue of SMP support, BUT many apps
    > don't even benefit much from that... particularly when
    > performance issues are offset by other potential upgrades
    > possible by spending purchase price of XP on more (or
    > faster) hardware.

    The individual applications don't benefit from it, but sometimes the
    system as a whole does. In particular, it keeps most individual
    applications from locking up the system.

    > True, and yet it can only be seen in a limited context since
    > people do buy new systems and even going to XP Pro is in
    > itself an upgrade.

    They only install new operating systems when they buy new systems
    because the old operating systems are no longer sold.

    Make no mistake: the sole purpose of Microsoft Vista is to maintain
    Microsoft's revenue flow, because its business model (like that of
    almost every other microcomputer software company) depends heavily on
    selling new perpetual licenses at regular, frequent intervals. You
    should not assume that Vista brings anything to the end user at all.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:11:50 +0200, Mxsmanic
    <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    >kony writes:
    >
    >> Why would you want XP at all then?
    >
    >XP was on the shelf at the computer store when I built my PC. My only
    >requirement was that I have a version of Windows based on NT (i.e.,
    >not Windows 9x or any of that junk), and since XP was what they were
    >selling, that's what I bought. The machine it replaced also had a
    >pre-installed version of XP Home on it (which I again received by
    >default, because all machines were shipping with that), so it only
    >made sense to keep the same OS.

    Let me restate what I wrote- I meant XP Pro, when I had
    assumed OP had XP Home, or 2K, some Windows OS already. I
    wasn't trying to make some kind of reject-Windows argument.


    >
    >> Different between 2K and XP is bound to be less than between
    >> either and Vista.
    >
    >Maybe, although I don't see the significance of this since I've never
    >run Windows 2000 at home.

    .... only that whatever OP is already using, the benefit must
    be weighed against cost, and/or, what alternate benefit
    could be had for same expense since ultimately there is
    usually a budget of some kind.


    >
    >> True, there's the original issue of SMP support, BUT many apps
    >> don't even benefit much from that... particularly when
    >> performance issues are offset by other potential upgrades
    >> possible by spending purchase price of XP on more (or
    >> faster) hardware.
    >
    >The individual applications don't benefit from it, but sometimes the
    >system as a whole does. In particular, it keeps most individual
    >applications from locking up the system.

    ??

    That should not happen on a single NT CPU system either, one
    should replace the app if this problem is seen.

    >
    >> True, and yet it can only be seen in a limited context since
    >> people do buy new systems and even going to XP Pro is in
    >> itself an upgrade.
    >
    >They only install new operating systems when they buy new systems
    >because the old operating systems are no longer sold.

    Agreed, but in this case we have insufficient info to
    determine the OP's future plans.


    >
    >Make no mistake: the sole purpose of Microsoft Vista is to maintain
    >Microsoft's revenue flow, because its business model (like that of
    >almost every other microcomputer software company) depends heavily on
    >selling new perpetual licenses at regular, frequent intervals. You
    >should not assume that Vista brings anything to the end user at all.

    I don't assume XP brings much to the end user either, but
    even so, I do expect Vista to still be more different than
    XP, than XP was to 2K... so to that extent it would depend
    more on whether Vista turns out to be desirable at all...
    and how buggy initially... that's one thing XP certainly has
    going for it as it has matured, at least relative to an OS
    not even released yet.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > Vista is certainly not "distant future", we dont' even know
    > of the system build will be finished 1 month from now.
    > Although the release date has been moved back from (already
    > due now) to Q4 of 2006 (IIRC), that is potentially only ~12
    > months. With that in mind, we can't be certain the cost of
    > XP Pro has much benefit relative to any other applicable
    > system build cost increase.

    You assume that Vista is preferable to XP. I see no reason to assume
    that.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:12:28 +0200, Mxsmanic
    <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    >kony writes:
    >
    >> Vista is certainly not "distant future", we dont' even know
    >> of the system build will be finished 1 month from now.
    >> Although the release date has been moved back from (already
    >> due now) to Q4 of 2006 (IIRC), that is potentially only ~12
    >> months. With that in mind, we can't be certain the cost of
    >> XP Pro has much benefit relative to any other applicable
    >> system build cost increase.
    >
    >You assume that Vista is preferable to XP. I see no reason to assume
    >that.

