Shakey... or anybody else for that matter...

Question for you...ever used a Windows machine with dual processors? Since 95/98 won't support dual CPUs, that pretty much only leaves NT/2000.

I am running 2000 Pro and am thinking about upgrading a little later this year to a dual processor pentium 4 something or another. Not sure what speed yet.

I know unix will support multiple processors, but since Windows 2000 Pro seems to be holding up ok (amazing that it actually works considering Microsoft wrote it), I'm debating on upgrading to motherboard with 2 processors.

Anyway... ever used Windows with 2 CPUs? If yes, how did it fair out?

I only ever saw a dual processor system once and that was at a friends. His Dad had a system set up running NT with dual Pentiums. Didn't really dig into it enough to get a sense for any kind of comparison though. Maybe Wave will know. I may be wrong, but I also believe that XP Pro (not Home though) will support dual processors. Is there a local Mom & Pop type computer shop near you that might have this configuration put together that they would let you play with to investigate?

Not that I know of. I mostly just want it because I am REALLY hard on my machine and I'm thinking that with dual processors I can compress movies, watch another movie, and possibly have about a dozen other tasks going at once and shouldn't notice any latency.

Well I'm not too worried about it right now. Just thought maybe you had used one hands on and saw a difference.

Not this like this going to happen tomorrow anyway.

I've only seen dual processors on a Linux machine. Isn't NT build in a way similar to a unix ??? Or am I confusing something with another ???

BTW I have a couple of cpu knowledgeable friends, I'll check with them, since they've both seen some weird stuff :)

Originally posted by 80sSmurf
I've only seen dual processors on a Linux machine. Isn't NT build in a way similar to a unix ??? Or am I confusing something with another ???

BTW I have a couple of cpu knowledgeable friends, I'll check with them, since they've both seen some weird stuff :)

Totally different. Comparing Unix/Linux and NT is like comparing a jet to a car.

Unix is WAY more stable than NT will ever be, and has DOZENS of improvements over NT. Unix software doesn't run on NT. You can get NT variants though.

To give a detailed difference would take pages. Just take my word for it and know they are VERY different.

Unix has four MAJOR advantages over NT:

1) It's free (you can buy pre-packaged CDs, books, and so forth, but you can download Red Hat, FreeBSD, etc for free)
2) It's open source code. You can download the FULL source for everything. Can't do that with Windows.
3) Most all software you download (probably more than 95% of it) is free with source code.
4) It is FAR more stable than NT.

Hey, aaron. Clean out your message box. It's full and won't allow PM's to go through.

Are you serious??? There's only like 6 in there. When I read about mailboxes full I'm thinking of like 50.

Ok I'll delete them. :rolleyes:

I lied... I had 9 messages in there. The mail box must have a real small capacity if it can't handle that many. Like... 5k?

Anyway...there ya go.

Maybe we should all pitch in to get a bigger hard disk for the server? :D

I have been running a dual Pentium on XP pro since December. I have been having so many problems with XP that i have not had a chance to push the processors with any movies yet. I has been nothing but a pain.

Originally posted by aaronw
Totally different. Comparing Unix/Linux and NT is like comparing a jet to a car.

Unix is WAY more stable than NT will ever be, and has DOZENS of improvements over NT. Unix software doesn't run on NT. You can get NT variants though....

Let me rephrase that, what I meant to say was, that M$ tried to make a knock off of a unix system, so that some of the features are the same (basically trying to outdo Unix/Linux and make a OS that's good for running servers etc.)....:)

I know Linux is free and open source.
Now you say it's like comparing a jet to a car, I know that's foremost perfomance wise, but does NT have anything in common with unix ????

BTW dual processors shopuld be possible on Win2000, NT and XP (I asked a friend since I didn't know :D).

Originally posted by 80sSmurf


Let me rephrase that, what I meant to say was, that M$ tried to make a knock off of a unix system, so that some of the features are the same (basically trying to outdo Unix/Linux and make a OS that's good for running servers etc.)....:)

I know Linux is free and open source.
Now you say it's like comparing a jet to a car, I know that's foremost perfomance wise, but does NT have anything in common with unix ????

