Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:47:34 08/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 2001 at 00:05:14, Slater Wold wrote: >Why would you need to implement support for more than 1 CPU, on an edition of a >"home use" operating system? That make 100% no sense to me. Of the That is not the point, the point is that is not supported. The point is that in this group I want to know exactly what the product will be because a decision might depend on that knowledge. I am not asking MS to support SMP, I am just saying that it is not supported and making that clear when you said that it is supported. Well, apparently it is not, the one that support it is the professional version. >upteenbillion people in the world, who use Windows 95, 98, or ME, how many of >those people do you think have more than 1 CPU? Second question: Are we >writing operating systems, and calling them "home" versions because we expect >supercomputers to be running on them, or are we expecting the average computer >user to be using it. Give that some thought. This discussion will be off-topic but duals are not in homes because they are not marketed properly. Period. Even if the programs does not support SMP you can always run two programs at the same time doubling the overall efficiency, and many people run several programs at the same time or at least they could. This is all marketing, that is why MS does not support SMP in the home version. When the market is ready for it, MS will try to convince the people to go for XP2-home that "_now_ supports SMP!" and make them upgrade. >Also, anyone with good business sense, that could get away with running their >servers on a "home" and therefore cheaper OS, WOULD. And that's what MS is >stopping too. If you're going to run a business, and make money off a buisness, >and conduct your business using my software, I am going to make DAMN sure you're >buying the more expensive version. Because like any business, MS is out to make >money. Not save the cheap asses a few dollars. > >MS states (and from my own knowledge) DualView _IS_ a feature of XP. >Contradicting websites? No. One makes the software, and the other listens to >rumors about the software. Use your good judgement about who you should >believe. I do not know, I just posted information I found. Who to believe? I do not know. The software is not on the street so the could change their minds. How many times MS has done such a thing?. The information you gave is from march, the one that contradicts it is from July. One makes the software and the other may have information from beta testing (that it is known to have changed). >So let's review: > >No SMP in 95, 98, ME >No SMP in XP. (THE HOME VERSION) > >Why? Home versions, and home users, don't need more than 1 CPU. If you can >afford that extra CPU, you can afford to get the more expensive OS. Marketing makes them believe that they do not need more than CPU. In fact they do not even know it. They do not need a lot of things that they buy and they buy it anyway fully convinced. "Need" is not a reason. Miguel
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.