Vista - Which version support dual core or quad core?

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eSKpidXFHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> By the way, I shall rephrase the question so it may be more clear:
>
> By design means, it can't be installed and used on a board with two
> physical CPUs, whilst, it can be installed and used except it
> violates the license.
>
>

No it can be installed on a board with many (Physical CPU packages)
processors but only one will be used.
The software will remain operational.

--

Mike Brannigan


> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u7yMNWXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks and exactly as you mentioned, but here is one thing that I
>> don't know:
>>
>>> Home editions can be installed on boards with one physical
>>> processor. Business editions can be installed on boards with one
>>> or two physical processors.
>>
>> Is above bound to license or is by design of the software?
>>
>> I don't know much about the architectures of Vista, XP, or even
>> Win3.1 for that matter
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23ex1$PXFHHA.2464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Another interpretation is that the each cpu is a physical
>>> processor and each core is a logical processor. You can see the
>>> logical processors on the Performance Tab in Task Manager. There
>>> will be a CPU Usage History graph for each logical processor.
>>>
>>> Home editions can be installed on boards with one physical
>>> processor. Business editions can be installed on boards with one
>>> or two physical processors. Boards with more physical processors
>>> require one of the Server editions.
>>>
>>> Hyperthreading doubles the number of logical processors so an
>>> Intel P4 with hyperthreading enabled appears exactly the same as
>>> an Intel Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, or AMD64 x2 on the Performance Tab.
>>>
>>> All editions of XP, Vista, and Server work the same in this
>>> regard.
>>>
>>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23DS4GGXFHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>
>>>> In summary, cores in CPUs is designed to be independent to OS,
>>>> and it's just how much the applications (including OS) can take
>>>> advantages of its processing power.
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Porterfield" <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:uz8Tq4WFHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> churin wrote:
>>>>>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> which support quad core cpu?
>>>>>
>>>>> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for
>>>>> quad core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single
>>>>> processor socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor
>>>>> in that socket. Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two
>>>>> processor sockets, again that could be a multi-core processor in
>>>>> each socket.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tom Porterfield
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:eaVI3fXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
> news:eCQrsdXFHHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It is limited by both software AND the license.
>> So even if the product was not limited you would still be in breach
>> of the license.
>
> So will it not install? Or install and just not use the extra
> processors?
>
> Mike


It will install and only use one on board processor package
(irrespective of number of Cores).

--

Mike Brannigan

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:eaVI3fXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
> news:eCQrsdXFHHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> It is limited by both software AND the license.
>> So even if the product was not limited you would still be in breach
>> of the license.
>
> So will it not install? Or install and just not use the extra
> processors?
>
> Mike
>

"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:eIdDHiXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
> news:eaVI3fXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
>> news:eCQrsdXFHHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> It is limited by both software AND the license.
>>> So even if the product was not limited you would still be in breach of
>>> the license.
>>
>> So will it not install? Or install and just not use the extra
>> processors?
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> It will install and only use one on board processor package (irrespective
> of number of Cores).

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

Mike

xfile wrote:
> By the way, I shall rephrase the question so it may be more clear:
>
> By design means, it can't be installed and used on a board with two
> physical CPUs, whilst, it can be installed and used except it
> violates the license.

What Mike said.

It's an "artificial" software restriction to support a licence condition.
Effectively a bit of code somewhere says "If operating system edition = home
edition of some kind, only support one CPU socket".

Hi,

Thanks
"Gary" <Gary@somewhere.usa> wrote in message
news:uBWPbcXFHHA.1784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Its the design of the software.
>
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u7yMNWXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks and exactly as you mentioned, but here is one thing that I don't
>> know:
>>
>>> Home editions can be installed on boards with one physical processor.
>>> Business editions can be installed on boards with one or two physical
>>> processors.
>>
>> Is above bound to license or is by design of the software?
>>
>> I don't know much about the architectures of Vista, XP, or even Win3.1
>> for that matter
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23ex1$PXFHHA.2464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Another interpretation is that the each cpu is a physical processor and
>>> each core is a logical processor. You can see the logical processors on
>>> the Performance Tab in Task Manager. There will be a CPU Usage History
>>> graph for each logical processor.
>>>
>>> Home editions can be installed on boards with one physical processor.
>>> Business editions can be installed on boards with one or two physical
>>> processors. Boards with more physical processors require one of the
>>> Server editions.
>>>
>>> Hyperthreading doubles the number of logical processors so an Intel P4
>>> with hyperthreading enabled appears exactly the same as an Intel Core
>>> Duo, Core 2 Duo, or AMD64 x2 on the Performance Tab.
>>>
>>> All editions of XP, Vista, and Server work the same in this regard.
>>>
>>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23DS4GGXFHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>
>>>> In summary, cores in CPUs is designed to be independent to OS, and it's
>>>> just how much the applications (including OS) can take advantages of
>>>> its processing power.
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Porterfield" <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:uz8Tq4WFHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> churin wrote:
>>>>>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there any
>>>>>> which support quad core cpu?
>>>>>
>>>>> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for quad
>>>>> core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single processor
>>>>> socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor in that socket.
>>>>> Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two processor sockets, again
>>>>> that could be a multi-core processor in each socket.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tom Porterfield
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks for clarification.


