Win2k and dual core?

[forcefed]

Seeing that hyperthreading doesnt work on win2k, will it properly detect dual core cpu's?

 

[Eva_Unit_0]

Hyperthreading works in win2k. I personally used a 2.8C in win2k and the taskmanager had two cpu's listed. Anyway, the dual cores should work fine in ANY operating system that supports SMP (even old NT4.0, I'd presume) because as far as the OS is concerned, it is just like any other dual processor system. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, though.

 

[forcefed]

How in the world did you get hyperthreading to work in win2k? I have it enabled in the bios(asus p4p800se) but i dont see another cpu in task manager, i have win2k pro with sp4.

 

[FreiDOg]

did you maybe upgrade from a non-HT CPU or have HT disabled when you instsalled 2k?
I've always seen 2k pop right up and recognize an HT enabled chip as a dual CPU sytem.

I would tend to think dual core should work the same way. It should treat it like a dual CPU system again, you run into some scedualing issues on multi-chip systems with OSes like that, but one chip systems should be fine.
(You would have some issues with the dual core extreme editions because iwth dual core adn HT they have 4 logical CPUs, but 2k isn't HT aware so it will only let you use two of the logical CPUs in the package).

 

[PsiberWare]

Dual core and hyperthreading are two distinctly different things. There should be no problem for Win 2K Pro to deal with dual cores, as the system was designed for SMP systems.

As to hyperthreading, if you want to enable it in Win 2K Pro, you have to do a complete Windows installation from scratch otherwise the proper hooks don't get built.

Where it's going to get sticky with Win 2K Pro is that it is built with a 1-2 CPU license. That means dual core WITH hyperthreading is going to be a no-go, unless you've got the server edition of Win 2K that is licensed for 4 CPUs or more.

I heard rumors that MS was not being sticky about the HT thing "counting" as a separate processor, but I've slept since then.

In any case, Intel does NOT recommend HT be enabled in Win 2K, regardless. I don't know if it is a technical issue, or whether it's a territorial dispute.

If you Google: windows 2000 hyperthreading support -- then you should see some technical discussion on both the intel and microsoft sites on that first results page. Some of it is very dated, however, I don't think either MS or Intel really want people using Win 2K for HT applications. That's just an opinion, of course.

 

[Donnie27]

Seeing that hyperthreading doesnt work on win2k, will it properly detect dual core cpu's?

Win2K doesn't support Hyperthreading, Dual Cores or Dual Processors for th record. The first time I tried Win2K Pro, my 2.6C crashed. WinXP Home and Pro was built with Hyperthreading from the ground up. WinXP Home doesn't support two processors and AMD had to beg MS for Dual Core support. Hyperthreading combinds two threads and sends one to the processor. They're still ran as two threads with Dual Cores.

*note* 840-D-EE gets almost no support for four threads, just as I said months ago. Hyperthreading is not worth $500 more dollars or making the 840 an EE=P

Donnie27

 

[PsiberWare]

Win2K doesn't support Hyperthreading, Dual Cores or Dual Processors for th record

Sorry, that's just not accurate. Win 2K Pro has *always* supported dual processors, and Microsoft fully and officially supports that application. That's why the license says "1-2 CPU" on it. My old VP6 server runs dual P3s on Win 2K and has for many MANY years now.

Win 2K *can* handle hyperthreading, if it is properly set up, however, there is no "official" support (i.e., from Microsoft) for it. That doesn't mean it can't happen. It's a bit like ocing a chip. No one recommends it, however, some people do it anyway. Go figure.

To the operating system, dual core looks no different than dual processors. It's the physical placement of two cores on one die (as opposed one core on each of two dies) that is the significant distinction. The chipset sorts out the processors for the opsys, so the opsys doesn't really care about where the chips are, it just allocates the tasks and the hardware deals with them accordingly.

Personally, I'd just go get XP Pro and be done with it, since it is not a 6 year old software product you're trying to make play nice with modern hardware.

I think even NT 4.0 dealt with dual processors "officially", I seem to recall dual P-II processors somewhere in my past life running on NT4, but that was sometime last century.