    I only point out another possibility, will not assume nor
    presume preference at this time.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    get windows XP 64 Pro
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <trrag1dbp30h30qbd132t5tro6qg09n9tj@4ax.com>,
    mxsmanic@gmail.com says...
    > kony writes:
    >
    > > Maybe, but what's a year? Not so long in the grand scheme
    > > of things, blink of an eye for some years past.
    >
    > In computerland, it's eternity.
    >
    > But once you have XP, why would you want to install Vista, anyway?
    > You don't need to upgrade with every new software product that comes
    > out. Once you have a system that does what you want, you're done, no
    > matter what else comes out.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
    >
    I may be pleasantly surprised by Vista and 'new features', etc., but
    from what I read now it looks, at best, to be XP SP3, or its equivalent.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:pa3bg15iii5c5qris4sp797qm9k4081gi3@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:12:28 +0200, Mxsmanic
    > <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>kony writes:
    >>
    >>> Vista is certainly not "distant future", we dont' even know
    >>> of the system build will be finished 1 month from now.
    >>> Although the release date has been moved back from (already
    >>> due now) to Q4 of 2006 (IIRC), that is potentially only ~12
    >>> months. With that in mind, we can't be certain the cost of
    >>> XP Pro has much benefit relative to any other applicable
    >>> system build cost increase.
    >>
    >>You assume that Vista is preferable to XP. I see no reason to assume
    >>that.
    >
    > I only point out another possibility, will not assume nor
    > presume preference at this time.
    Thanks, everyone, all for your thoughts and suggestions.

    I've bought XP Pro OEM. I haven't ever owned a legit copy of either Home or
    Pro, but with the new system decided to take advantage of the cheaper OEM
    price and buy a legit copy of XP. So Pro it will be. 32-bit version, not
    64-bit; still using an old Lexmark printer, Canon scanner and TV tuner PCI
    card which there are no 64-bit drivers for (and none in development). Down
    the track will upgrade those, but budget doesn't allow for it right now. And
    given the reading I've done re: people's various problems with 64-bit I'm
    not game enough to take that plunge.
    When Vista comes out I'll see where everything is at in terms of my
    finances, driver availability, direct benefit to my pc usage etc etc, and
    then make that decision.
    cheers... :)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > That should not happen on a single NT CPU system either, one
    > should replace the app if this problem is seen.

    Most general-purpose operating systems have great difficulty
    maintaining overall system reponsiveness if there is a single
    application stuck in an infinite loop or overwish completely
    CPU-bound, on a single CPU system. Things change very noticeably if
    there are two or more processors.

    > I don't assume XP brings much to the end user either, but
    > even so, I do expect Vista to still be more different than
    > XP, than XP was to 2K...

    First reports are that Vista doesn't change much at all, and the
    changes that have been made are for the worse.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <7s2cg19uut8ac0eubkjlki0ecn39bfna7v@4ax.com>,
    mxsmanic@gmail.com says...

    > First reports are that Vista doesn't change much at all, and the
    > changes that have been made are for the worse.
    >
    >
    This is a bit off-subject for this thread, but it looks like a good
    place to ask something I've been unable to determine. I run WIN2K on 3
    systems (home LAN connected) and find it stable and completely adequate
    for what we use the systems for.

    One of the systems is a laptop that came pre-installed with XP Home.
    Admittedly it was an early release but it was so crippled with respect
    to networking that it was effectively brain dead; it simply would not
    connect to my other systems. The 4th system on my LAN is a LINUX system
    running SAMBA that we use as a fileserver.

    I finally gave up on XP on the laptop, formatted the disk and loaded
    WIN2K. Since then I've had no problems. I understand XP Home now
    provides networking as it should have from the start.

    Other than with the laptop, the only other experience was with a
    friend's computer that I reloaded with XP home after he got it very
    seriously contaminated with viruses and adware. XP was OK but I didn't
    see anything that make me want to rush out and buy it.

    My question: just what does XP offer/accomplish that WIN2K does not?
    That is, excepting of course, the increased revenue stream MS got with
    its release.

