Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running
in a dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming,
but it seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <csr9fo$hfb2@imsp212.netvigator.com>, johnn says...
> Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running
> in a dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming,
> but it seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !
>
XP Home is single CPU only so you need Pro. Are you sure the clients
aren't overloading the network bandwidth?



--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.

--
DaveW



"johnn" <johnjohn9191@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:csr9fo$hfb2@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running
> in a dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming, but
> it seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:41 -0800, DaveW may or may not
have written:

> Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
> Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.

Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.01.22.10.08.11.838256@idontlike.spam>, jafar
says...
> I demand that on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:41 -0800, DaveW may or may not
> have written:
>
> > Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
> > Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>
> Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
> if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out
>
And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.



--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

>>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>>
>>Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
>>if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out
>>
> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.


Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things
to work, it will consume the majority of your time.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

A few observations:
If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to worry
about the price of XP-Pro?
Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd off-the
shelf 4 CPU motherboard?

Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!

Ian

"Kram" <BB@King.com> wrote in message
newstidnfFptIpf7m_cRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>
>>>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>>>
>>>Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
>>>if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out
>>>
>> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
>> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.
>
>
> Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
> post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things to
> work, it will consume the majority of your time.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:11:43 +0000 (UTC), "Ian Boys"
<TooMuchSpam@BTInternet.com> wrote:

>A few observations:
>If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to worry
>about the price of XP-Pro?

Who likes to waste money?
If he needs XP Pro, which he probably does, that's one
thing. Arguing to spend an extra $120 unnecessarily is a
different matter.


>Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
>If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd off-the
>shelf 4 CPU motherboard?

So you claim it needs 4 CPUs?
Nobody else has mentioned this?


>
>Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!

You are aware that every AMD CPU after the old Palomino
core, has produced less heat than the contemporary P4
alternatives? If one chose a 4 CPU AMD box, there would be
enough idling that it probably wouldn't be much hotter than
2 x P4 Prescotts.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:39:46 -0600, Kram may or may not have
written:

>
>>>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>>>
>>>Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
>>>if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out
>>>
>> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
>> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.
>
>
> Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
> post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things
> to work, it will consume the majority of your time.

If linux is good enough for major film studios like Pixar, then maybe
johnn has an option there. I was just making a helpful suggestion.
Naturally linux would require some setting up, but so would windows if you
want to do more than just play games

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Yes, but Windows Media Encoder cannot run in Lunux !
:-(

Thanks to all have replied


jafar wrote:
> I demand that on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:41 -0800, DaveW may or may not
> have written:
>
>
>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>
>
> Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
> if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Nope, didn't claim anything regarding the number or CPU's needed. But, the
newsgroup is about "homebuilt" and I was just making the point that to find
a motherboard that takes more than 2 CPU's is a bit like finding hen's
teeth.

I wish I had the time to set up a Linux system and really get to know it.
I'm involved with some charity work in a 3rd world country where a good,
stable file server would be great. At the moment I've given them a NAS which
works well as a file server but is somewhat limited in anything else it can
do.

Ian

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8465v0pmrnn03vd0lsb19md84ge0p87e0h@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:11:43 +0000 (UTC), "Ian Boys"
> <TooMuchSpam@BTInternet.com> wrote:
>
>>A few observations:
>>If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to
>>worry
>>about the price of XP-Pro?
>
> Who likes to waste money?
> If he needs XP Pro, which he probably does, that's one
> thing. Arguing to spend an extra $120 unnecessarily is a
> different matter.
>
>
>>Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
>>If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd
>>off-the
>>shelf 4 CPU motherboard?
>
> So you claim it needs 4 CPUs?
> Nobody else has mentioned this?
>
>
>>
>>Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!
>
> You are aware that every AMD CPU after the old Palomino
> core, has produced less heat than the contemporary P4
> alternatives? If one chose a 4 CPU AMD box, there would be
> enough idling that it probably wouldn't be much hotter than
> 2 x P4 Prescotts.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.

That's not true, and let's not get this started again...


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Kram wrote:

>> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
>> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.
>
>
> Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
> post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things
> to work, it will consume the majority of your time.

I'm trying to not get pulled into this, but this is absolutely false. I've
been running Linux on a computer right next to my Windows machine for about
5 years now, and I've never had such a misery installing it. Sure, if you
have hardware you have to have running, and your OEM doesn't support Linux
(it's the OEM's fault that Linux doesn't support it, since they chose not
to support Linux), or the their isn't enough Linux users demanding support
for it so that a couple of willing developers donate their precious time to
write drivers for it, despite no OEM support, then you might have a
problem. If you stick with common hardware that was released _before_ your
Linux distro, you should have no problems.

Secondly, when a problem with something does occur in Linux, I find it far
easier to fix. Usually, I just delete the irritant application's 'rc' file,
and it gets rebuilt by the application with default settings, and I'm back
to normal. No registry to deal with, and rc and config files are written in
almost spoken English and easy to decipher and change.

Lastly, I can install Linux, a bunch of applications, and all of my drivers
and have it setup and running properly in just about 2 hours. Windows, on
the otherhand, usually takes days to install everything one at a time after
the OS itself has been installed. Distros like Mandrake and SuSE just about
take care of themselves, and what isn't can be setup with very few steps.

Now, I don't want to get into debating Linux use on the desktop by normal,
average, everyday users, but this is the absolute truth. Anyone who wants
to find out how well Linux runs on their system can download Knoppix @
www.knoppix.com, Mandrake Move @ www.mandrakelinux.com/en/ftp.php3 (scroll
down to Mandrake Move Download Edition), or SuSE LiveCD @ ftp.suse.com
(they're rather busy lately) and see for themselves how easy it is to
install and use. These run off of the CD, so you aren't really installing
anything, despite something of an installation process. If you want to use
the CD over and over for occasional Linux use, some of them require you to
have a partition that isn't NTFS to save your preferences and stuff.

Also, these editions probably do not have any nVidia or ATi driver support
(only open source drivers that aren't as good for 3D use), and you probably
won't have RealPlayer, FlashPlayer, Java, or any other non-open source
software support. You will have an open source Acrobat reader, though. To
get that stuff, you must purchase a retail version. Mandrake has a retail
version of Move that still runs off of the CD and has all the proprietary
drivers and software. SuSE is currently offering a free ftp download of the
complete retail Professional version of SuSE Linux 9.2, but the ftp site
and mirrors are clogged with downloaders right now. Besides, ftp downloads
will work fine, but getting ISOs to burn your own CDs are much nicer
because you won't have to go through the trouble of downloading it again if
you screw something up and have to wipe it.

That aside, there's nothing wrong with wanting to run WindowsXP. If the user
isn't interested in trying Linux, then that's his prerogative. I'm not
advocating that he should, but just that it isn't has bad as people claim.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ian Boys wrote:
> A few observations:
> If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to worry
> about the price of XP-Pro?
> Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
> If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd off-the
> shelf 4 CPU motherboard?
>
> Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!
>
> Ian
>
snip...
While finding a 4-processor motherboard isn't difficult, finding the
money to purchase one and then populate it properly certainly would be.
Even contemplating such numbers so early on a Sunday morning makes my
head hurt...

http://www.supermicro.com/products [...] /P4QH8.cfm

--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

John McGaw wrote:


> While finding a 4-processor motherboard isn't difficult, finding the
> money to purchase one and then populate it properly certainly would be.
> Even contemplating such numbers so early on a Sunday morning makes my
> head hurt...
>
> http://www.supermicro.com/products [...] /P4QH8.cfm

I like this one much better:

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Mer [...] y_Code=OMB

$1700! That's just for the motherboard!


--

Registered Linux user #378193