hey all
seems I read way back when there were differences in the various vista versions.  I have premium installed and am noticing that only 4 cores are being used (one processor)...while on xp all 8 were being used.  premium is recoginizing all 8 in the device manager, but it just doesnt seem to use them...even in carrara where I can actually see the numbers associated with which processor is doing what.

I cant seem to find this info now...the comparisons mention absolutely nothing about one processor being used, but they do mention ram limitations (like 16 gb vs 128)

anyhow, anyone out there "in the know" that can tell me if you have to have the business or ultimate versions to use 8 cores (2 processors?) 

tia
BT

Brycetech! Run away from vista, please! And from Windows 7! Xeep away.. stay with XP. I have had so much probs with vista.. check some of my old posts.. I'm downgrading to XP. And all the IT techs I've talked to say stay away from windows 7 for a year until issues are resolved.

vista works slow..needs a 16 Bit to use more than two gigs RAM (nitemare with photoshop and bryce rendering).. and it is a nitemare.

thebryster.. small note to you..in a rush.. will call you up later down today or tmrow!

Cheers.. and brycetech.. you better off with XP

*can tell me if you have to have the business or ultimate versions to use 8 cores (2 processors?)

- Sorry to tell you, yes that is correct,

"*While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors"

LINK*

well....
hell

ty

Maybe it will be better in windows 7. I heard actually that windows 7 has a much better winXP simulation mode then vista ever had! the concept of limiting core usage seems kinda outdated now anywas.. more so then when vista came out? maybe windows 7 has none of this bs about the usage of many cores..

@erosiaart, have your IT techs used windows 7 yet? in my experience, windows 7 release candidate was already better then windows vista! and that was before it was even in beta stage! The Windows XP of today is kind of what would happen if you gave your grandmother a boob-job... its just old, and aging and cant really be patched up anymore to become better.
In fact, the current idea is that the switch to windows 7 is one that should be considered almost urgent... many of the things which cause problems on windows XP, such as missing drivers, corrupted drivers, random ntldr failures, being a security nightmare, unexplainable network problems, etc. have been partly adressed during the development of windows vista (mostly technical and under the hood), and quite thouroughly dealt with in windows 7 (polished into something thats actually in full working order).

spent all day yesterday getting this version of windows installed..that after almost 2.5 months of fighting with microsoft to get the frickin' 64 bit version sent that I ordered...ended up with 3 disks but they had a order problem.

anyhow..after getting it and installing it and installing my programs and getting drivers and even having to get a new wireless 64bit compatible modem I find that only one processer is being used.

so to fix it, I have to get ultimate...do a clean install..which means losing all my programs again and reinstall it all again.

I love upgrading OS...just love it.
its never any easier.
was the same from 95 to 98 to millenium to xp and now vista.

as for stability..so far its wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more stable than xp ever was on the big computer...but that may be due to only using one processor..or it may be because it can actually use the ram that it has.

BT

i dont know if you need to do a clean install, cant you just upgrade to ultimate?

not according to the ms site
have to do clean install

 wow.. how strange :-/ I'll ask the resident microsoft guru at work 2morrow if he knows something about that

How do you except MS to make tons of money from an Upgrade?...;) They have 'recommended' upgrade paths, but 'skipping' an OS usually means reinstalling it. I wonder, tho...;)

nah actually its not logical to make upgrades difficult, because it means businesses wont upgrade much. And most their money comes from the licenses that businesses buy. 

Clean installs are ALWAYS best, believe me, trust me...

There is not much "chatter" about Windows 7 and multiple, physical CPU's, only because not too many us "average" users have them. But, yes I have seen that a user with 2 physical cpu's and a total of 8 cores used Windows 7 successfully.

*Actually, the users gripe was that Windows 7 was not using the other 2 cpu's. (the user had a total of 4 cpu's and 16 cores) - (I read this like four months ago, whether or not Windows 7 can use more than 2 physical cpu's now, I do not know)

heh AS
never said I was "average"....lol
in fact, looking at comments in my gallery today..most called me nuts..especially with the crystal palace render

oh well, have resigned myself to another month waiting on my upgrade cd and another day putting it all back together.  Life goes on.  If this were all I had to stress over, I'd have an easy life.

lol
BT

Month?
-God, I hope it won't take that long for ya!

Yeah, I finally had enough of doing complete re-installs when my computer would die on me. That chore takes a long frakking time to get absolutely everything back on and everything tweaked back to my liking.

I started using Acronis to create an image of my os hdd. I also use it on my friends/families/clients computers. Have had to use it a couple times now on their computers, works perfectly.

AS