BTW dual processors shopuld be possible on Win2000, NT and XP (I asked a friend since I didn't know :D).

DOS is loosely based on unix. Some of the commands are very similar, directory structures are similar, but thats about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love DOS. I grew up using it (before even Windows 1.0 circa 85), but Unix has WAY more commands and much more power. I use DOS and Windows all the time though.

As far as things in common....that depends on what you mean. Do you mean specific functions? Software? That's a very broad question.

I did find that 2000 supports dual CPUs. I went to Microsofts site and found that 2000 Pro supports 2, Server supports 4, and Advanced Server supports 8. I just use pro. Works fine so far. I don't know if I will actually do this or not, just a thought. Windows has a hard enough time multitasking as it is.

Originally posted by aaronw
....As far as things in common....that depends on what you mean. Do you mean specific functions? Software? That's a very broad question....

Sorry, I meant functions and funcionality :)
I'm sure that M$ will never make a system that's hlf as stable as Unix/Linux. I'm also sure that M$ will spew out tons of (pricey) software all the time, trying to mimick anything new or cool that surfaces in the Linux community...

Why is it that XP and win9.x isn't compatible with a lot of software ?? Did M$ make a new kernel ?? (I am right at presuming the kernel is the core of the system right ??)

BTW it's so much fun to read your posts Aaron, it's so obvious you love computers and what you do. Almost every post regarding these subjects turn into a lenghty rant (that's a compliment), I actually learn stuff from this (:D) keep it up :thumb: :p

Originally posted by aaronw
I lied... I had 9 messages in there. The mail box must have a real small capacity if it can't handle that many. Like... 5k?

Anyway...there ya go.

Maybe we should all pitch in to get a bigger hard disk for the server? :D

It only allows 20 messages. Sal did this to speed up the system. I think to many people had a whole lot of PMs in their boxes. That 20 includes sent mail also, so don't forget to delete those too. :)

Yeah, it's not a capacity issue...we got that. We're about one step below being on our own dedicated server. Thing is, when too many people leave loads and loads of PMs laying around, the forums as a whole do slow down.....and slow is bad :lol: ;)

Originally posted by aaronw
Don't get me wrong, I love DOS.

:lol: I actually get made fun of by some of my friends, because I run DOS 6.2 on my laptop (with Win 3.1 thrown in for fun). :D It's fun for those old DOS games that don't play well under 9x or XP.

Originally posted by TJ


It only allows 20 messages. Sal did this to speed up the system. I think to many people had a whole lot of PMs in their boxes. That 20 includes sent mail also, so don't forget to delete those too. :)

TJ... well I understand that, but like I said, I only had 9 messages, not 20 in my inbox.

Perhaps it counted SENT messages too.

Not like its a big loss to me.

Originally posted by Roemello
Yeah, it's not a capacity issue...we got that. We're about one step below being on our own dedicated server. Thing is, when too many people leave loads and loads of PMs laying around, the forums as a whole do slow down.....and slow is bad :lol: ;)

Why not just have a colocated server? The cheapest dedicated we have at work is $99, but it only has 10 gb of bandwidth. Our regular dedicated servers run $225. The cheapest colocated we offer is a 1u for $90, but mini-towers are $110. The rest of our dedicated and colocated get 30 GB or 50 GB of bandwidth.

If you guys know how to install Linux, installing apache, ftp, ssl, bind (if you need a dns), and a mailer is easy.

We usually have full dedicated servers installed with Red Hat, apache, mod_ssl, webmin, ftp, qmail, and whatever else totally set up ready to go to the NOC within 4 hours, typically less.

Administration is easy too. Once you have a Linux server set up, they *practically* maintain themselves.

Just watch the load balance and disk space. Log files don't purge themselves.

Originally posted by 80sSmurf


Sorry, I meant functions and funcionality :)
I'm sure that M$ will never make a system that's hlf as stable as Unix/Linux. I'm also sure that M$ will spew out tons of (pricey) software all the time, trying to mimick anything new or cool that surfaces in the Linux community...

