[michaelplogue]

It seems that microsoft is also following next Limit core policy. You can only use two processors unless you are using their super dupper pro max version of Vistas so there you go.

This has been one of my concerns regarding MS. Currently XP and XP 64 only support up to two processors with two cores each. To go any higher, you have to get something like Exchange Server (for example if you wanted to use one of those 8-socket dual core machines). Certainly not something I'd care to use as a stand-alone.

Has anyone seen what sort of slot/core allocations the various flavors of Vista are supposed to offer?

[deadalvs]

It seems that microsoft is also following next Limit core policy. You can only use two processors unless you are using their super dupper pro max version of Vistas so there you go.

This has been one of my concerns regarding MS. Currently XP and XP 64 only support up to two processors with two cores each. To go any higher, you have to get something like Exchange Server (for example if you wanted to use one of those 8-socket dual core machines). Certainly not something I'd care to use as a stand-alone.

Has anyone seen what sort of slot/core allocations the various flavors of Vista are supposed to offer?

will i not be able to run a dual quadcore machine (2 x 4 = 8 cores) with win xp 64 ?

what else then with 64 bit ?

*help*

* * *

deadalvs

[michaelplogue]

will i not be able to run a dual quadcore machine (2 x 4 = 8 cores) with win xp 64 ?

I'm sure it'll run,. However, I'm pretty certain that none of the versions of XP support over 2x2. You have to get one of the Server 2003 versions to support more than two sockets.

I've been unable to find a chart that listed socket and core limitations (I had a hard time finding it when I did), but I'll keep looking.

I have discovered that for Vista, if you want to run more than two sockets, you have to buy either the Enterprise, Business, or Ultimate versions (Home Basic and Home Premium do not support dual sockets). I haven't been able to dig up anything on core limits though.....


Right now, the only solution I see is Linux.........

[glebe digital]

Currently XP and XP 64 only support up to two processors with two cores each.

So when the quad-core conroes are out, I'll be screwed for XP64?
That's bad news......

[tikal26]

ok here it is

You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. Except as provided in the Storage and Network Use (Ultimate edition) sections below, you may not use the software on any
other device.

the problem is that on the EULA of the uper uber ultimate version they don't add the ability to use more processors, So for now is not taht big a deal but we wil see in the future when technology moves foward.

[Stephen]

I've been running a 180 day trial of 2003 R2 64bit for about a month now. It runs well, but I think I'm going to make the move to Linux. Could you Linux experts suggest a Linux platform? So far I've been looking at open suse and KDE. Is this a good choice?

Thanks in advance.

[rivoli]

I'm sure it'll run,. However, I'm pretty certain that none of the versions of XP support over 2x2. You have to get one of the Server 2003 versions to support more than two sockets.

I might be wrong about this, but if we can run xp pro on a dual xeon 50xx or 70xx with ht enabled, with xp actually seeing and handling 8 different threads, then we might be able to make use of 8 actual cores.

haven't been able to find any official answer or hint about this either though. just guessing here.

[Joss]

can you please explain me why linux is in the mid centuries? It's by sure a useful information.

1. Windows is a "platform", Linux - not. Every new minor version of kernel something becomes broken, nvidia drivers needs to be fixed, etc, etc, etc. It hasn't some single defined standard of console, GUI, localisation of both, standard startup files shared between distribution. That's why linux developers trying to stick to one, maybe not the best and not the most fresh distribution.

2. Linux tries to copy Windows and instead of making lightweight GUI linux community produced these monsters KDE and Gnome. There's also some other desktops/wmanagers, but KDE/Gnome are defaults in many distributions.

3. Very simple things easily can became your nightmare, if you trying to administer your linux system yourself: creating many network connection, switching between them(network OS, huh?), installing software(many programs has it's own installers), making software compatible with your distributuon(redhat has /etc/rc.d, and gentoo - /etc/init.d, and different init scripts formats), updating software(for example perl with dozens of dependencies), dependence hell itself, when you can't remove package without removing other 20 packages(the only who manages with it is source-based distributions, which requires 12-20 hours to update world).
These dustbins like /bin, /lib, /usr/bin or /usr/share are simply ridiculous - you can't tell what file belongs to what package, and what are these files at all? There's no one solid help system, but instead of it two old'n'rusty: man and info. You can press "Win-F1" key in your windows, and compare them.
There's always problems with fonts, with mouse acceleration, with xterm colors, with mc which can't be used with some fonts, with this f...ing termcap/terminfo which is working differently in console/under X, etc, etc, etc. I can speak hours about it
In short words, the "unix with human face" is MacOS X, although it's also has some drawsbacks, but comparing with linux they are simply nothing
Even old IRIX was better in terms of management(cause it was platform).


From the other side, linux is very interesting experimental platform for hacking/developing something. Buncha available languages, including scripting ones, filesystem pecularities that all unixes has(one solid fs), total freedom in what you're doing, and it's free of charge - this is very nice. But not for the final user

Actually MS could make very strong move and make MS Linux - something like explorer/codecs/directX/etc/etc for linux, and this is will be really great Tell them idea somebody

PS: And all these talks about "unstable XP" is a pure crap(excuse my french please).
MS told few times that 80% of bugs are in third-party drivers, and only 20% in OS itself. MS can't be responsible for what other ppl are writing. I've got uptimes like 30 days and more at my home workstation and it was rebooted only to update something or change hardware.
I'm not defending MS's "way to make business", but let's be fair - OS stability has nothing with the way MS making business

[tikal26]

PS: And all these talks about "unstable XP" is a pure crap(excuse my french please).
MS told few times that 80% of bugs are in third-party drivers, and only 20% in OS itself. MS can't be responsible for what other ppl are writing. I've got uptimes like 30 days and more at my home workstation and it was rebooted only to update something or change hardware.
I'm not defending MS's "way to make business", but let's be fair - OS stability has nothing with the way MS making business

1.)So you want to fault Linux for Nvidia and ATI driver problems but not MS for third party drivers. Man you have some anger toward linux and I in part agree with some of you points about beign al over the place, but once you make up your mind in what direction you want to go you shoulld do fine. For you to say to say that it is just a hacking/developing platfomr is a little bit of and understatement.

2.) Linux is behind windows but is not due to its own but to third party commercial support that is getting better and better. I think that for cg linux is a nice choice almos every render out there has or is in the process of geting a linux version(Soon Maxwell would be available for Linux). Also most cg software is available for Linux. Maya, XSI, C4D(only the studio version) and in the near future Modo.

3. If you don't like KDE or Gnome you can try XFCE, Enlightment (soon to run on the PS3), and if you want to go really lite there is fluxbox.

4.) XP is not as unstable but I have to run antivirus, antispyware, and I don't remember all that other stuff to be safe so that I don't crash and sunddenly loose all my work. Every week there is some kind of security whole or malware. MS just released IE7 that apparently is vulnerable to a flaw discovered in Dec. 2004.

5.) If Windows was such a 'modern' OS it would of not taken them a gazillion years to realease a new version, but they had to deal with that modern piece of code and fix it. In matter fact even in Microsoftland they are working on a new type of OS called singularity.

6. ) I guess having to reboot everytime you install a new program or update is not a problem with you, and maybe you should not go 30 days without rolling those Tuesday's MS upgrades. when I upgraded to IE7 I had to reebot 3 times because MS felt the need for the nth time in the month to make sure that my copy was legal before the actual update needed to reboot twice.

[KRZ]

i use a dualboot-system with winxp64 and ubuntu32 and while winxp64 is pretty smooth ubuntu is not. its definitly not on par with the winworld but you can see that its only a matter of time. with debian i never got that feeling.
right now i can only recomment osx if you want to leave win.

[Joss]

So you want to fault Linux for Nvidia and ATI driver problems but not MS for third party drivers.

Dude, i've written clearly: nvidia drivers becomes broken not because they bad-written, but because linux kernel changes. And you know, i've talked about "plaftorm" things, and not "nvidia drivers". There's a lil difference.

but is not due to its own but to third party commercial support that is getting better and better

Exactly "by it's own". I didn't even told that some commercial software working differently under different distributions. For example - try to run Houdini apprentice under Gentoo.

I think that for cg linux is a nice choice almos every render out there has or is in the process of geting a linux version

Linux is nice only when you has team of dedicated linux freaks that will fix everything that will broke. If you don't - you doomed.

(Soon Maxwell would be available for Linux)

I think in couple of years, yeah.

Also most cg software is available for Linux. Maya, XSI, C4D(only the studio version) and in the near future Modo.

Did you've ever seen Maya for linux? Do you still feel fine after that? I feel sick after it.

If you don't like KDE or Gnome you can try XFCE, Enlightment (soon to run on the PS3), and if you want to go really lite there is fluxbox.