"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:eCQrsdXFHHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u7yMNWXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks and exactly as you mentioned, but here is one thing that I don't
>> know:
>>
>>> Home editions can be installed on boards with one physical processor.
>>> Business editions can be installed on boards with one or two physical
>>> processors.
>>
>> Is above bound to license or is by design of the software?
>>
>> I don't know much about the architectures of Vista, XP, or even Win3.1
>> for that matter
>>
>
> It is limited by both software AND the license.
> So even if the product was not limited you would still be in breach of the
> license.
>
> --
>
> Mike Brannigan
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u7yMNWXFHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks and exactly as you mentioned, but here is one thing that I don't
>> know:
>>
>>> Home editions can be installed on boards with one physical processor.
>>> Business editions can be installed on boards with one or two physical
>>> processors.
>>
>> Is above bound to license or is by design of the software?
>>
>> I don't know much about the architectures of Vista, XP, or even Win3.1
>> for that matter
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23ex1$PXFHHA.2464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Another interpretation is that the each cpu is a physical processor and
>>> each core is a logical processor. You can see the logical processors on
>>> the Performance Tab in Task Manager. There will be a CPU Usage History
>>> graph for each logical processor.
>>>
>>> Home editions can be installed on boards with one physical processor.
>>> Business editions can be installed on boards with one or two physical
>>> processors. Boards with more physical processors require one of the
>>> Server editions.
>>>
>>> Hyperthreading doubles the number of logical processors so an Intel P4
>>> with hyperthreading enabled appears exactly the same as an Intel Core
>>> Duo, Core 2 Duo, or AMD64 x2 on the Performance Tab.
>>>
>>> All editions of XP, Vista, and Server work the same in this regard.
>>>
>>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23DS4GGXFHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>
>>>> In summary, cores in CPUs is designed to be independent to OS, and it's
>>>> just how much the applications (including OS) can take advantages of
>>>> its processing power.
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Porterfield" <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:uz8Tq4WFHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> churin wrote:
>>>>>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there any
>>>>>> which support quad core cpu?
>>>>>
>>>>> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for quad
>>>>> core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single processor
>>>>> socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor in that socket.
>>>>> Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two processor sockets, again
>>>>> that could be a multi-core processor in each socket.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tom Porterfield
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks

"Robert Moir" <robspamtrap@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uOCZAtZFHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> xfile wrote:
>> By the way, I shall rephrase the question so it may be more clear:
>>
>> By design means, it can't be installed and used on a board with two
>> physical CPUs, whilst, it can be installed and used except it
>> violates the license.
>
> What Mike said.
>
> It's an "artificial" software restriction to support a licence condition.
> Effectively a bit of code somewhere says "If operating system edition =
> home edition of some kind, only support one CPU socket".
>

Tom Porterfield wrote:
> churin wrote:
>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there any
>> which support quad core cpu?
>
> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for quad
> core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single processor
> socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor in that socket.
> Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two processor sockets, again
> that could be a multi-core processor in each socket.

Thanks for your reply.
Let me ask a follow-up question:
My present PC uses a mobo with two single core proccessors and with one
set of RAM. Is it true that I can get same level of performance as that
with the above by one dual-core proccessor with one set of RAM? My logic
is that the OS does not care whether the two CPUs are on the same die or
not.

"churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
news:OTujbBbFHHA.928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>> churin wrote:
>>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there
>>> any
>>> which support quad core cpu?
>>
>> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for quad
>> core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single processor
>> socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor in that
>> socket. Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two processor
>> sockets, again that could be a multi-core processor in each socket.
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> Let me ask a follow-up question:
> My present PC uses a mobo with two single core proccessors and with
> one set of RAM. Is it true that I can get same level of performance
> as that with the above by one dual-core proccessor with one set of
> RAM? My logic is that the OS does not care whether the two CPUs are
> on the same die or not.

In the broadest possible sense , you will nerve get as good
performance with a CPU with 2 cores as you would with 2 single core
CPUs due to many physical constraints on the throughput and the
underlying architecture of multi core chips. But this is a sweeping
generalisation.
The issue is not about the OS but about the data paths and mother
board performance and many other hardware factors that can influence
performance.
But at a basic/simplistic level 2 real CPUs will perform better then 2
CPUs on the same die sharing components and having to "cooperate" to a
certain degree

(and now we open a huge can of worms and comment :-) )
--

Mike Brannigan

>[...],you will nerve get as good performance with a CPU with 2 cores as you
>would with 2 single core CPUs due to many physical constraints on the
>throughput and the underlying architecture of multi core chips. But this is
>a sweeping generalisation.

