Jump to content

[Question] - Dual Core and licencing


Nakatomi2010

Recommended Posts

It's not windows that controls the dual cores, it's all integrated in the processor. So it's the processor that equals the workload on the cores.
Incorrect. It's not done in hardware, but rather it's "software assisted", meaning that the software has to be able to support dual-core. Windows Home will run on dual-core, it just won't be able to run processes on the secondary core. Pro can do that (and supports SMP as well). However, if the applications program can use both cores, it does not matter the OS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Think about it this way, a multi core cpu uses one physical socket on the motherboard at the moment.

XP Pro can support 2 sockets

XP Home can support 1 socket

At the moment it dosnt matter if its multicore or not as unlike oracle ms licences by socket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gdogg:

Would that be your applications supporting dual-core and not the OS itself? Can XP home run system services on both cores at once, or do you have to specifically set it to use it via affinity setting in taskmgr?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xp home naturally uses a piece of each core at once, when using 100% of a cpu, taskmanager shows it as, 50% of each processor.

and, about smp support ...

I tested that too, 7zip, with smp, uses 100% of both cpus, when encoding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xp home naturally uses a piece of each core at once, when using 100% of a cpu, taskmanager shows it as, 50% of each processor.

That's not physically possible due to the way software is currently designed. A 50/50 setup would be considered load balancing, which Windows does not manage, just like it doesn't manage thread or core affinity.

This is an inherent "bug" in the X2's architecture(similarly to how when using Hyperthreading, Windows will sometimes report both the physical and logical cores at 100% usage, when in fact only the physical core is being used).

It's nothing to be alarmed by, though, it's just the way the System Request Interface and Crossbar manage threads.

As far as this whole Home and multi-core/multi-processor fiasco is concerned, the most definitive answer I can give you is this:

Despite the fact that Home's kernel(which is the same NT/2k-based kernel Professional uses) does offer support for dual core processors, it does not license them, and this is where you'll run into a problem.

There are certain applications(mostly in the professional sector) that are very strict when it comes to licensing(as demonstrated by the ludicrous registration/activation processes they make you go through). These applications have the ability to enforce a strict policy on licensing, and thus will either prevent you from using SMP and/or running the application all together.

So, for the average joe, this is no problem at all, and they can go ahead and buy a dual core processor and run Home with all of their "average joe oriented" applications and never run into a problem.

However, if you're anything but an average joe, you definitely want to be going with Professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to put it simple the Current Windows XP series WILL NOT USE dual core

but that doesn't mean you will not use the extra core because when the programm it self is build for dual core it will use both cores even if windows only uses 1

This is completely false.

Windows XP supports SMP, and thus dual core processors can be effective within XP, provided you have software that actually makes use of it.

Furthermore, thinking that just because the application takes advantage of multithreading, the operating system doesn't have to is a completely wrong train of thought, and one that will make the dual core adoption a lot slower.

The operating system SHOULD take advantage of multithreading and load balancing, even if it's just devoting one core to the operating system and one to applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@teqguy

ok, here is what I dont understand, I have a dual core 165 , @ 2.6 right FX 60 speeds.

I am just telling you what is going on, prime 95, uses 100% of a cpu, xp home oem sp2, naturally uses, affinity to both processors all on its own.

using prime95 once, you get 50/50 instead of 100% usage of one, unless you up prime95 affinity to just , proc 0 or proc 1

so, yes, windows xp does support load balacing and smp from all my testing.

SMP in 7-zip called dual threads. when encoding use 100% of both cpu, w/o user intervention.

warcraft 3, loading, using 99% of the cpu, uses it between both

wmp10 uses both too, 2% of each

load balanching in xp home sp2, yes,

licenced in xp home, yes, you allowed quad core if you want ... only alloweed 1 processor (this changed back in 2004/5 when HT was promient, b4 then , you needed a dual cpu licenced mce 2004, just for HT.

smp in xp home sp2, yes, its there, it works, and well, guess the answer to your question, yes, your just getting you customers to buy more expensive windows w/o reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gdogg, i think ur confusing them, ill put it a little simpler

if you run prime on core0 then task manager will report 50% cpu usage

if you run prime on core0 and core1 then task manager will report 100% cpu usage

and acording to my test windows does use both cores, if i open a bunch of different folder i will notice that both cores in the task manager will go up in cpu usage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gdogg, I just explained what is actually going on within Windows and why one would go with the licensing of Professional vs Home.... and yet you went and said exactly the opposite of what I said... without giving any reason as to why your reasoning is true.

It's virtually IMPOSSIBLE for your processor to be devoting 50% of each core's resources to one task, because load balancing does not divide the process in half... it just sets the core or thread affinity to one processor, and then sets the affinity of any other processes to the other processor.

That processor's architecture doesn't have a shared cache, therefore, processes can't be halved and shared.

As far as SMP, load balancing, and thread/core affinity are concerned.... Windows does NOT and never has had any option for any of the sort, outside of one "cluster" configuration in NT4, which pales in comparison to any Linux distro that's oriented toward clustering.

Software in the form of applications always has and, for what I'm concerned, always will be responsible for driving how SMP and multi-threading is made use of.

Why? Because Microsoft's developers are lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@teqguy:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

First off, Windows XP is licensed PER INSTALLATION not per processor. This applies to both the Home and the Professional editions.

Second of all, Windows XP Home does NOT support multiple processors. Although Windows XP Home WILL run on a multiple-cored and/or multiple-processors system, only the PRIMARY CORE OF THE PRIMARY PROCESSOR will be used. Other processors and cores will be simply ignored.

Third, Windows XP Professional supports up to a maximum of 2 physical processors with an unlimited number of cores. Additional processors will simply be ignored.

Fourth, the limitiations for the number of processors supported are a SOFTWARE limitations within the operating system. They are NOT licensing limitations.

And by the way, Windows XP Professional does indeed do load balancing across multiple cores. System processes are distributed across multiple cores only individual application threads are concentrated on the primary core, although an application can be manually assigned to run on an alternative core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, Windows XP is licensed PER INSTALLATION not per processor. This applies to both the Home and the Professional editions.

Explain this to me then: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

Second of all, Windows XP Home does NOT support multiple processors. Although Windows XP Home WILL run on a multiple-cored and/or multiple-processors system, only the PRIMARY CORE OF THE PRIMARY PROCESSOR will be used. Other processors and cores will be simply ignored.
Read what I mentioned previously, because I distinctly remember specifying that Home does not support multiple processors, but does acknowledge multiple logical processors(otherwise known as cores).
Third, Windows XP Professional supports up to a maximum of 2 physical processors with an unlimited number of cores. Additional processors will simply be ignored.

While true, this need not be a correction, because it hasn't been mentioned by me or anyone else yet.

Fourth, the limitiations for the number of processors supported are a SOFTWARE limitations within the operating system. They are NOT licensing limitations.
Actually, for professional software, the only software limitations ARE licensing limitations. Of course, this isn't about how the software was written, but rather how much money they can make from it.
And by the way, Windows XP Professional does indeed do load balancing across multiple cores. System processes are distributed across multiple cores only individual application threads are concentrated on the primary core, although an application can be manually assigned to run on an alternative core.

I'm going to need some low level(not just task manager) proof on this one, because from what I've read, XP's HAL does not have any core logic as far as distributing its processes or any other processes, for that matter, across any more processors(physical or logical) than physical processor 0.

Edited by teqguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...