    Glen
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <35jag11ir6cr7vsgnno1o5b9uj2k7sq1im@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:38:43 +0100, Conor
    > <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <rou6g152tn3pp8l4657vbv304gqhv9lpbj@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:55 +0100, Conor
    > >> <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <6eg5g19jeqh4l43csoekfs56nfooptvac3@4ax.com>, kony says...
    > >> >
    > >> >> Because buying XP Pro may not make sense to anyone who would
    > >> >> be buying Vista in the not-so-distant future?
    > >> >>
    > >> >How much does £20 over 18 months work out at?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Care to translate that into english?
    > >>
    > >It already is. You'll have to find an English into redneck translator.
    >
    > LOL.
    >
    > Maybe I should make the question nice and simple so you can
    > understand it better. Where do you plan on finding XP Pro
    > for £20?
    >
    Oh dear...Kony yet again showing the world that (s)he is so unable to
    think for themself that (s)he needs it spelling out.

    The £20 refers to the price difference between XP Home and XP PRo.

    Vista isn't out for another 18 months. THerefore it costs £20 over 18
    months to have a version of XP that supports SMP than to have one that
    doesn't.

    --
    Conor

    If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
    rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
    music.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:42:45 +0200, Mxsmanic
    <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    >kony writes:
    >
    >> That should not happen on a single NT CPU system either, one
    >> should replace the app if this problem is seen.
    >
    >Most general-purpose operating systems have great difficulty
    >maintaining overall system reponsiveness if there is a single
    >application stuck in an infinite loop or overwish completely
    >CPU-bound, on a single CPU system. Things change very noticeably if
    >there are two or more processors.

    1) It would only happen if the app has improperly assigned
    priority.

    2) #1 is yet another reason such apps should be rejected.
    Throwing more hardware at code with bugs manifesting
    themselves that badly is not so productive... since
    ultimately that "single application stuck" needed to be
    doing something productive rather than crashed.

    >
    >> I don't assume XP brings much to the end user either, but
    >> even so, I do expect Vista to still be more different than
    >> XP, than XP was to 2K...
    >
    >First reports are that Vista doesn't change much at all, and the
    >changes that have been made are for the worse.

    Err, ok but that's how I feel about XP over 2K too. If
    nothing else it will look pretty, make a nice toy.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:10:33 +0100, Conor
    <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:


    >Oh dear...Kony yet again showing the world that (s)he is so unable to
    >think for themself that (s)he needs it spelling out.
    >
    >The £20 refers to the price difference between XP Home and XP PRo.

    .... which would've been more relevant had the OP specified
    that he had intended to BUY Home or Pro. As it was, we can
    make some general presumtions such as already having a
    computer running, hence usenet posts, and odds are still
    good that same box has windows.


    >
    >Vista isn't out for another 18 months. THerefore it costs £20 over 18
    >months to have a version of XP that supports SMP than to have one that
    >doesn't.

    True, for once I agree with you, that IF OP were
    contemplating purchase of Home -OR- PRO, Pro would be the
    better choice.... why you couldn't just mention that in the
    first place is still a mystery as it would've been the
    expedient thing to do as we're not mind-readers.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    pixelchew wrote:
    > I'm putting together a new machine which will have an AMD Athlon X2 3800+
    > dual core processor. I've been searching the net and trying to find a
    > definite answer to my question:
    > Can I use that cpu with Windows XP Home, or will I need to get Pro?
    > I've found conflicting information on this, including:
    > - Home will run with that processor, but it will only recognise/utilise one
    > core
    > - Home will not have a problem with recognising/utilising the dual core cpu
    > because it will recognise it as ONE cpu
    >
    > I hope someone may know, or maybe you're already running a system with an X2
    > + XP Home.
    > TIA.

    Yes I am running an X2 3800 on XP Home as I type this. So long as your
    PCs BIOS recognises the X2 3800, Windows XP Home should automaticly
    assign the correct Hardware Abstraction Layer for dual core CPU
    recognition. If not, right click to scan for hardware changes under the
    heading "Computer" in the windiws XP Home Device Manager.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    G writes:

    > My question: just what does XP offer/accomplish that WIN2K does not?

