Upgrading from Ultimate to home

[Nakatomi2010]

I would imagine that while Vista was being designed with dual core processors in mind the engineers knew that quad core was not that far down the pipe....

When designing for a multi core system it doesn't matter if your programming it for dual core or quad core, the actual design is going to be able to "sense" the number of cores and take advantage, XP can't truly do this since it was made in a time when two cores on one chip was science fiction, Vista on the other hand was made in a time when Intel said they wanted 32 core by 2012, and so I would assume that the multicore technology in Vista would be adaptive to the number of core in the system. Seems stupid to me that a programmer would go "Nah, why add support for quad core or more when only dual core chips are out", this line of thought is just asking to be called stupid.... When programmers design software they NEED to think about the technology inovations that are out and coming out... Plus it can't be that hard to add native quad core support, I mean your basically telling the OS "Alright, you've got multiple cores, spread the workload around"

[Stead]

as far as i can see, any NT based os should be able to handle multiple cores, only hyper threading needed special coding for it.

the issues i thought were due to licesing, ie windows 200 only handled the processors by the cores it used not physical processors, so if you had a dual quad core computer it wouldn only use 4 cores because its only allowed for use on a computer with 4 processors, not actually sure how many 2000 let you use but you get the point?

anyways my point was that i'm sure i read that vista home can handle 2 physical procesors, each with unlimited cores

[WBHoenig]

Hi, Stead -So, you think Vista is FASTER than XP, eh?

You must have a very fast system. B)

Either that or his XP installation is slow because of huge numbers of autoruns, disk not defragged, cache is filled up, etc.

Hehe, I'm on a two-year-old high-end laptop (so now low-to-medium end) and Vista runs much faster here and I keep my installations nice and clean (e.g. reformat every month). Needless to say, I've never gotten along very well with XP. 2003 is a great OS, though, and the kernel is very similar to Vista's.

Edited November 13, 2006 by WBHoenig

[kutster]

Thats kind of interesting Hoenig. What are your specs? Cause that doesn't seem quite right. Here Microsoft and the rest of the world is telling us that we are going to need a high end video card at least a 1.5 Ghz processor and 2 gigs of memory to run Vista smoothly and you can on an "out of date" computer.