Vista - number of CPU supported by Vista

I know that over the years different versions of Windows NT/2000/XP
have supported different number of CPU's. I am thinking of building a
dual Quad system (ie 8 processors) Can someone provide me with a link
to Microsoft's site that discusses which versions of the OS support 8
processors?

Vista Business, Enterprise and Ultimate all support "2" physical CPUs.
There's been some confusion about the difference between multiple processors
and multiple processor cores (for example, both Intel and AMD are currently
selling dual-core CPUs, and quad-core chips are on the way). While all of
the Vista product editions support only one or two physical processors, none
are limited to the number of processor cores they will support.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Cartoper" <cartoper@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193963116.462016.213890@xxxxxx

All versions of Windows are licensed by the physical CPU's (i.e. count the
sockets on the motherboard). The number of cores in each physical CPU
doesn't matter. Home versions support one physical CPU. Business versions
support two physical CPU's. Some server versions support more.

Vista Home Basic = 1 CPU
Vista Home premium = 1 CPU
Vista Business = 2 CPU's
Vista Ultimate = 2 CPU's
Vista Enterprise = 2 CPU's

In your case you'd need Vista Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise to use all
eight cores in your two physical CPU's.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Cartoper" <cartoper@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193963116.462016.213890@xxxxxx

I thought the Cores didn't matter? Suppose its a single CPU with 8 cores?
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxx-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:A3704264-7FE7-4BD1-AC34-6CEC42FF2637@xxxxxx

"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" <andred25@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:umE5AKPHIHA.3768@xxxxxxRead the OP again, it's already been stated that he's using two, quad-core
processors, so he needs an OS that supports two sockets (they should change
the wording, in my opinion, to "sockets supported" not CPU's supported, this
would limit people's confusion here), so he needs Business, Ultimate or
Enterprise, just as Kerry said.

Though you are correct in thinking the number of cores doesn't matter. The
number of sockets being used at once, does matter.

Mic

Reread what I said. I said, suppose Intel or AMD released a single CPU which
has 8 cores on the die? Vista regardless its Home Basic or Ultimate should
see all those cores. I wasn't referring to cores, not the physical CPU.
Kerry made it sound like you will need one of the premium SKUs to see 8 more
cores.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Michael Palumbo" <micjustmic@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:273D19C9-05D6-497B-85D5-344AD12A809A@xxxxxx

I didn't mean that. An 8 (or even 16 or 128) core single physical CPU would
be fine with any version on Vista. The OP said he had two quad core CPUs.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" <andred25@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23tr4niQHIHA.2064@xxxxxx

ignore the CORES, and count only the physical CPUs...

you can have up to 2 physical CPU (with any number of cores).

if for example in 2 years a CPU comes out with 128 cores, you will still be
able to use 2 of those physical CPU with vista to give you a total of 256.

If you want more physical CPU you must use windows server 2008





"Cartoper" <cartoper@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193963116.462016.213890@xxxxxx

"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" <andred25@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:#tr4niQHIHA.2064@xxxxxxReread your own post, you did not say, "Suppose Intel or AMD released a . .
.." you simply said, "Suppose it's a single CPU with 8 cores." I read that
as inferring that the OP may have such a monster.

Kerry was responding solely to the original question, he didn't stray at all
from answering the question, didn't go off in another direction.

A question was asked, he answered directly and concisely so as not to
confuse the OP by stating any hypothetical alternatives that didn't pertain
to the original question.

If more people would answer questions in such a manner there would be a lot
less confused posters on help groups such as this.

Mic