Sure. But Frankster said he had XP and when you get down do it, Win2003 server is WinXP
Server, both the successors to Win2k (Workstation and Server).
Now if the Frankster had Win2K I could understand the post. He knew was using XP but,
conveniently left out that "...both of these boxes..." were two different OSs, WinXP and
Win2003 Server.
Actually Win2K, WinXP and Win2003 are similar but WinXP and Win2003 are MORE similar to each
other than either are to Win2K.
Dave
| There are no 2003 user groups David. 2003 user post here because 2000 &
| 2003 are quite similar and they get solid answers from the pros here.
|
| John
|
| David H. Lipman wrote:
|
| > Then WHY did you post in a Win2K News Group ?
| >
| > Dave
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Thank you! Yep, one is an XP box and the other is a 2003 box.
| > |
| > | -Frank
| > |
| > | | > | > It is because of the HyperThread feature in the Intel CPU.
| > | > yperthreading - Initially referred to as Simultaneous Multi-threading or
| > | > SMT) allows for a single physical processor to appear to the operating
| > | > system as two logical processors. The operating system doesn't know the
| > | > difference and feeds threads to each as if they were indeed separate
| > | > physical processors.)
| > | >
| > | > FWIW, Intel does not recommend Windows 2000 as the operating system of
| > | > choice if you wish to use hyperthreading. (Need Windows XP (SP1) or
| > | > Windows 2003).
| > | >
| > | > | > | >>I have two boxes with Hyper Threading CPU's (or whatever!
)... anyway,
| > | >>both of these boxes display two CPUs in Task Manager. Neither has two
| > | >>CPUs. Why?
| > | >>
| > | >> -Frank
| > | >>
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