    Nothing, except to Microsoft (more money).

    If you have Windows 2000 and you're happy with it, keep it.

    > That is, excepting of course, the increased revenue stream MS got with
    > its release.

    That's all it really is.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > G writes:
    >
    >
    >>My question: just what does XP offer/accomplish that WIN2K does not?
    >
    >
    > Nothing, except to Microsoft (more money).

    Really? When did MS add a firewall and DEP to Windows 2000?

    >
    > If you have Windows 2000 and you're happy with it, keep it.
    >
    >
    >>That is, excepting of course, the increased revenue stream MS got with
    >>its release.
    >
    >
    > That's all it really is.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > 1) It would only happen if the app has improperly assigned
    > priority.

    It will happen with any CPU-bound application. I've seen it many
    times.

    > 2) #1 is yet another reason such apps should be rejected.
    > Throwing more hardware at code with bugs manifesting
    > themselves that badly is not so productive... since
    > ultimately that "single application stuck" needed to be
    > doing something productive rather than crashed.

    Some applications have to be compute-bound just to do their jobs,
    which may be compute-intensive.

    > Err, ok but that's how I feel about XP over 2K too. If
    > nothing else it will look pretty, make a nice toy.

    Then run Windows 2000.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <qskcg1top3v1mnc515ec7lcn8u7vtq2jk6@4ax.com>, kony says...

    > ... which would've been more relevant had the OP specified
    > that he had intended to BUY Home or Pro. As it was, we can
    > make some general presumtions such as already having a
    > computer running, hence usenet posts, and odds are still
    > good that same box has windows.
    >
    Never assume....

    --
    Conor

    If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
    rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
    music.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <11gdpvtbehr3c1b@corp.supernews.com>, nospam@private.net
    says...
    > Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > > G writes:
    > >
    > >
    > >>My question: just what does XP offer/accomplish that WIN2K does not?
    > >
    > >
    > > Nothing, except to Microsoft (more money).
    >
    > Really? When did MS add a firewall and DEP to Windows 2000?
    >


    The XP Home system I rebuilt for the friend (referenced in my 1st post)
    was completely trashed with adware, etc. It HAD MS firewall running.
    When I can get a piece of software that works from ZoneAlarm, also for
    free, why would I need/want MS stuff that I know won't do the job?

    Anybody got a + for XP over WIN2K? I haven't heard one yet.

    G
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    G wrote:
    > In article <11gdpvtbehr3c1b@corp.supernews.com>, nospam@private.net
    > says...
    >
    >>Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>G writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>My question: just what does XP offer/accomplish that WIN2K does not?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Nothing, except to Microsoft (more money).
    >>
    >>Really? When did MS add a firewall and DEP to Windows 2000?
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > The XP Home system I rebuilt for the friend (referenced in my 1st post)
    > was completely trashed with adware, etc. It HAD MS firewall running.

    So?

    > When I can get a piece of software that works from ZoneAlarm, also for
    > free, why would I need/want MS stuff that I know won't do the job?

    You're making a judgment based on a faulty understanding of firewalls,
    which are not 'magic bullets' that automagically prevent every undesirable
    thing you can conceive of.

    For one, the firewall has to be configured properly and someone unwittingly
    allowing pernicious software will defeat any of them, not to mention the
    adware that often comes with a myriad of those wonderful 'toolbars' people
    blithely install at the slightest prodding. And there are more ways but the
    point is that just because adware got on the machine when "gee, it had a
    firewall" doesn't mean there was anything 'wrong' with it nor that it
    "won't do the job." It does the job of "firewall," not 'nanny'.

    > Anybody got a + for XP over WIN2K? I haven't heard one yet.