 

[Donnie27]

Sorry, that's just not accurate. Win 2K Pro has *always* supported dual processors, and Microsoft fully and officially supports that application. That's why the license says "1-2 CPU" on it. My old VP6 server runs dual P3s on Win 2K and has for many MANY years now.

Win 2K *can* handle hyperthreading, if it is properly set up, however, there is no "official" support (i.e., from Microsoft) for it. That doesn't mean it can't happen. It's a bit like ocing a chip. No one recommends it, however, some people do it anyway. Go figure.

To the operating system, dual core looks no different than dual processors. It's the physical placement of two cores on one die (as opposed one core on each of two dies) that is the significant distinction. The chipset sorts out the processors for the opsys, so the opsys doesn't really care about where the chips are, it just allocates the tasks and the hardware deals with them accordingly.

Personally, I'd just go get XP Pro and be done with it, since it is not a 6 year old software product you're trying to make play nice with modern hardware.

I think even NT 4.0 dealt with dual processors "officially", I seem to recall dual P-II processors somewhere in my past life running on NT4, but that was sometime last century.

Please note* I said Win2K, NOT Win2K Pro, Big difference.

Win2K doesn't support.........

I know Win2K Pro supports Dual Processors, part of the cost difference is the license for the second processor. NONE PRO Win2K is for Single Processor systems, not DUalies, Not Dual cores and NOT Hyperthreading=P

I still have copies of NT LOL! I run Win2K Pro on my other two rigs and will update my wife's computer to XP home soon. Win2K has zero problems with hardware that it was meant to run. It was never meant for Dual Core or Hyperthreading=P BTW, I've already given links to MS and Intel saying the same. Please also note that the Intel Reps told GamePC that 840EE doesn't get correct 4 thread support from WinXP as well, something I pointed out on the other thread.

Here's what I was replying to;

Hyperthreading works in win2k. I personally used a 2.8C in win2k and the taskmanager had two cpu's listed.

To you and this poster, Win2K and Win2K Pro are NOT the same. Hyperthreading is more than the OS seeing two processors. There are several threads where I talked about WinXP Pro and Home, same for Win2K and Win2K Pro. Between the two, I like WinXP better but not by much. Win2K is NOT one OS but two different OSs when it comes to Dual and Single Processor or Core systems.

Donnie27

 

[PsiberWare]

The first time I tried Win2K Pro, my 2.6C crashed.

Many people use the generic term Win2K to mean either of both versions, much the same with WinXP. Since I saw you invoke the "Pro" part, my assumption (my bad!) was you were referring to Win 2K Pro.

When I see references to Win 2K made in generic, it's generally a hassle to try to figure out which *precise* flavor they are referring to, since there are several iterations, and people sometimes don't post with precision.

Which is why I was precise in my post referencing Win 2K Pro. Or Win 2K Server (more than 2 CPU licenses).

Personally, I'd prefer people say what they mean, but that's not under my control. I didn't mean to besmirsch your post, I merely intended to point out that Win2K does come in flavors that CAN handle both dual CPUs, hyperthreading, and dual cores. And some of the applications are "officially acknowledged." The trick is establishing WHICH flavor does what.

If you were offended by my assumption, you have my apology.

 

[Donnie27]

Many people use the generic term Win2K to mean either of both versions, much the same with WinXP. Since I saw you invoke the "Pro" part, my assumption (my bad!) was you were referring to Win 2K Pro.

When I see references to Win 2K made in generic, it's generally a hassle to try to figure out which *precise* flavor they are referring to, since there are several iterations, and people sometimes don't post with precision.

Which is why I was precise in my post referencing Win 2K Pro. Or Win 2K Server (more than 2 CPU licenses).

Personally, I'd prefer people say what they mean, but that's not under my control. I didn't mean to besmirsch your post, I merely intended to point out that Win2K does come in flavors that CAN handle both dual CPUs, hyperthreading, and dual cores. And some of the applications are "officially acknowledged." The trick is establishing WHICH flavor does what.

If you were offended by my assumption, you have my apology.

NO biggie and I see what you mean. That's what message boards use to be about, getting the correct info. Once, poster were even polite to eachother. No need for any kind of Jerk-a-ration on any of our parts, hehehehe! I try to say what I mean, but don't type worth a damned so PLEASE bare with me.

Donnie27

 

[Eva_Unit_0]

Donnie when I refer to win2k I mean Pro. I have never even seen a copy of non-pro win2k, and I doubt many people even knew it existed, including myself. On the M$ website it only lists Pro / Server / Advanced Server / Datacenter Server. So I don't think I'm being outrageous by stating that Win2k in general supports 2 cpu's, since every version listed there supports 2+ cpu's and hyperthreading.

 

[Eva_Unit_0]

crap whoops...wrong button...delete me

 

[jfb9301]

As to hyperthreading, if you want to enable it in Win 2K Pro, you have to do a complete Windows installation from scratch otherwise the proper hooks don't get built.

you need not blow away your win2k installation to enable hyperthreading or to switch to multiple CPUs or back again.

I've done this several times so while it seems scary on the surface, it does work

-right click "my computer"
-click "properties"
-hardware
-click "device manager"
-expand the area named "computer" it should be the first or second item on the list
-you will find a device named "ACPI for uniprocessor" (or something fairly similar)
-delete the above device
-shutdown
-install the second CPU or enable hyperthreading (if you have not already done so)
-boot windows and allow it to install the correct driver
-check the task manager and you will have 2 graphs for CPU load

going back to uniprocessor is just as easy, delete the device, shutdown, pull the second cpu, boot the machine.

I've used 3 different dual p3s, and 3 different hyperthreading cpus under win2k, all with no problem and correct SMP/ multi thread support

I've never seen a non SMP enabled version of win2k, they shipped win2k pro which had up to 2 cpus, win 2k server up to 4 cpus and win2k advanced server which I believe goes up to 8 cpus


The [H]orde needs You!

 

[PsiberWare]

Nice "how-to"!

Since you know exactly which hooks need building, and how to do them fairly painlessly, your method is superior to a complete rebuild of WIn2k by several orders of magnitude!

I've just flipped back through my Win2K collection of Release Candidates, and I can't for the life of me find a non-SMP version of Win2K. I could have sworn there was one -- but that's a six year old memory of a memory....

It's like saying "It's Miller Time!"

Most people think of Miller Lite, but some mean MGD ("Miller Genuine Draft") ... but.

There are a FEW of us old-timers that remember it as "Miller High Life" and it came in CLEAR bottles and was called "The Champagne of Bottled Beer"....

Which may be why I have trouble recalling non-SMP Win2K.

 

[Eva_Unit_0]

There are a FEW of us old-timers that remember it as "Miller High Life" and it came in CLEAR bottles and was called "The Champagne of Bottled Beer"....

Which may be why I have trouble recalling non-SMP Win2K.

haha none of us can recall it...I don't think it exists. Or if it does it apparently was the redheaded-stepchild of the win2k family and wasn't let out of the house lol.

Oh and on a sidenote, the way they keep beer in clear bottles from degrading due to UV exposure is by putting trace amounts of formalehyde in it lol. Interesting factoid that my Microlithography professor told us.

 

[BigBadBiologist]

There is no such thing as w2k non pro. w2k pro was the lowest man on the 2k totem pole.

 

[UltimaParadox]

I never heard of win2k non-pro either...

As for dual cores I doubt there should be any problems, running Dual P3 800s for a long time here.

As for hyperthreading it worked fine with my 2.8C and 2k, but it was a fresh install.

 

[Scali]

The only Win2k non-pro I know is WinME, if that's what we're talking about, yes indeed, it doesn't support SMP/HT etc.

As for Win2k Pro... It doesn't specifically support HT. HT 'works' because to a non-HT-aware OS, a HT system appears as a dual CPU system, which Win2k Pro supports.
WinXP however, is HT-aware, which means it will use a HT-optimized scheduling strategy, which means the problem of performance-loss with HT in certain situations is reduced pretty much to 0. With Win2k it's generally a good idea to turn off HT if you generally run single-threaded resource-heavy programs, such as games. With WinXP it doesn't really matter.

 

[mzs_biteme]

The only Win2k non-pro I know is WinME, if that's what we're talking about, yes indeed, it doesn't support SMP/HT etc.

As for Win2k Pro... It doesn't specifically support HT. HT 'works' because to a non-HT-aware OS, a HT system appears as a dual CPU system, which Win2k Pro supports.
WinXP however, is HT-aware, which means it will use a HT-optimized scheduling strategy, which means the problem of performance-loss with HT in certain situations is reduced pretty much to 0. With Win2k it's generally a good idea to turn off HT if you generally run single-threaded resource-heavy programs, such as games. With WinXP it doesn't really matter.

I was about to say Donnie needs to get his shit straight... There WAS and IS no such thing as Windows 2000. But believe it or not, I deal with tons of people on daily basis that got some older PC's when WindowsME came out and they say that it's Windows2000. I'm like: "Ahhhh, NO!!!! U got a Windows98 with a service pack...."
But I shit you not, I remember hearing somewhere Dell or somebody else tried to advertise WinME as Win2000 and they (sheepple) fell for it.....Ooops...

Mike

 

[ChemBot]

Well... There was a "home" edition of Windows 2000 in development code-named Windows Neptune, but it was canned before its release. I'll bet Neptune did not have SMP support, but we'll never know unless some beta tester has an ISO laying around. It had some pretty neat features for the time too.

 

[Steel Chicken]

theres so much bullshit in this thread i think im on a farm

Win2K Pro is the lowest "version" and it supports 2 REAL cpu's
Win2K "sees" the logical Hyperthreading processor as a REAL processor, not as Logical one like XP does, which is how it should be.

Why does this matter? Because if you run a SMP w/HT system you will run into licensing issues with 2K Pro (which is limited to 2 cpus)

ALSO, Win2K's scheduler is not designed to work as efficently with Hyperthreading like XP is...it will try to treat it as a full blown core which it IS NOT. This is why most people do not reccomend using HT with Win2K, performance is often reduced. On the other hand, a dual core solution like the X2 should work really well.

 

[Donnie27]

The only Win2k non-pro I know is WinME, if that's what we're talking about, yes indeed, it doesn't support SMP/HT etc.

As for Win2k Pro... It doesn't specifically support HT. HT 'works' because to a non-HT-aware OS, a HT system appears as a dual CPU system, which Win2k Pro supports.
WinXP however, is HT-aware, which means it will use a HT-optimized scheduling strategy, which means the problem of performance-loss with HT in certain situations is reduced pretty much to 0. With Win2k it's generally a good idea to turn off HT if you generally run single-threaded resource-heavy programs, such as games. With WinXP it doesn't really matter.

There is a Win2K and maybe it was a single processor license or Beta, hell I'm not sure anymore. Slapp me silly LOL!

I do know and I'm 100% sure my 2.6C crashed with HT enabled, Service Pack 3 I think. I even Dual booted it with XP and it still acted strange with Service Pack 4. Disable HT and it works like a champ. Again, it sees two processors but it doesn't work worth a damned!

Donnie27

 

[JetUsafMech]

Well, for what it's worth....

"Windows 2000 (also referred to as Win2K, W2K or Windows NT 5.0) is a 32-bit graphical business-oriented operating system that is part of the Microsoft Windows NT line of operating systems. It was released on February 17, 2000 and has so far had four service packs. Windows 2000 comes in four versions: Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server. Additionally, Microsoft offers Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Limited Edition, released in 2001, which runs on Intel Itanium 64-bit processors."

Taken from

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Windows-2000

 

[Donnie27]

Well, for what it's worth....

"Windows 2000 (also referred to as Win2K, W2K or Windows NT 5.0) is a 32-bit graphical business-oriented operating system that is part of the Microsoft Windows NT line of operating systems. It was released on February 17, 2000 and has so far had four service packs. Windows 2000 comes in four versions: Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server. Additionally, Microsoft offers Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Limited Edition, released in 2001, which runs on Intel Itanium 64-bit processors."

Taken from

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Windows-2000

Yes, I looked for the old story and couldn't find it So for the second time in a week, I'll take the hit on that whole crap-o-la! MS lists the versions and there is NO SUCH thing. I'm NOT about to dig my hole any deeper. I just saw some old bad info=P

Support!

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-017343.htm

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/09/13/228780.aspx

Donnie27