My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
Hyperthreading.

They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
because it's an OEM version.

I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
anyone help me please?

Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
--
Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
www.coribright.com

"Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
> found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
> there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
> Hyperthreading.
>
> They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
> needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
> on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
> because it's an OEM version.
>
> I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
> anyone help me please?

As a side note;

Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one of
the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit by
having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that signaling
is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is somewhere in
the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded instances of up to
17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is better to leave HT off. HT
is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel, and it really does not
benefit the average user. The techs actually did you a favor by turning it
off. Before you lamers and flamers start responding, be aware that I also
own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based
systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No
need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.

Bobby

"Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
> --
> Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
> www.coribright.com
>
> "Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>> found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>> there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>> Hyperthreading.
>>
>> They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>> needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>> on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>> because it's an OEM version.
>>
>> I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>> anyone help me please?
>
>

NoNoBadDog,

You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading will
depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied more
so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice the
difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same time, some
active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a respected website
with factual information. This link
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
Hyperthreading.

Nospam

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> As a side note;
>
> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one of
> the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit by
> having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
> handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
> signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
> somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
> instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is better
> to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel, and
> it really does not benefit the average user. The techs actually did you a
> favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and flamers start responding,
> be aware that I also own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I
> also own AMD based systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not
> "Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate
> "Intel Rocks" feelings.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
>> --
>> Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
>> www.coribright.com
>>
>> "Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>>> found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>>> there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>>> Hyperthreading.
>>>
>>> They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>>> needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>>> on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>>> because it's an OEM version.
>>>
>>> I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>>> anyone help me please?
>>
>>
>
>

I sympathize with you and wish I had an answer. Have you contacted MS
support via the web? I cannot really agree about the multitasking
improvements with HT turned on (I have never seen any REAL improvement on
any of the HT machines I work with). If you are happy with the performance
you get with HT enabled, then I agree that you should expect it to work
correctly. As far as future software, I doubt more will be compiled for HT.
as we move more and more towards the x64 world, Hypertransport will replace
HT (Yes, even on Intel x86 based consumer chips). Code does not have to be
recompiled to take advantage of Hypertransport. I think HT will die a quiet
death, and be remembered as one of many failed attempts at squeezing more
speed or power out of an already overtaxed 586 architecture. I will still
stand by my original statement that you will see better overall performance
with HT off, and that HT will eventually fade away.

Bobby

"Nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1iHVc.416$(E-Mail Removed)...
> NoNoBadDog,
>
> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading will
> depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied
> more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice
> the difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same
> time, some active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a
> respected website with factual information. This link
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
> Hyperthreading.
>
> Nospam
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> As a side note;
>>
>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
>> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit
>> by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the
>> proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
>> signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
>> somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
>> instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is
>> better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for
>> Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
>> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
>> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system, and
>> I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are very
>> worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have
>> hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> "Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
>>> --
>>> Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
>>> www.coribright.com
>>>
>>> "Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>>>> found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>>>> there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>>>> Hyperthreading.
>>>>
>>>> They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>>>> needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>>>> on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>>>> because it's an OEM version.
>>>>
>>>> I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>>>> anyone help me please?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
differences between these two:
Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html

As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
no problems after this point.

----
Nathan McNulty


Nospam wrote:
> NoNoBadDog,
>
> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading will
> depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied more
> so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice the
> difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same time, some
> active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a respected website
> with factual information. This link
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
> Hyperthreading.
>
> Nospam
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>As a side note;
>>
>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one of
>>the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit by
>>having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
>>handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
>>signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
>>somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
>>instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is better
>>to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel, and
>>it really does not benefit the average user. The techs actually did you a
>>favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and flamers start responding,
>>be aware that I also own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I
>>also own AMD based systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not
>>"Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate
>>"Intel Rocks" feelings.
>>
>>Bobby
>>
>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
>>>--
>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
>>>www.coribright.com
>>>
>>>"Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>>>>Hyperthreading.
>>>>
>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>>>>because it's an OEM version.
>>>>
>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>>>>anyone help me please?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Nathan;

I agree that there has been some progress with HT, but with AMD and Intel
migrating to Hypertransport for the x86, I see little potential for further
development of HT. The advantage of Hypertransport is that it does not
require that software be recompiled to use it. Intel has confirmed that
it's x86 extensions will conform to the standards developed by AMD, and
Hyperthreading is one of those standards.

I still maintain that unless you are a "power user" and you use
predominantly those apps that currently work with HT, then it is probably
better to have HT disabled. For the majority of people, who buy their
computer to do email, VIM, surf the web, d/l music and make CDs, then Ht is
definitely not needed.