    The question was not a debate over who's firewall you think is the best; it
    was whether XP offers anything that Win2K does not and, as far as I can
    tell, XP offers, at the very least, a firewall when Win2K does not.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <11genmcmbv5mtef@corp.supernews.com>, nospam@private.net
    says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > When I can get a piece of software that works from ZoneAlarm, also for
    > > free, why would I need/want MS stuff that I know won't do the job?
    >
    > You're making a judgment based on a faulty understanding of firewalls,
    > which are not 'magic bullets' that automagically prevent every undesirable
    > thing you can conceive of.
    >
    > For one, the firewall has to be configured properly and someone unwittingly
    > allowing pernicious software will defeat any of them, not to mention the
    > adware that often comes with a myriad of those wonderful 'toolbars' people
    > blithely install at the slightest prodding. And there are more ways but the
    > point is that just because adware got on the machine when "gee, it had a
    > firewall" doesn't mean there was anything 'wrong' with it nor that it
    > "won't do the job." It does the job of "firewall," not 'nanny'.
    >
    > > Anybody got a + for XP over WIN2K? I haven't heard one yet.
    >
    > The question was not a debate over who's firewall you think is the best; it
    > was whether XP offers anything that Win2K does not and, as far as I can
    > tell, XP offers, at the very least, a firewall when Win2K does not.
    >
    >
    Except for the "faulty understanding of firewalls", I'll say point made,
    point taken. Anything else and/or substantial that'd maybe entice one
    to spend $$ to buy XP and go thru the upgrade effort?

    G
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:48:12 -0500, David Maynard
    <nospam@private.net> wrote:


    >For one, the firewall has to be configured properly and someone unwittingly
    >allowing pernicious software will defeat any of them, not to mention the
    >adware that often comes with a myriad of those wonderful 'toolbars' people
    >blithely install at the slightest prodding. And there are more ways but the
    >point is that just because adware got on the machine when "gee, it had a
    >firewall" doesn't mean there was anything 'wrong' with it nor that it
    >"won't do the job." It does the job of "firewall," not 'nanny'.


    Only 1/2 a firewall as it doesn't block outbound traffic.
    Couple that with insecure email and brower and the firewall
    becomes a false sense of security.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    G wrote:
    > In article <11genmcmbv5mtef@corp.supernews.com>, nospam@private.net
    > says...
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>When I can get a piece of software that works from ZoneAlarm, also for
    >>>free, why would I need/want MS stuff that I know won't do the job?
    >>
    >>You're making a judgment based on a faulty understanding of firewalls,
    >>which are not 'magic bullets' that automagically prevent every undesirable
    >>thing you can conceive of.
    >>
    >>For one, the firewall has to be configured properly and someone unwittingly
    >>allowing pernicious software will defeat any of them, not to mention the
    >>adware that often comes with a myriad of those wonderful 'toolbars' people
    >>blithely install at the slightest prodding. And there are more ways but the
    >>point is that just because adware got on the machine when "gee, it had a
    >>firewall" doesn't mean there was anything 'wrong' with it nor that it
    >>"won't do the job." It does the job of "firewall," not 'nanny'.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Anybody got a + for XP over WIN2K? I haven't heard one yet.
    >>
    >>The question was not a debate over who's firewall you think is the best; it
    >>was whether XP offers anything that Win2K does not and, as far as I can
    >>tell, XP offers, at the very least, a firewall when Win2K does not.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Except for the "faulty understanding of firewalls",

    Ok, a faulty understanding of adware, then. It's one or both because "it
    got adware ergo the firewall didn't work" is a non-sequitur.

    > I'll say point made,
    > point taken. Anything else and/or substantial that'd maybe entice one
    > to spend $$ to buy XP and go thru the upgrade effort?

    Well, 'worth it' is a different question and I'm probably the wrong one to
    ask as I rarely think an O.S. 'upgrade' is a priority. If one simply must
    'upgrade' something then I'd suggest RAM, or a new hard drive, or a faster
    CPU before an O.S. change unless one has a specific reason, like an
    application you 'need' that requires it.

    I do think XP handles multimedia devices, like cameras and MP3 players,
    etc., better, but it's just a feeling as I tend to use third party apps.

    >
    > G
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:48:12 -0500, David Maynard
    > <nospam@private.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>For one, the firewall has to be configured properly and someone unwittingly
    >>allowing pernicious software will defeat any of them, not to mention the
    >>adware that often comes with a myriad of those wonderful 'toolbars' people
    >>blithely install at the slightest prodding. And there are more ways but the
    >>point is that just because adware got on the machine when "gee, it had a
    >>firewall" doesn't mean there was anything 'wrong' with it nor that it
    >>"won't do the job." It does the job of "firewall," not 'nanny'.
    >
    >
    >
    > Only 1/2 a firewall as it doesn't block outbound traffic.

    'Outbound' traffic isn't how adware gets on the machine.

    > Couple that with insecure email and brower and the firewall
    > becomes a false sense of security.

    'Insecure' email and browser are different issues.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:31:08 -0500, David Maynard
    <nospam@private.net> wrote:

    >kony wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:48:12 -0500, David Maynard
    >> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>For one, the firewall has to be configured properly and someone unwittingly
    >>>allowing pernicious software will defeat any of them, not to mention the
    >>>adware that often comes with a myriad of those wonderful 'toolbars' people
    >>>blithely install at the slightest prodding. And there are more ways but the
    >>>point is that just because adware got on the machine when "gee, it had a
    >>>firewall" doesn't mean there was anything 'wrong' with it nor that it
    >>>"won't do the job." It does the job of "firewall," not 'nanny'.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Only 1/2 a firewall as it doesn't block outbound traffic.
    >
    >'Outbound' traffic isn't how adware gets on the machine.

    Yes it is, one way. Not the primary source of the infection
    but sometimes the majority of it. Few users get primarily
    infected by several things, they often get infected by one
    that downloads a host of others, like PSGuard or whatever
    your favorite flavor du jour is. Some hijack the browser
    and could use standard/common ports but others do not.

    >
    >> Couple that with insecure email and brower and the firewall
    >> becomes a false sense of security.
    >
    >'Insecure' email and browser are different issues.

    The whole is larger than the parts. If insecurity were a
    matter of only one issue, we'd be closing that hole pronto,
    no?
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:31:08 -0500, David Maynard
    > <nospam@private.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>kony wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:48:12 -0500, David Maynard
    >>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>For one, the firewall has to be configured properly and someone unwittingly
    >>>>allowing pernicious software will defeat any of them, not to mention the
    >>>>adware that often comes with a myriad of those wonderful 'toolbars' people
    >>>>blithely install at the slightest prodding. And there are more ways but the
    >>>>point is that just because adware got on the machine when "gee, it had a
    >>>>firewall" doesn't mean there was anything 'wrong' with it nor that it
    >>>>"won't do the job." It does the job of "firewall," not 'nanny'.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Only 1/2 a firewall as it doesn't block outbound traffic.
    >>
    >>'Outbound' traffic isn't how adware gets on the machine.
    >
    >
    > Yes it is, one way.


    No, it isn't. It has to come IN somewhere.

    > Not the primary source of the infection
    > but sometimes the majority of it.

    That's like claiming leaving the barn door open isn't what let the horses
    trample the crops it was them running around.

    > Few users get primarily
    > infected by several things, they often get infected by one
    > that downloads a host of others, like PSGuard or whatever
    > your favorite flavor du jour is. Some hijack the browser
    > and could use standard/common ports but others do not.

    'Could'.

    I'd love to see your survey data on that.

    If it's using a standard port it'll come in any firewall and if it's a non
    standard port it can make the outgoing request but the incoming will be
    blocked.

    At any rate, you're talking mitigation AFTER getting infected.


    >
    >
    >>>Couple that with insecure email and brower and the firewall
    >>>becomes a false sense of security.
    >>
    >>'Insecure' email and browser are different issues.
    >
    >
    > The whole is larger than the parts. If insecurity were a
    > matter of only one issue, we'd be closing that hole pronto,
    > no?
    >

    The issue de jour was not a general discussion of every potential flaw you
    feel exists in XP but whether having adware on a machine automatically
    means the firewall didn't work. It doesn't.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > Yes it is, one way.

    Outbound traffic never infects any machine with anything.

    > Few users get primarily
    > infected by several things, they often get infected by one
    > that downloads a host of others, like PSGuard or whatever
    > your favorite flavor du jour is.

    All downloads are inbound traffic.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:21:12 +0200, Mxsmanic
    <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    >kony writes:
    >
    >> Yes it is, one way.
    >
    >Outbound traffic never infects any machine with anything.


    Untrue. It infects because the outbound traffic is the
    request for the code that gets downloaded WITHOUT any
    further user intervention. We could argue about
    who/what/when/where/why they got infected in the first
    place, but to a certain extent it is irrelevant at that
    particular point, and what IS relevant is whether the
    infected box progressively gets worse and/or falls under
    remote control, key logging/etc reports get set out, or
    whatever-the-scenario... getting infected these days is only
    1/2 the story, the other half is what the box does "next"...
    which is often outbound connections for one of several
    reasons... and may be the lone purpose to the primary
    infecting agent, to download the rest of the code.

    >
    >> Few users get primarily
    >> infected by several things, they often get infected by one
    >> that downloads a host of others, like PSGuard or whatever
    >> your favorite flavor du jour is.
    >
    >All downloads are inbound traffic.

    True, BUT because the firewall doesn't block outbound, what
    could have been a minor annoyance can instead turn into a
    massive infestation... seen it happen far too many times.

    Someone brings a box to me, I start to clean it, half the
    time it's trying to download more code because there was no
    outboard blocking- and it would've too, had I left it a
    means to connect to internet.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > Untrue. It infects because the outbound traffic is the
    > request for the code that gets downloaded WITHOUT any
    > further user intervention.

    The download is inbound traffic. Without that inbound traffic, there
    is no infection, period.

    > True, BUT because the firewall doesn't block outbound, what
    > could have been a minor annoyance can instead turn into a
    > massive infestation... seen it happen far too many times.

    Some firewalls will block whatever you tell them to block.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:28:37 +0200, Mxsmanic
    <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    >kony writes:
    >
    >> Untrue. It infects because the outbound traffic is the
    >> request for the code that gets downloaded WITHOUT any
    >> further user intervention.
    >
    >The download is inbound traffic. Without that inbound traffic, there
    >is no infection, period.

    So you know of a lot of boxes with NO inbound traffic? I
    fail to see the point of your argument. One cannot block
    all common inbound ports unless this box is a very mission
    specific one rather than the typical PC.


    >
    >> True, BUT because the firewall doesn't block outbound, what
    >> could have been a minor annoyance can instead turn into a
    >> massive infestation... seen it happen far too many times.
    >
    >Some firewalls will block whatever you tell them to block.

    yes, exactly... that's the point, that if one wants to
    consider a firewall they need to be able to have some (ok,
    more than just "some") control over what it does.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:28:37 +0200, Mxsmanic
    > <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>kony writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Untrue. It infects because the outbound traffic is the
    >>>request for the code that gets downloaded WITHOUT any
    >>>further user intervention.
    >>
    >>The download is inbound traffic. Without that inbound traffic, there
    >>is no infection, period.
    >
    >
    > So you know of a lot of boxes with NO inbound traffic?

    Do you know of any with no OUTbound traffic?

    > I
    > fail to see the point of your argument.

    I don't see why as it's crystal clear. 'Inbound' is what infects.

    > One cannot block
    > all common inbound ports unless this box is a very mission
    > specific one rather than the typical PC.

    And you can't block all outbound either, or else you can't request a web
    page, ask for email, or any other user initiated activity.

    Which is why the initial infection is the primary issue.

    >>>True, BUT because the firewall doesn't block outbound, what
    >>>could have been a minor annoyance can instead turn into a
    >>>massive infestation... seen it happen far too many times.
    >>
    >>Some firewalls will block whatever you tell them to block.
    >
    >
    > yes, exactly... that's the point, that if one wants to
    > consider a firewall they need to be able to have some (ok,
    > more than just "some") control over what it does.
    >
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony writes:

    > So you know of a lot of boxes with NO inbound traffic? I
    > fail to see the point of your argument.

    My point is that it is incorrect to say that outbound traffic can
    infect a machine.

    > One cannot block
    > all common inbound ports unless this box is a very mission
    > specific one rather than the typical PC.

    One can selectively block inbound traffic based on state and content.
    For example, many firewalls can block unsolicited inbound traffic on a
    high-numbered port but will allow it when it is part of a connection
    already established by outbound traffic.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Processors Dual Core Windows XP Systems