• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

How are Dual Core Processors Controlled?

rjd

rjd

rjd

Associate
Joined
4 Mar 2006
Posts
168
Location
London
Hi all

Is it the processor, the operating system, the application or something else that decides if and when the processor uses both cores?

I have an AMD 64 3000+ overclocked to 2.2 and use both WinME and Linux (currently have Simply Mepis 6.5 installed on a USB HDD) and was wondering if I would see any benefit if I upgraded to an AMD 64 Dual Core Socket 939.

Would appreciate your help.
 
Win ME won't take much advantage of a dual core CPU. You really need to upgrade to windows 2000, XP or Vista to get proper dual core support.
 
Hi Dureth

Thanks for the info but it still seams a bit vague to me.

WinME was out around the same time as Win2000.

Why does WinMe not take much advantage of dual core and Win2000 provide proper dual core support?

Could you please expand on what you mean by 'won't take much advantage' and 'proper dual core support'?

Is it just Simply Mepis 6.5 or all Linux 'flavors' that do not support dual core?

Any further clarification would be appreciated.
 
think windows me doesn;t have dual cpu support so only 1 core will be available. same with windows 2000 unless you have the professional edition or higher.
 
Windows ME doesn't support symmetric multiprocessing, period. Only NT-based Windows OSes do, so that's NT4/2000/XP/2003/Vista...

No idea if that Linux distro supports it.

If you're using the right OS then dual core gives a massive performance boost.
 
Hi Cyber-Mav

Thanks for that.

So, are you saying that Dureth is wrong?

I appreciate people replying but if you don't really know the answer and are just guessing it causes more confusion.

Does anyone actually know the answer to my op or are most people buying dual core in the hope it will bring some benefit?

Someone must know!!!
 
Thank you NathanE.

Just what I needed to know.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
 
Whether your OS supports dual core is only half the story. The applications you are running must also support multi processors or else you will see no benefit at all.
 
Dureth is correct, windows ME will only show 1 core and will not use the second core. you need windows 2k, nt, xp or vista to get both cores to show up.
 
Yes, you would see a definite benefit. I can't recall specifically if the vanilla kernel installed on Mepis is SMP but even if it isn't a 30-second trip to the package manager can fix that.

Windows ME is the last of the MS-DOS based operating systems. Its kernel does not support SMP so you'll have to switch to an NT-based OS on the Windows side if you want both cores available, just as others have said.
rjd said:
Is it the processor, the operating system, the application or something else that decides if and when the processor uses both cores?
Click to expand...
It's really all of them. The processor must first have at least two cores (or the machine must have at least two processors). The operating system must have a SMP kernel so that when assigning tasks to the processor(s) it will be aware of the need to balance loading on both procs. The application must be written in such a way that it takes advantage of more than one processor. If not, it will be bound to one proc and other tasks will be bound to the other.
 
Thanks for the info Rex_the_Runt.

That makes it a non starter for me as atm I am quite happy with the apps I currently have.

I appreciate your help.
 
rjd said:
That makes it a non starter for me as atm I am quite happy with the apps I currently have.
Click to expand...
You'd see significant gains in multitasking. Let's say you have KDE running with Amarok open but paused, VLC open and playing a DVD, and Firefox open. On a single core those applications would have to switch in and out of the same processor. If any one wanted more CPU time the others would have to wait their turn.

In a dual core machine, the OS assigns tasks so that applications are split up. Even if VLC wants 100% of the processor to decode that DVD the other applications will continue on their merry way running on the other core.
 
I think you should consider an upgrade to WinXP before you buy a dual-core CPU. WinMe is stone-age in OS terms, no longer supported and will be hurting your performance and reliability, whichever CPU you have.
 
If your migrating to a fust linux platform then any modern distro will have SMP (multi-cpu support) out of the box. If not then you'l be able to upgrade the kernel via the package manager to get SMP support.

ME was around at nearly the same time as 2K but it was based on 98SE/MSDOS rather than NT4 as 2K was. 2K only had support for SMP in the Pro version or higher. XP Home/Pro, Server 2003 and Vista all support SMP although I believe that XP Home needs to be upgraded to SP1 at least (poosibly SP2) for full support for SMP to become available.
 
Hi Dureth (again) and Mattus.

I know WinME is old but when I see other people's WinXP systems they not only look horrible (like a Fisher Price OS would be) but they run so slowly and don't appear to offer anything extra compared to WinME.

WinME 'out of the box' may have same problems but if it is tweaked it runs fast and is stable and is not bloated (which I really hate).