If you remember the introduction of the NetBurst P5 architecture, we were
promised that by this point in time we would be using 10 GHz processors.
But the engineers quickly learned the limitations of the 586 die, which is
why we have been stuck at the 3 Ghz level for so long. HT was supposed to
be another tool to squeeze out a little more performance, and the idea and
intentions are good, but the software developers were not exactly chomping
at the bit to recompile their code. Perhaps if HT had been introduced early
in the development of the Pentium 4 (586) strategy, then it could have been
much more successful. As it stands, HT is pretty much a moot issue, as is
the Pentium 4. It is time to move on to other architectures (PCI express,
Hyperthreading, x86 64 bit processing, etc).

Please note that I do own HT procs myself, and I am not bashing it. I
just think it's value has been blown completely out of proportion. I wish
it could have lived up to it's promise.

Bobby

"Nathan McNulty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u$h1%(E-Mail Removed)...
> You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
> when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
> been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
> differences between these two:
> Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
> New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
>
> As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
> has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter the
> BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have no
> problems after this point.
>
> ----
> Nathan McNulty
>
>
> Nospam wrote:
>> NoNoBadDog,
>>
>> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
>> will depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be
>> complied more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I
>> definitely notice the difference on my PC since I have several apps
>> running at the same time, some active, some in the background. Tom's
>> Hardware Guide is a respected website with factual information. This
>> link http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
>> Hyperthreading.
>>
>> Nospam
>>
>> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>As a side note;
>>>
>>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
>>> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance
>>> hit by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and
>>> the proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way
>>> that signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance
>>> hit is somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been
>>> recorded instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases,
>>> it is better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool
>>> for Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
>>> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
>>> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system,
>>> and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are very
>>> worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have
>>> hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
>>>
>>>Bobby
>>>
>>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
>>>>--
>>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
>>>>www.coribright.com
>>>>
>>>>"Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>
>>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>>>>>Hyperthreading.
>>>>>
>>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>>>>>because it's an OEM version.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>>>>>anyone help me please?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Hey Nathan-

Do you have some info on improvements to HT
in XP2 that aren't covered in MSKB 811113?

The stuff I see there isn't very dramatic...

Just wondering.

-v

"Nathan McNulty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u$h1%(E-Mail Removed)...
> You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
> when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
> been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
> differences between these two:
> Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
> New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
>
> As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
> has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
> the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
> no problems after this point.
>
> ----
> Nathan McNulty
>
>
> Nospam wrote:
> > NoNoBadDog,
> >
> > You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
will
> > depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be complied
more
> > so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I definitely notice the
> > difference on my PC since I have several apps running at the same time,
some
> > active, some in the background. Tom's Hardware Guide is a respected
website
> > with factual information. This link
> > http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
> > Hyperthreading.
> >
> > Nospam
> >
> > "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> >>As a side note;
> >>
> >> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
of
> >>the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance hit
by
> >>having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and the proc
> >>handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way that
> >>signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance hit is
> >>somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been recorded
> >>instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases, it is
better
> >>to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool for Intel,
and
> >>it really does not benefit the average user. The techs actually did you
a
> >>favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and flamers start
responding,
> >>be aware that I also own a HT based system, and I leave the HT off. I
> >>also own AMD based systems. and both are very worthy systems. I am not
> >>"Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have hurt anyone's delicate
> >>"Intel Rocks" feelings.
> >>
> >>Bobby
> >>
> >>"Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>
> >>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
> >>>--
> >>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
> >>>www.coribright.com
> >>>
> >>>"Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>>
> >>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
> >>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
> >>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
> >>>>Hyperthreading.
> >>>>
> >>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
> >>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
> >>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
> >>>>because it's an OEM version.
> >>>>
> >>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
> >>>>anyone help me please?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >

Very nice article Nathan... but if it's a Prescott on an Intel i865/i875
chipset motherboard be aware there are issues installing SP2. If you are
one of the afflicted (or come across one!) the symptoms show up on the first
reboot where the progress bar on the Windows logo screen simply stops.
Booting into Safe Mode also fails.

The correct recovery method is to enter the BIOS, disable the L1/L2 cache,
restart and Windows will now start - albeit with horrible performance. But
the user can now go into Add/Remove Programs and uninstall SP2
(eventually). Then shut down, re-enable L1/L2 cache and restart. A "ghost"
or image recovery will also work, as, of course, will ASR (a wonderful
invention).

My 3Ghz Prescott hasn't yet seen SP2 without incident, but I'm sure it will
soon!

Even without SP2, I love my HT!
--
Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
www.coribright.com

"Nathan McNulty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u$h1%(E-Mail Removed)...
> You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
> when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
> been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
> differences between these two:
> Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
> New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
>
> As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
> has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter the
> BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have no
> problems after this point.
>
> ----
> Nathan McNulty
>
>
> Nospam wrote:
>> NoNoBadDog,
>>
>> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
>> will depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be
>> complied more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I
>> definitely notice the difference on my PC since I have several apps
>> running at the same time, some active, some in the background. Tom's
>> Hardware Guide is a respected website with factual information. This
>> link http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
>> Hyperthreading.
>>
>> Nospam
>>
>> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>As a side note;
>>>
>>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
>>> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance
>>> hit by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and
>>> the proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way
>>> that signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance
>>> hit is somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been
>>> recorded instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases,
>>> it is better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool
>>> for Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
>>> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
>>> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system,
>>> and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are very
>>> worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if I have
>>> hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
>>>
>>>Bobby
>>>
>>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
>>>>--
>>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
>>>>www.coribright.com
>>>>
>>>>"Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>
>>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>>>>>Hyperthreading.
>>>>>
>>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>>>>>because it's an OEM version.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>>>>>anyone help me please?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Please note that the 4th to the last sentence should have read
Hypertransport versus Hyperthreading. I apologize for not checking more
thoroughly before sending.

