BetaArchive is a non-profit site and your donations help to keep us online and thriving. If you can, please consider donating a small amount to help keep us online. Donate and find out more here. Thank you! - Andy & mrpijey
Could you kindly post in a way that others can understand you, it's starting to get annoying.
Yes, please do. And "she" is not sexist. Sexist would be saying, "oh, shes a woman doing a mans job?". So please start talking properly and sensibly or you know what will happen.
You should note that if anyone was being sexist it would be dealt with VERY seriously.
Andy wrote:I beleive XP home/pro is limited to two cores, and I beleive it says so in the EULA. The only OS's that can use more than two cores as far as I know are the Server OS's (2000, 2003 etc), linux, mac os x, etc.
No. XP Home is limited to one physical CPU socket, XP Pro to two. But there's no limit regarding the number of cores.
Microsoft wrote:“Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor. ”
Andy wrote:I beleive XP home/pro is limited to two cores, and I beleive it says so in the EULA. The only OS's that can use more than two cores as far as I know are the Server OS's (2000, 2003 etc), linux, mac os x, etc.
No. XP Home is limited to one physical CPU socket, XP Pro to two. But there's no limit regarding the number of cores.
Microsoft wrote:“Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor. ”
Ah I see, I misunderstood the EULA (well, not so misunderstood, as didn't fully read).
I did actually skim-read the Vista one as I had been talking to someone about something that they had seen in it (yeh, I guess I'm sad or something! ) It's not actually as long and difficult to understand as some of them, maybe they've realised that they need to be like that if people are to read them?
Is the licence restriction to two cores enforced by Windows or not? As I thought it couldn't distinguish between cores and actual processors, given that mine appears in Windows to have two actual processors, when in fact it is a single P4 HT (HT appears as dual-core), so I don't see how they could enforce it for 3+ CPUs, but not 3+ cores.
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Is the licence restriction to two cores enforced by Windows or not? As I thought it couldn't distinguish between cores and actual processors, given that mine appears in Windows to have two actual processors, when in fact it is a single P4 HT (HT appears as dual-core), so I don't see how they could enforce it for 3+ CPUs, but not 3+ cores.
Windows NT and 2000 can't distinguish between actual CPUs, multiple cores or HT technology, but XP and newer can. XP lists your P4HT as two individual CPUs, but it knows better. Install XP Home on your machine – it'll show two CPUs. Install it on a dual-core box, same. Install it on a real SMP box – one CPU.
He was talking about your mum so unless she isn't a she....
Actually lets not go there.
All I did was ask if she'd be worried about the power consumption if the server would be running 24/7. I don't see a problem in asking that. But let's end that here, this will lead to nowhere.