Why is it that XP and win9.x isn't compatible with a lot of software ?? Did M$ make a new kernel ?? (I am right at presuming the kernel is the core of the system right ??)

BTW it's so much fun to read your posts Aaron, it's so obvious you love computers and what you do. Almost every post regarding these subjects turn into a lenghty rant (that's a compliment), I actually learn stuff from this (:D) keep it up :thumb: :p

I'm sure that if Microsoft WANTED to make something half as decent as Unix, they could, but I doubt it will ever happen. They are too much of a monopoly and have people believing that the world runs on windows and you HAVE to use it.

Anybody remember OS/2? My friend had Warp 3 back in 1995 or so when Windows 95 had JUST came out. While Warp 3 didn't have the amount of software Windows had, it was FAR more stable, had better multi-tasking, and better crash protection. But it just never caught on.

Microsoft has more than overstated their desire to kill Linux. The deal is, how do you put people out of business that work for free? Also, when you have shit software that is full of bugs and crashes virtually daily, and costs $100+, how do you complete with programmers around the world who do it for free and it doesn't crash?

Believe it or not, there is damn near as much software available for unix as for windows.

Unix has several GUIs, including GNOME and KDE. If you want an MP3 player, Winamp is great for Windows. XMMS is almost identical for GNOME it is works every bit as good. Netscape is better under Linux. Apache is the worlds most popular web server and its 100% free.

Need paint programs? Corel Photo Paint is a big contender. For email and usenet, I used balsa and pan. Both work excellent.

How about something like Microsoft Office? Sun Microsystems has StarOffice for free download, and has just about every feature that Office does.

Oh btw... all of the above is free!

Anyway, on with the questioning...

I think XP does have a somewhat different kernel. Many of my movies under 98 won't play under XP (I'm not just referring to porns, I mean anything! :D ). XP does have a program compatibility wizard which seems to work well. I don't know enough about the underlying core of XP to know how it works, but it is different than previous releases (to what extend I don't know) and I know that I hate it. 2000 Pro is just alright.

The kernel is the core where all the crucial functions and code is. This is what drives your system. (That is the simplest way I can think of to describe it.)

I get burned out with computers all the time. I don't foresee myself every leaving the field. Maybe when I'm ancient I will, but I've gone this far, so what the hell.

I spent a lot of years learning the basics. Many years in DOS, writing batch files, programming in Turbo Pascal (back in the day), playing CGA games, running bulletin boards like Opus CBCS, setting up online games (doors), downloads, playing really old Infocom games and RPGs like Hack and Larn (circa... 84??).

With the exception of long term users, most newbies that I'm around have no idea what a FOSSIL driver is (it stands for something thats why I capitalized it), ANSI graphics, 5 1/4" floppies, loading files off cassette, 300/1200 baud, and so forth.

I remember a few years ago firing up my old 8088 XT that I bought over 10 years ago. I was playing some old CGA games on it and a few people asked what kind of graphics those were. Hell back in the mid 80's those were cool!

I don't know that I would want to go back to that era, but I really do miss the old bulletin boards. Actually many are still online, but most use telnet now instead of regular analog modems.

Also, modems are WAY cheaper now. You can buy a DECENT (nothing great) 56k internal (yuck) modem for about $30, give or take. Back in 1994 (maybe 95) I was digging through some old papers in our attic back home and came across an old receipt for an Avatex 300/1200 baud external modem. Dated 12/86. Guess what the cost was? $150!!! And that was a decent deal!

Yes folks, thats how much technology has changed. Even when I bought my first XT back in 1990 (while the XT was getting outdated and was about 12 years old, it was still common), even small 30 MB (not GB) hard disks were over $200. Most people still couldn't afford one. A neighbor of mine bought a Seagate 30 MB MFM hard disk for his Tandy 1000 back in 1987. He had to get a special controller (MFM hard disks were much different than IDE). He spent about $350 on the whole shooting match.

So much has changed...