Vista does not appeal at all so I'm using WinME and USB HDD 'dual booting' to Simply Mepis 6.5 but find that rather slow and a bit 'loud' compared to WinME.

I won't 'upgrade' just because MS says I should so if/when I change it will proberly be a Linux distro.

Thanks for replying.
 
Last edited:
Cyber-Mav said:
same with windows 2000 unless you have the professional edition or higher.
Click to expand...

Dureth said:
2K only had support for SMP in the Pro version or higher. .
Click to expand...

Er... was there another version of Windows 2000 released?

As far as I recall there was only Windows 2000 Professional.

There certainly wasn't a Windows 2000 Home, Basic, Lite, or Noddy was there?

(I'm talking for the desktop/workstation, not server, which obviously would have multi-processor support anyway)
 
That's correct. The "lowest" edition of 2000 was Professional. This had SMP support. All editions of Windows 2000 had SMP support.
 
rjd said:
I know WinME is old but when I see other people's WinXP systems they not only look horrible (like a Fisher Price OS would be) but they run so slowly and don't appear to offer anything extra compared to WinME.

WinME 'out of the box' may have same problems but if it is tweaked it runs fast and is stable and is not bloated (which I really hate).

Vista does not appeal at all so I'm using WinME and USB HDD 'dual booting' to Simply Mepis 6.5 but find that rather slow and a bit 'loud' compared to WinME.

I won't 'upgrade' just because MS says I should so if/when I change it will proberly be a Linux distro.

Thanks for replying.
Click to expand...

You can turn off the Fisher Price elements of XP and make it look like good-and-grey old 98/Me/2000.

As regards it not appearing to have many more features over Me, it certainly has a lot better security, stability and support, and it should now be running a lot faster than Me did.

I think XP had problems at first but it's pretty much sorted now (well, it should be after 6 years!) apart from security updates (to be expected when using any Windows OS I'm afraid). I hardly ever have software crashes, haven't had any BSODs in the last 3 years and it generally runs stable and fast.

I can completely understand you wanting to avoid Vista. Though the way it's being foisted onto an unknowing public buying new machines means we'll all suffer its consequences in the end.

But in the end it comes down to what you are happy with, and if you are happy sticking to Me then you do that.

You ever tried LitePC - http://www.litepc.com - allows you to install 98/Me/XP/2000 however you want, stripping out all the crap you don't need. I used to love trying to get my Windows 98 install down to 50mb, stripping out Internet Explorer and the entire HTML engine, making it much faster and more stable. Hmmm... might have to go and have a play with that when I get home - would be fun to see how it runs on my Core2Duo system ;)

And good on you for considering migrating to Linux. You tried Ubuntu? It's the best distro for the novice convert, and highly praised by the experienced Linux pro too. I really like it.

For me it's a triple-boot toss up between XP for work and games, Mac OSX for music and video production, and Ubuntu for tinkering.

Or (looking out the window at work) trying to avoid computers altogether and laying in the sunshine, drinking beer and leching at pretty young things in skimpy skirts.
 
Last edited:
Hi martianrobot

I'm with you on you last point.

It's not that I am against upgrading as such but if WinME runs all my programs and is very reliable and fast, I would need a good reason to change.

As you say, WinXP is fine now but it has taken the best part of 6 years for MS to get there!

I don't see the point of changing something that works for overpriced Vista which would also mean replacing/upgrading some apps that work fine for my needs.

LitePC sounds interesting and should run very fast on your Core2Duo system. Maybe you could let us all know how it works out if you decide to give it another go.

Not sure how 'lite' I could get as my C: drive is installed on a 20gb partition and only using 1.6gb which includes 677mb of programs so WinME is less than 1gb.

From memory I have tried:-

Ubuntu,Kubuntu,Xbuntu,Puppy,Suse,Slax,Sam,PCLinuxOS, Knoppix and Simply Mepis and found the last two worked best on my system.

They do all 'dance around' a lot before actually doing what you want but most of the fancy footwork and eye candy can be toned down.

Although my modem/router is automatically connected so I can use FF2 etc. for some reason I can't update via adapt so that needs to be sorted.

I like using Linux but must say I am more than happy when I go back to WinME which is set up and working just how I like it where as my Linux install is still a work in progress.

When I do my next build I will proberly be forced to 'upgrade' due to lack of drivers etc. support for WinME but I will not give up easily and plan to go down fighting!

Sorry to go on and thanks for your thoughts.

Now you can return to the pretty young things in skimpy skirts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom