Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X2 processor - XP Home OK?

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 12:38:16 PM

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.

More about : processor home

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 12:38:17 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 12:38:18 PM

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?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 5:46:12 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 5:46:13 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 8:40:55 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 8:41:36 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2005 9:51:59 PM

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?
August 18, 2005 1:25:27 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 18, 2005 5:45:40 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 18, 2005 11:38:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 7:00:10 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 9:42:13 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 11:34:42 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 11:34:43 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 11:35:44 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 11:35:45 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 1:11:50 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 1:11:51 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 1:12:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 1:12:29 PM

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.
August 19, 2005 3:15:20 PM

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

get windows XP 64 Pro
August 19, 2005 4:56:12 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 8:24:46 PM

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

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:p a3bg15iii5c5qris4sp797qm9k4081gi3@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... :) 
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 19, 2005 10:42:45 PM

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.
August 19, 2005 10:42:46 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 12:10:33 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 1:37:33 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 1:41:34 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 3:06:28 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 9:52:40 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 9:52:41 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 9:53:58 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 12:39:24 PM

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.
August 20, 2005 4:29:44 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 20, 2005 4:29:45 PM

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.
August 20, 2005 9:09:19 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 21, 2005 5:55:41 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 22, 2005 12:26:39 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 22, 2005 12:31:08 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 22, 2005 11:47:15 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 22, 2005 11:47:16 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 23, 2005 12:21:12 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 23, 2005 12:21:13 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 23, 2005 3:28:37 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 23, 2005 4:45:10 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 23, 2005 4:45:11 AM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 23, 2005 10:31:59 AM

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.
!