Hi,

No offense and the following are based on my limited knowledge

That may not be always the case, and may not be at this time.

Two physical units is always less desirable (for performance and other
factors) than one physical unit for many reasons - skip for simplicity.

I will suggest OP go to Intel, AMD, or Microsoft to see if there are any
benchmark comparisons to see the current performance of CPU's vs. various
applications including OSes.

> But at a basic/simplistic level 2 real CPUs will perform better then 2
> CPUs on the same die sharing components and having to "cooperate" to a
> certain degree

In terms of cooperation, scheduling (determine which instruction sets to be
processed by which units) or synchronization (when jobs have been processed
and returned for use), it is always needed and largely based on the quality
of algorithms used to determine the speed and efficiency, and again, among
other physical factors such as shorter distance is better (so two physical
is farer than two in one die) and others.

By no means I am a CPU expert, but in fact, the basic CPU design theory is
very easy to understand and it is based on "production" theory, whereas each
processing unit is literally treated as a processing unit in production line
and jobs are instruction sets delivered by applications via users and/or
application itself. So fundamentally, it is using the same job scheduling
algorithms as would have been used for production. But just for job
scheduling algorithm part, it is complicated enough, and the most
interesting thing is, there is no "absolute" answer for which one is "right"
and it is evolving every day. More than 10 years ago, I once studied nearly
500 scheduling algorithms for getting an ultimate result at that time. But
even at that time, that was not a "thorough" study, and probably was an
"ultimate" result. I mentioned this just to show how complicated it is, but
not to imply I know a lot.

So one can skip all the "high tech" part of CPU, and relate their knowledge
of manufacturing production and/or other job scheduling for how CPU might
have done the job - but of course, it will be enough to capture the concepts
but details are much more complicated.

In terms of performance of Vista using two physical units or multiple cores,
I'll be interesting to learn if I have time for doing that, and if anyone
care to share based on your experience. But for what I have learned from
some papers in Intel, their multiple cores design was without consideration
of when, or if, Vista will be released. So that gives me some doubts about
how Vista will perform, but maybe they have synchronized the upper level of
architecture long ago, so the rest are on functionalities level.

Back to OP's question, in theory, it is as you think - it wouldn't care and
once it delegated, it will be CPU to handle to job. Now the question is,
how does it know, and if it actually knows, how many processing units are
there AND if its scheduling algorithms are good enough for dispatching the
jobs (so jobs won't be idle) and when results are returned to be further
processed by OS (and application). The first part of the question is why I
asked the previous question about if it's by design or license issue, and
appreciate those who answered, so we know basic version might not even aware
there is an additional unit or won't use it if it is there (if I understood
the answer correctly) which means job dispatching won't make any difference
for those versions. The second part of question will be those who design
Windows and have some benchmark results to tell.

So to boil down the above bla bla bla, the bottlenecks will be the
application's (OS included) scheduling and synchronization abilities plus
those of the CPU to get the performance you want - that is one of reasons,
multiple CPUs (multiple cores or physical ones) are rarely used on PC level
(other than PC server) - but that was before - and anything might be
different at this and future point.

Again, the above is based on my very rough knowledge and welcome additional
corrections and comments.



"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:%23eUURMbFHHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OTujbBbFHHA.928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>>> churin wrote:
>>>> Which version of Windows Vista support dual core cpu? Is there any
>>>> which support quad core cpu?
>>>
>>> All versions of Vista support a dual core processor. Same for quad
>>> core. Home Basic and Home Premium only support a single processor
>>> socket, but that can be a single multi-core processor in that socket.
>>> Business, Enterprise and Ultimate support two processor sockets, again
>>> that could be a multi-core processor in each socket.
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>> Let me ask a follow-up question:
>> My present PC uses a mobo with two single core proccessors and with one
>> set of RAM. Is it true that I can get same level of performance as that
>> with the above by one dual-core proccessor with one set of RAM? My logic
>> is that the OS does not care whether the two CPUs are on the same die or
>> not.
>
> In the broadest possible sense , you will nerve get as good performance
> with a CPU with 2 cores as you would with 2 single core CPUs due to many
> physical constraints on the throughput and the underlying architecture of
> multi core chips. But this is a sweeping generalisation.
> The issue is not about the OS but about the data paths and mother board
> performance and many other hardware factors that can influence
> performance.
> But at a basic/simplistic level 2 real CPUs will perform better then 2
> CPUs on the same die sharing components and having to "cooperate" to a
> certain degree
>
> (and now we open a huge can of worms and comment :-) )
> --
>
> Mike Brannigan
>
>
>