Bobby

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Nathan;
>
> I agree that there has been some progress with HT, but with AMD and Intel
> migrating to Hypertransport for the x86, I see little potential for
> further development of HT. The advantage of Hypertransport is that it
> does not require that software be recompiled to use it. Intel has
> confirmed that it's x86 extensions will conform to the standards developed
> by AMD, and Hyperthreading is one of those standards.
>
> I still maintain that unless you are a "power user" and you use
> predominantly those apps that currently work with HT, then it is probably
> better to have HT disabled. For the majority of people, who buy their
> computer to do email, VIM, surf the web, d/l music and make CDs, then Ht
> is definitely not needed.
>
> If you remember the introduction of the NetBurst P5 architecture, we were
> promised that by this point in time we would be using 10 GHz processors.
> But the engineers quickly learned the limitations of the 586 die, which is
> why we have been stuck at the 3 Ghz level for so long. HT was supposed to
> be another tool to squeeze out a little more performance, and the idea and
> intentions are good, but the software developers were not exactly chomping
> at the bit to recompile their code. Perhaps if HT had been introduced
> early in the development of the Pentium 4 (586) strategy, then it could
> have been much more successful. As it stands, HT is pretty much a moot
> issue, as is the Pentium 4. It is time to move on to other architectures
> (PCI express, Hyperthreading, x86 64 bit processing, etc).
>
> Please note that I do own HT procs myself, and I am not bashing it. I
> just think it's value has been blown completely out of proportion. I wish
> it could have lived up to it's promise.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Nathan McNulty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u$h1%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> You make a very good point. I would like to show you a comparison of HT
>> when it first came out to HT more recently. More recent programs have
>> been better compiled and more and more are supporting HT. See the
>> differences between these two:
>> Old - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/43_1.html
>> New - http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_1.html
>>
>> As for the fix, try installing Service Pack 2. When this is finished and
>> has rebooted, turn off the computer. Turn on the computer, then enter
>> the BIOS, enable HyperThreading, then let Windows load. It should have
>> no problems after this point.
>>
>> ----
>> Nathan McNulty
>>
>>
>> Nospam wrote:
>>> NoNoBadDog,
>>>
>>> You are correct to a certain extent as the benefits of hyperthreading
>>> will depend upon what the user is doing. However, software will be
>>> complied more so in the future to accomodate hyper-threading. I
>>> definitely notice the difference on my PC since I have several apps
>>> running at the same time, some active, some in the background. Tom's
>>> Hardware Guide is a respected website with factual information. This
>>> link http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/ has a good article on
>>> Hyperthreading.
>>>
>>> Nospam
>>>
>>> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>>As a side note;
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are using software that is HT "aware" (Photoshop being one
>>>> of the FEW programs that are HT "Aware"), you will take a performance
>>>> hit by having HT enabled. This has to do with the way that the OS and
>>>> the proc handle long-chain branching predictions and also with the way
>>>> that signaling is handled on the extra pipelines. Typical performance
>>>> hit is somewhere in the range of 7% (slower), but there have been
>>>> recorded instances of up to 17% (on Intel 2.8 HT P4s). In most cases,
>>>> it is better to leave HT off. HT is nothing more than a marketing tool
>>>> for Intel, and it really does not benefit the average user. The techs
>>>> actually did you a favor by turning it off. Before you lamers and
>>>> flamers start responding, be aware that I also own a HT based system,
>>>> and I leave the HT off. I also own AMD based systems. and both are
>>>> very worthy systems. I am not "Intel bashing". No need to respond if
>>>> I have hurt anyone's delicate "Intel Rocks" feelings.
>>>>
>>>>Bobby
>>>>
>>>>"Cari (MS MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>
>>>>>Did you contact the manufacturer of the PC?
>>>>>--
>>>>>Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
>>>>>www.coribright.com
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kirk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>news:a5fc01c48709$cdf64220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>
>>>>>>My comp started rebooting all of a sudden. No viruses were
>>>>>>found, so I took it into the local shop. They told me
>>>>>>there is a known issue with Windows XP & Intel's
>>>>>>Hyperthreading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They turned off the HT and everything is fine. They said I
>>>>>>needed to contact Microsoft for a patch. I can't find it
>>>>>>on the site. I called support and they don't wanna help me
>>>>>>because it's an OEM version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I just want to be able to run my HT & XP together. Can
>>>>>>anyone help me please?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>