Personally i'm prefer windowmaker, which is not developing for years already. And xfce, for example, requires 20-30 packages to be installed with it. And one lil thing: windowmaker and fluxbox are not "desktops".

It's not a problem if i likes it or not. The problem is that KDE and Gnome becomes _default_ desktops in many distributions.

XP is not as unstable but I have to run antivirus, antispyware,

I don't have to run it and i'm fine.

and I don't remember all that other stuff to be safe so that I don't crash and sunddenly loose all my work

What "other stuff"? Commercial apps? Then why you talking about windows?

Every week there is some kind of security whole or malware.

Every week there's dozens new bugs for linux.
Also you can read this.

If Windows was such a 'modern' OS it would of not taken them a gazillion years to realease a new version

How much OS'es did you've released to talk about it?

a new type of OS called singularity.

It's a "concept OS" like Plan9.

I guess having to reboot everytime you install a new program or update is not a problem with you

I'm not rebooting after i'm installing 99% of programs. And i don't like to reboot after installation of updates, but i have to. You also have to after new kernel installation, isn't it?

when I upgraded to IE7 I had to reebot 3 times because MS felt the need for the nth time in the month to make sure that my copy was legal before the actual update needed to reboot twice.

I didn't using MS products for internet. So i don't have to reboot

If you arguing point by point, don't skip please some of them. I'd very like to see what you can say about my sentence number "3".

PS: Please, avoid this type of argueing. I told already - i don't want to argue, especially here. I did this dozen times already, and i know what i'm talking about.

[tikal26]

Joss- I am not trying to argue I use both systems and I actually like stuff from both of them. I guess I just don't understand why you can call it a mid-cenury system. I said that I agree with alot of you comments, but it is not like Windows is all that great or Linux is the ultimate OS (I know linux is the kernel and all that stuff, but for simplicity lets call it an OS). I like that simplicity of windows were eveything just works, but there are just many holes and the MS updates are not just for IE. I know there is not perfect software, but Linux patches its security problems faster than MS. I gues that I share your view that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but I think that some day it might be. Juan also said that the Linux version of
Maxwell is going to be avaialble for Maxwell 1.2 (not in a couple of years you silly) . I did not release that many OS on that period of time ,but the folks at Ubuntu released 4. Well I think that we both agree on the same thing, but we have different reasons and a different outllook. In matter fact I am building myself a nice box for my famiy room that is going to have Vistas Home Premium so that I can run my DRM Napster music and use it a my entertainment system.OK I am done now.

[Joss]

I like that simplicity of windows were eveything just works
Yep, that's what users needs. As somebody told already, i'd better move to MacOS X, 'cause it's unix, and it has nice GUI.
But i will miss all this software from my windows installation

and the MS updates are not just for IE. I know there is not perfect software, but Linux patches its security problems faster than MS
Can't agree. Only few bugs are not fixed, and updates appears very frequently.

I gues that I share your view that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but I think that some day it might be
That's what i wanted, when told about MS Linux

but the folks at Ubuntu released 4
Just an updated packages, lil changes here and there. MS doing much deeper changes in Windows every time.


Well I think that we both agree on the same thing, but we have different reasons and a different outllook. In matter fact I am building myself a nice box for my famiy room that is going to have Vistas Home Premium so that I can run my DRM Napster music and use it a my entertainment system.OK I am done now.
Yep, probably. KILL DRM! KILL DRM! KILL DRM!

[jdp]

what I never understood in the windows saga was the filesystem and its kernel handling; putting aside DOS and fat32, I wonder why with NTFS I still have to defrag or even reinstall the os every once in awhile, only because the algorithm isn't able to keep the fragmentation as low as possible, while with the unix kernel (it doesn't matter if linux, osx, freBSD...) that's never be a real problem...

[daros]

and the XP installations that have died after the first defragmentation only because defrag is not able to handle correctly bad HD sectors are endless.

Thanks Joss for explaining your point of view.
We are currently using FreeBSD for our server applications and it rocks.
FreeBSD resolved all our problems we had with windows 2003 64 bits, but as you say you need specialized people for that.
However we recived in our office many very high level microsoft technicians
traing to resolve some nework instabilityissues but without any succes.
Windows 2003 was not able under any condition to mantain a 100% stable connection with more as 120 nodes.
That means sometimes you need experts for both, windows and linux, but some are a good investment and other no .
I know linux only because many friends from the FSF that abviusly are 100% enthusiasts.
I personally use windows against my consience because i know that more i use it today more i have to fight with it tomorrow...