i wanted to save up for a 3800+ X2 dual core, but my friend says
that i shouldn't even bother because i'm running XP home edition.

we got into an argument about how home edition can use one
processor and pro uses two, but i said it still uses both cores
on one processor (after looking it up on the internet).

now he says it will recognize, but i still won't be able to use
SMP enabled software, so even though home sees it, there's no
point in having it because i can't use it.

i'm confused... WTH?

All versions of XP run dual core processors.
There is virtually no consumer dual core software out there except for some
processes in Photoshop CS2, and even those are limited.
The media touts the ability to multi-task more efficiently on dual core
processors.My experience with the AMDX2 has been that this is an
exaggeration if your are trying to run two processor intensive applications
simultaneously. (Who would believe the advertiser driven computer press
lies, or at least just passes on manufacturer hype uncritically?). It is
clearly faster to do so at a given clock speed than a single core cpu but
your are not going to see the equivalent of two independent computers
running simultaneously.
Both AMD and Intel will be issuing new pin outs and chipsets after the first
of the year. Intel will likely redesign their dual core to be more like the
AMD rather than two cpus just bolted together.
As it stands running the 64 bit flavor of Windows is only a few notches
less frustrating than running Linux.
Most 32 bit software will run on Win64, although most studies show it runs
about the same as on WinXP and sometimes slower.
Alas your printer, scanner, etc probably does not have a 64 bit driver and
may not work at all. Your supercharged 3d video card will probably have
drivers but they will not be as sophisticated as those for 32bit Windows.
There is little real world need for 64 bit, dual core processing for the
vast majority of computer users (most business users could easily get by
with Pentium II level performance) and unfortunately the PC game market is
losing out to console based gaming so even that market segment is not
really driving technologic change.

thanks.

so when software does start coming out to make use of it, does it
matter what OS you have? Home or Pro?

does dual core even use SMP then? that's what it's coming down to
with me.

if dual core has SMP, i get XP pro, if it doesn't, Home.

if games that support dual cores will NOT run as fast on Home, i
get pro. it's just that simple for me.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:23:20 GMT, "Ben Markson" <bmarkson@mytrashmail.com>
wrote:

SMP is a part of the OS, not the CPU.

so basically, i should get pro because down the line, say 6
months from now when a game comes out that uses both processors
"truely" simultaneously (which is software SMP), i don't want to
be stuck with Home which can't do it.

so in a way, my friend was "kind of" right, even though most
games won't take advantage of it for awhile? he was thinking too
far in the future?

thanks.

see, i'm just getting a little confused between this.

when you say dual core supports SMP, what i mean is, if I'm
running Home edition, and lets say I have a game that fully
supports dual core processing (meaning it uses both cores) can I
run this maximized on Home Edition?