Vista - How many processors will vista take....

How many processor will Vista take advantage of? I'm using Windows Vista
Ultimate. Will it handle 8 processors? or 2 quad processors?

Thanks,

Steve

"Steve Thompson" <sthompson@xxxxxx-thompson.com> wrote in message
news:2F921E5A-13DD-4635-AECB-D5BAEC067B58@xxxxxxYup.

It's the 'Home' versions which can only handle one physical CPU (although
multiple cores it handles fine).

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

Vista Business and Ultimate can utilize two physical processors (think
"sockets"). The number of logical processors (cores) does not matter. 8
processors would require Server Enterprise or Data edition. This has always
been true of any version of Windows since W2k. Consumer editions can only
use one socket and business two. Any more requires Server; Standard can use
4, Enterprise 8, and Data Center can handle up to 64.

"Steve Thompson" <sthompson@xxxxxx-thompson.com> wrote in message
news:2F921E5A-13DD-4635-AECB-D5BAEC067B58@xxxxxx

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 19:25:00 -0400, "Steve Thompson"
<sthompson@xxxxxx-thompson.com> wrote:

No.


Yes.


Only Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise support more than one
physical processor. They each support two processors, but not more
than that.

However, all versions of Vista support an unlimited number of cores in
a single processor.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Steve Thompson" <sthompson@xxxxxx-thompson.com> wrote in message
news:2F921E5A-13DD-4635-AECB-D5BAEC067B58@xxxxxx
I wouldn't be such a fool with your money. With hardly any large
professional applications that are multi-threaded, there is no real need for
that many cores, even on high-end workstations. Wait until the applications
you use are multi-threaded to make use of the cores. They will come about
soon, as processor have gone parallel (because AMD and Intel were
experiencing diminishing power gains from higher frequencies).

Desktop computers cannot, at this stage, benefit from so many cores in the
same ways servers can. You'd have to do a massive amount of multi-tasking
to make it worthwhile, and in that case you'd most probably be better served
splitting the roles between different computers, for practicality, depending
on what you are doing. Or are you planning on running multiple virtual
machines or something?

Saving the money by not getting the very expensive motherboard required, and
processors could be better spent on getting the fastest dual or quad
processor instead, a high-end graphics card (depending on what you are
doing) and VelociRaptor hard drives.

ss.

"Steve Thompson" <sthompson@xxxxxx-thompson.com> wrote in message
news:2F921E5A-13DD-4635-AECB-D5BAEC067B58@xxxxxx
I wouldn't be such a fool with your money. With hardly any large
professional applications that are multi-threaded, there is no real need for
that many cores, even on high-end workstations. Wait until the applications
you use are multi-threaded to make use of the cores. They will come about
soon, as processor have gone parallel (because AMD and Intel were
experiencing diminishing power gains from higher frequencies).

Desktop computers cannot, at this stage, benefit from so many cores in the
same ways servers can. You'd have to do a massive amount of multi-tasking
to make it worthwhile, and in that case you'd most probably be better served
splitting the roles between different computers, for practicality, depending
on what you are doing. Or are you planning on running multiple virtual
machines or something?

Saving the money by not getting the very expensive motherboard required, and
processors could be better spent on getting the fastest dual or quad
processor instead, a high-end graphics card (depending on what you are
doing) and VelociRaptor hard drives.

ss.

There may be a hard limit of 64 cores, regardless of how many physical
sockets. In a partner presentation about SBS 2008 RC0 there was a slide that
mentioned a 64 core limit. I questioned this and was told due to the way the
kernel was coded it was a physical limit that existed in the underlying
Server 2008. There was some disagreement amongst the presenters but the
consensus was the limit probably exists. As Vista and Server 2008 share the
same kernel, this same limit if true, exists in Vista as well. I haven't
been able to find any documentation about this. Maybe someone else knows for
sure.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/



"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:56D95656-57EB-469F-9355-C24963B40449@xxxxxx

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:47:11 +0100, "Paul Smith"
<Paul@xxxxxx> wrote:
And that's more a limitation of the license, rather than the OS's
technical ability.


Donald L McDaniel

"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:83aj449hoqer1e51edrcb1vipbtapcto0q@xxxxxx

Thanks all,

I appreciate it!

Steve