Re: Dual-core and/or SMP + Win9x/ME

>> Scenario 4: See scenario 3. You WILL need an OS supporting the amount of
>> CPU's in your system. Note that if you have 2 dual core processors, 
>> your OS
>> will need to support 4 CPU's.
>
>
> I suspected it. Thanks for this verification, it is extremely important.
>
This is not necessarily true and I'll toss you a few links.
First off not all dual core CPUs support hyperthreading - and beyond 
that not all INTEL dual core CPU's support hyperthreading.
Only the 'Extreme Edition' Dual Core's support hyperthreading
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=870806,868125&familyID=1&culture=en-US
If that comparison link doesn't work review:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium_D/index.htm
and
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumXE/index.htm

It sort of goes without saying that AMD CPUs aren't hyperthreaded and 
therefore don't require an OS with support for 4 CPUs.

Beyond that here is Microsoft on licensing for windows in dual core 
environments:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx#E1B

Reference that with this: 
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;316639
and this statement on hyperthreading: 
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;810231

That "should" mean that XP Home can support a dual core CPU (as it can 
support a hyperthreaded CPU) you'd need XP Pro for a Dual Core 
Hyperthreaded CPU though. I personally perfer many of the features of XP 
Pro and would recommend it anyways.

I found a more verbose statement of this once on Microsoft's webpage but 
hell if I can find it again.

Regarding your friend's comments that 98 is a better gaming machine.. 
that's really a load of crap. Having been involved in beta tests back 
that far and having used every iteration of Windows since 3.0 (and a lot 
of linux etc on the side) XP really is the best gaming OS to date - its 
far from perfect but in terms of stability etc its wonderful. Win 2k 
wasn't bad either but good luck getting a hold of a legit version at 
this point in time.

Hopefully this has debunked the misinformation you currently have received.

- Nathan


>> This is for example not the case with the standard Windows NT 4 
>> machines.
>
>
> You right, if "NT4.0 Workstation" was meant by "standart". NT4.0 
> Server support 4 CPU, but its OEM-modifications able to support up to 
> 32 CPUs.
>
>> Question: If you have the meens to put together a 4-core machine,
>
>
> But I havn't it. ;) I have a love of knowledge, so just interested.
>
>> why would you want to run something as awful as Win9x/me ?
>
>
> Scenario:
> 1.I want separate computer for gaming ONLY. AFAIK, best OS for this 
> purpose is Win98 (all my friends, who have skills in Windows, say thus).
>
> 2.I am fanat of distributed calculations, especially d-net.
>
> 3.I take the liberty of for buying dual-proc/dual-core machine instead 
> of single-proc/single-core. Of course, this unnecessary expenditure 
> dosn't affect speed and quality of games. In other words three cores 
> in a four always give 100% of their power to dnetc. Only one core, 
> which detected by Win98, process game and Win98 as such.
>
> My train of thought:
> For example, we have two computers: FirstKomp with M.A.D. UnoKore 3GHz 
> and SecondKomp with two M.A.D. PairKore 3GHz. We play game, which 
> require 2.7Ghz. Windows grab hipotetically 9% of CPU power, i.e. 270Mhz.
>
> FirstKomp. Total requiments of game and Win - 99%. So, 1% for dnetc.
> SecondKomp. One core process game and Win, as in FirstKomp. 1% for 
> dnet. Other three cores process dnetc only. So, we have 301% of 
> UniKore. =)
>
> As you can see, we have same efficiency in games and much higher in 
> dnetc. Unfortunately, it is impossible, as far as I understand. I must 
> use one UniKore 3GHz with Win98 OR SMP/Dual-core with Windows 2000/XP.
>
> ThirdKomp. Two M.A.D. PairKore 2.7GHz with any Windows NT 5.x, which 
> grab hipotetically 20% of CPU power. One 2.7GHz-core process game, 
> which require 2.7GHz, so 0% for dnetc. Another core process NT as 
> such, so 80% for dnetc. Others cores give full power to dnetc, so summ 
> is 280%. Of course, this is dumb scenario too, because expected smart 
> OS with ideal allocation of recources. Windows never be so smart. But 
> it's just model.
>
>> regards,
>>
>> Floris Dansen
>> (Floppus)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: hardware-bounces-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected]
>> [mailto:hardware-bounces-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected]]Namens Vadim Tukaev
>> Verzonden: zondag 16 oktober 2005 7:00
>> Aan: hardware-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected]
>> Onderwerp: [Hardware] Dual-core and/or SMP + Win9x/ME
>>
>>
>> Hi/2!
>>
>> What happend, if I start distributed.net-client on SUBJ machine? Can
>> dnetc utilize all processor power in this situation? In other words:
>>
>> Scenario1. Let us assume, that I have computer with processor, which
>> produce 1M keys/sec. I run dnetc in any OS and get approximately 1M k/s.
>>
>> Scenario2. I install to my computer two processors, each of them equal
>> to processor from Scenario1. I run dnetc on top of Win9x/ME, not
>> NT4/2000/XP. How many keys/sec I can get practically? 1M or 2M?
>>
>> Scenario3. I install dual-core processor, each core of it equal to
>> processor in Scenario1. I run dnetc on top of Win9x/ME. What I get?
>>
>> Scenario4. I install two Scenario3-processors (i.e. dual-core). They
>> able to produce 4M k/s theoretically, but can I get such on Win9x/ME?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> -- 
>> Open OS/2! (Members: 13; Rank: 1206; Blocks: 89020; Working: 331 days)
>> http://stats.distributed.net/team/tmsummary.php?project_id=8&team=30911
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hardware mailing list
>> Hardware-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected]
>> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hardware mailing list
>> Hardware-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected]
>> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Hardware mailing list
Hardware-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected]
http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware