Getting your hopes up for a computer with more than 1 CPU which has duel cores, or more? Microsoft's greed has crushed those hopes. From the Inquirer we have this: By INQUIRER newsdesk: Tuesday 09 January 2007, 15:32 INTERESTING SNIPPETS from Microsoft's licence terms for retail software reveal that the software maker insist that users must assign their copy of the upcoming operating system to what Microsoft terms one "single device". The device, the outfit helpfully explains, is a "physical hardware system". A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device, the fimr notes. The terms state that the software may be used "on up to two processors on that device at one time." This may of course will cause much stratching of heads with innocent users as they are persuaded to buy more multi-core and multi-processor systems in the future. With chip makers happily cobbling together more and more processors to achieve more apparently parallel cores, the definition of what constitutes a single processor may need tightening up if we're to avoid volish copyright cops banging on too many doors. AMD eight-core anyone?

No need to wonder about it
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

o.k., I hadda look up "volish" on google, as my knowledge of modern english ain't too good. I got these top two: Vole Appreciation Society Apple users bitten by Volish bug it definitely doesn't sound too good :lol:

So if you buy a compter with 4 CPUs, each with 2 cores. You'll have to purchase 4 licenses! Yikes!!

No, in the original article you cited:
"The terms state that the software may be used "on up to two processors on that device at one time."

Two processors with any number of cores is two processors (although I expect EVENTUALLY that will change, it will be 4 per processor at most for quite a long time to come), and one license.  I don't see what's confusing here, did you look at the MS explanation of how it works?  I currently have a quad core machine on XP-64, one license.

Oops, in your example - I think you'll have a hard time finding a 4-socket motherboard, but in the case that you do, the cost of one extra license will be a very, very small percentage of the cost of your machine (got my copy of XP64 for something like $80).  Price your hypothetical motherboard and 4 dual-core procs (and why not two quad-core?  )

Well, little news in here... It's just the same with Win XP currently... Home is limited to one Processor, Pro to two.

Their is that Win XP Media Center also.  I have dual core, did not have to purchase 2 licenses.  Sharen

Quote - Getting your hopes up for a computer with more than 1 CPU which has duel cores, or more? Microsoft's greed has crushed those hopes. From the Inquirer we have this: By INQUIRER newsdesk: Tuesday 09 January 2007, 15:32 INTERESTING SNIPPETS from Microsoft's licence terms for retail software reveal that the software maker insist that users must assign their copy of the upcoming operating system to what Microsoft terms one "single device". The device, the outfit helpfully explains, is a "physical hardware system". A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device, the fimr notes. The terms state that the software may be used "on up to two processors on that device at one time." This may of course will cause much stratching of heads with innocent users as they are persuaded to buy more multi-core and multi-processor systems in the future. With chip makers happily cobbling together more and more processors to achieve more apparently parallel cores, the definition of what constitutes a single processor may need tightening up if we're to avoid volish copyright cops banging on too many doors. AMD eight-core anyone?

Are you sure they have the right information?  Doesn't sound right to me.  This is from MS's site regarding licensing of OS for a multicore processor:

Quote - Server software licensed on a per-processor basis for systems with multicore processors requires only one software license per processor

It's talking "multicore" processors, not multiple processors.

That's the Inquirer, pretty much the single least reliable source of tech info on the net. These guys have been known to post and retract an article all in a single day because of shoddy research. So take what they say with a grain of salt.

There are plenty of other, much worse reasons to stay away from Vista... multi core compatibility isn't really one of them.

I did a 'training' session on Vista, and as stated in threads past, it is a hog..;) There's about 5 different versions of Vista coming (from the low-end up to Ultimate). They recommend 1 gig memory, and 15 Gig HD space for the OS (think about that. how efficient is an OS that needs 15 gig?..;)

It showed off the bells and whistles (semi-transparent windows...whoopie...;).  Most of the training seemed to focus on installation and licensing (it goes from OS, to crippleware, to non-functional in just a few weeks unless registered). They didn't cover the core-vs-processor bit, but it would seem kind of silly to have each core use a separate license, since they function more or less dependent on each other. But we are talking about MS...;)

So, if you had a quad computer, each with two cores, woud you need 3 licenses??

yes.
 first licence covers 2 CPU's. you then need an additional licence for each CPU.
The amount of Cores on each CPU does not affect the licencing, it is determined by CPU units.

Unless I am misreading, you would need two copies of Vista, not three.

Each copy allows for 2 CPUS, thus a quad cpu system would need 2 copies.

 - Noel  

Attached Link: Apple "Surgery" Mac-PC Visa Jab Ad

All of this is yet another reason for not dealing with Microsoft if you don't have to. Mac-ers have been using a Vista-like OS (and a superior one at that) for over a year, and will take yet another painless leap ahead with the introduction of OS 10.5 Leopard later this Spring. Certainly Mac Poser users haven't had much reason to be smug over the past few years (until Poser 7), but we can always count on Microsoft to do its part by overreaching at every opportunity. I moved my small company from PC to Mac about four years ago, with a lot of griping from my employees, especially about cross-platform compatibility of Excel and Powerpoint documents (which hasn't quite gone away), but we haven't been hit by a virus, major server failure or external server intrusion since, and our per-seat system and maintenance costs are notably lower with much higher up-time percentages. Every time I read about Microsoft's new, tightened grip on its corporate users and stories like this thread, I give thanks all the more. If you haven't seen the latest Apple ad, which takes a jab at Vista (see "Surgery"), it's one of the better ones:

I don't have any plans to downgrade to Vista, even if I buy a new pc which comes with the worst virus in history already installed, doesn't mean I have to keep it on there does it?

The problems will start when the Internet servers start running Vista as then we'll have large chunks of it being controlled fully by Microsoft & locking out anyone who doesn't have their "wonderful" system installed. When that happens I'll just quit.

at the macworld expo yesterday, one of jobs' graphics was a "zune" going up in flames. :lol: OS X users have been using the system upon which vista was based since 2000/1. that's about 6 years. it takes some getting used to, just as a caution for any xp users worrying if the transition will be painless. the 15 GB disk space is not actually occupied by software, but is used as virtual memory by the system, which will try to "reserve" physical RAM for various background apps. in OS X it's referred to as page-ins and page-outs, and it may tend to slow vista to a crawl at times. however, like OS X, it's likely vista can run on much less disk space, given the iphones will only have 2 GB, but will be able to handle a version of leopard and safari 3.x.

I just purchased the parts today to build a dual core  computer.
I told them I wanted to go the 64bit.
They sold me a copy of WindowsXP Pro 32 bit which has a free upgrade path to Vista 64.
After reading this thread I am concerned.
Did I purchase the correct os?
I could still return it as it is unopened.
any advice would be appreciated.
cheerio  lululee

Surely they should have sold you WindowsXP Pro 64 with the free downgrade to Vista?

They told me WindowsXP Pro 64 was not in stock and might take weeks to get it in.
I purchased it at BestByte in Canada.
cheerio
lululee

Ah ok, I thought they were trying to pull a fast one (Londoner speak for conning you)

I'd return it and get Windows XP Pro 64-bit, which is available today.  I'm running it now and plus the new hardware I've got, it's the most stable machine I've ever owned.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-52%2CGGLJ%3Aen&q=windows+xp+64+bit+edition+buy

It says pretty plainly in the license info I gave a link for in my first post in the thread:  each license covers two processors.  Two processors with any number of cores is one license.  Although everybody in the thread (me included) is a little off when it comes to more than two processors, it seems:
Q. A customer wants to upgrade their single-core processor system by replacing the single-core processor with a multicore processor. If they do so, will there be an increase in cost for their current software license?

A. No. The customer will incur the cost for one software license per processor, not per core. So if a customer replaces the single-core processor on their system with a multicore processor, they will need to have only one license per processor.

Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.

... so if you have a hypothetical machine with more than two processors, it seems you have to go to a server OS.

PS:  here are the only quad-socket Wintel motherboards (both AMD) that I could find for sale at Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2000200302+1071311251&Subcategory=302&description=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=
$1221 and $1588.

Thanks so much for all of your great help. i will do my best to return  WindowsXP Pro 32 bit and get Windows XP Pro 64-bit. 
  Did you have any problems finding drivers for Windows XP Pro 64-bit?
cheerio  lululee

No, but I researched all my hardware for such before I bought it.  There are some items that do not have 64-bit drivers, and the 32-bit drivers for these items may not work under XP-64, e.g. I had a D-Link network card I wanted to use, no 64-bit drivers, doesn't work.

Some 64 bit OS's may not support 16-bit apps, though. So if you're still playing Lounge Lizard Larry, or Zork, you may have problems..;) it is true about the  16-bit apps, just can't remember if its Server 2003 or vista..;) too little time, too many OS's..;)

Isn't it also true that server versions of the various OS are always more stable than the desktop versions?

No.  MS would like you to think that, but nope.

supposedly. However, Servers nowadays have redundant everything (memory, HD's (RAID), power supplies, network cards, etc), so they're able to run pretty much non-stop. 

I don't know on a code level, but I think the Server OS is mainly the Workstation OS with more bells, whistles, processes, 'snap-in's', etc. (Of course, Windows Server 2003 is out standing in it's field..;)

Oh this is funny...people moan, yet how many have actually got a quad processor machine? Not many if any I wager!
Secondly,  look into what is happening at Intel and AMD and you will find that everything is going in the direction of multi core systems and not multi processor for non business consumers.

People seem to keen to scare monger...the licensing isn't much different from now and only should be of concern to business users.

Cheers

I can see people rushing out to buy a pc with Vista but come a year down the line parts of it aren't exactly the most current anymore & maybe the video or sound card are no longer supported by the maker, BANG! Vista no longer works properly because those parts are now disabled until you go out & upgrade them to the latest version. At least with XP you can stick with what you have because it's not going to switch itself off if the video/sound card is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Driver revocation is the biggest mistake they've made with Vista & anyone downgrading to it is going to pay big time for it in the future, wait till they charge for "essential" updates.

'nother thing about Vista; if you upgrade too many components after install, you bollix the OS, and may have to reinstall. Go figure..