I recall that the standard license for Win2K allowed 2 CPUs and I
assume XP is the same.

How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | (E-Mail Removed)

Hello,
I think this applies to multiple separate CPUs, not to multicore CPUs.

Greetings,
P. Di Stolfo

--
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// http://blog.lysorp.com - small Windows Blog in German language
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bert Hyman" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns997A8900328E7VeebleFetzer@207.46.248.16...
>I recall that the standard license for Win2K allowed 2 CPUs and I
> assume XP is the same.
>
> How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | (E-Mail Removed)

Bert Hyman wrote:
> I recall that the standard license for Win2K allowed 2 CPUs and I
> assume XP is the same.
>
> How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?

It should really be worded as processor sockets. Since a quad-core
processor uses a single processor socket, from a desktop OS standpoint
it is treated as a single item.

As far as your licensing memory, it's actually a support issue in that
W2K, XP and Vista only support up to two processor sockets. You can
have two multi-core processors (that would approach and surpass some
server configurations if you had dual quad-core processors in your machine).
--
Tom Porterfield

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:28:03 -0700, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> I recall that the standard license for Win2K allowed 2 CPUs and I
> assume XP is the same.


First, it's not really a licensing issue. It's one of software support
for the multiple processors.

Second, Windows XP *Professional* supports two processors, but XP Home
only one.


> How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?


The number of cores is irrelevant. It's the number of physical
processors that counts.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:28:03 -0700, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I recall that the standard license for Win2K allowed 2 CPUs and I
>assume XP is the same.
>
>How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?

Are you kidding me?

Scratchi

Bert Hyman wrote:
> I recall that the standard license for Win2K allowed 2 CPUs and I
> assume XP is the same.
>

You're correct.


> How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?
>


The license restriction applies to *physical* CPUs, not the virtual
CPUs simulated by multiple cores.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Hi all

"Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> > How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?
> >
>
>
> The license restriction applies to *physical* CPUs, not the virtual
> CPUs simulated by multiple cores.
>
>
Have you found anywhere at MS saying so? - because tried to search for it
without results.
I think you're right, but it would be nice to be sure.

Bjarne

Bjarne.net wrote:
> Hi all
>
> "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
>
>>>How are quad-core processors treated as far as counting CPUs?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The license restriction applies to *physical* CPUs, not the virtual
>>CPUs simulated by multiple cores.
>>
>>
>
> Have you found anywhere at MS saying so? - because tried to search for it
> without results.
> I think you're right, but it would be nice to be sure.

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...read_brief.doc

John

In news:#(E-Mail Removed) John John
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Bjarne.net wrote:
>
>> I think you're right, but it would be nice to be sure.
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...read_brief.doc

That's the kind of thing I was looking for; thanks.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN (E-Mail Removed)