Windows 7 Home Premium CPU Limitation

[Dr.Pants]

That could be misleading. I guess they might mean two logical processors (i.e., cores). But that would rule out fully using one quad core processor. Hmm.. what do they mean?

I read around about it - Microsoft classifies a computer as an HD and memory to hold the OS which can have up to two CPU dies for processing. At least that's why I took from it.

 

[KeriJane]

From the Windows 7 Home Premium EULA:



That could be misleading. I guess they might mean two logical
processors (i.e., cores). But that would rule out fully using one
quad core processor. Hmm.. what do they mean?

Hi Infrared

I suspect that they might mean:
"We're lazy and sloppy with the specifics and wording on the legalese"

Or, they started with the Ultimate EULA and modified it as they saw fit for the other giant pile of versions.
Or forgot to modify it appears.

If one wanted to get all litigious at them that EULA blooper could possibly be grounds for a free upgrade or a lawsuit.

It's not worth the effort though. Just stick with OSX.

Have Fun,
Keri

 

[Infrared]

Hi Infrared

I suspect that they might mean:
"We're lazy and sloppy with the specifics and wording on the legalese"

Or, they started with the Ultimate EULA and modified it as they saw fit for the other giant pile of versions.
Or forgot to modify it appears.

If one wanted to get all litigious at them that EULA blooper could possibly be grounds for a free upgrade or a lawsuit.

It's not worth the effort though. Just stick with OSX.

Have Fun,
Keri

Do you have any other impractical airhead advice to offer?

Thanks.

 

[Dr.Pants]

I'm guessing if the OP isn't trying to fix the OS they really didn't need it in the first place.

 

[sorchard]

The whole "lets make 6 different versions in three levels each so as to extract the maximum amount of money from people" concept is one of the reasons I'm not going back to MS anytime soon.

Swings and roundabouts. Apple charge significantly more for the same hardware than other manufacturers do for theirs. The Mac Pro used to be the one machine that was actually fairly priced against other Xeon workstations, but I believe the latest model has widened the gap somewhat.

Paying more for the hardware and less for the OS, vs
Paying less for the hardware and a bit more for the OS

Seriously, the R&D money is already spent and there's no additional media or distribution costs. Socking it to people that want just that one extra thing (like multi-CPU support or integrated backups) while making a stripped-down version with little functionality (so as to advertise a low price) is just a cheap marketing ploy that does more to annoy customers than boost profits.

Apple aren't well known for allowing you to upgrade anything and everything you want. iPhones/iPods don't have card slots - want more space? Tough. Buy another iPhone/iPod. Silly lockouts like older Mac Pros not accepting newer graphics cards, yet my ancient PCI-E PC will do it no problem. Barely 3 year old G5s can't run 10.6? At least Windows 7 will run on any machine you want (and actually fairly well). Doesn't one of the Mac Pros only have one CPU socket, too?

 

[KeriJane]

Do you have any other impractical airhead advice to offer?
Thanks.

Tons! Or at least lots and lots.
Just name a topic and you'll get plenty of impractical airhead advice.
BTW, were you referring to pestering MS or sticking with OSX?

I'm guessing if the OP isn't trying to fix the OS they didn't really need it in the first place.

That's right. This was merely an exercise in curiosity. I felt that the results might be relevant to dual-CPU Mac Pro users so I posted it here.

I feel it was worth it as someone pointed out an apparent EULA blooper that I missed and that made me laugh a little.


Have Fun!

PS. Always arrange Beanie Babies in alphabetical order or they'll get jealous.

 

[Dr.Pants]

That's right. This was merely an exercise in curiosity. I felt that the results might be relevant to dual-CPU Mac Pro users so I posted it here.

I feel it was worth it as someone pointed out an apparent EULA blooper that I missed and that made me laugh a little.

Scroll down to performance features, and you will find that Microsoft's official stance is that Home Premium has dual-socket support. Yes, some people have been having problems with dual-socket machines, but that still doesn't account why your machine shows only two cores (when it should be four). I would imagine MSoft to hotfix and then patch. Did you call their tech support? If you didn't, did you at least try some of the solutions in the links I posted?

Otherwise your relevant results only lead to the conclusion that there might be problems and leave users up in the air should they try and upgrade since some potential solutions haven't been tried yet. Maybe you have and haven't said it yet, or I could be thick. Take your pick.

I'm not saying Microsoft is better than Apple in any way, shape, or form. Its just the documentation that's bothering me.

 

[nhood01]

Can anyone tell me the difference (if any) between this:

http://www.amazon.com/Windows-PRO-Bit-OEM-1pk/dp/B002NGQLIE

and this:

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Win..._1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1257307766&sr=1-1

?

Thanks

 

[nanofrog]

Can anyone tell me the difference (if any) between this:

http://www.amazon.com/Windows-PRO-Bit-OEM-1pk/dp/B002NGQLIE

and this:

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Win..._1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1257307766&sr=1-1

?

Thanks

It's in the licensing.

The first one, is an OEM version. That is, it's a full installation (perfect for new systems). The caveat is, you can't transfer it to another system in the future. There's no tech support either, as that's the responsibility of the system vendor. In this case, that's you.

Actually you can get it from MS, but you'd have to pay for it.

The second, is used if you have a valid (and applicable) license for an older version. XP or Vista in the case of this product. If you do, it's legal.

If you don't plan on transferring it to future systems and comfortable with providing your own tech support, then get the OEM version, as it's less expensive.

Up to you.

 

[Infrared]

Scroll down to performance features, and you will find that Microsoft's official stance is that Home Premium has dual-socket support.

That page is Paul Thurrott's interpretation of Microsoft's official stance.
It's not the official stance itself. I think Mr Thurrott has probably made
a mistake - understandable given what's in the EULA.

Yes, some people have been having problems with dual-socket machines

I've not found a single example of anyone with a dual-socket machine
who can use both CPUs under Home Premium. There are many examples
of people who cannot. All the anecdotal evidence so far - meagre as it
is - points to a single CPU limitation for Windows 7 Home Premium. Note
that Vista Home Premium and XP Home Edition were each limited to one
phsyical CPU.

but that still doesn't account why your machine shows only two cores (when it should be four).

The original Mac Pros had two dual-core processors. If only one processor
can be used, only two cores can be used.

 

[Dr.Pants]

That page is Paul Thurrott's interpretation of Microsoft's official stance. It's not the official stance itself. I think Mr Thurrott has probably made a mistake - understandable given what's in the EULA.

Well, in that case, MSoft really needs to change that page and/or the EULA to be clearer, IMO.

I've not found a single example of anyone with a dual-socket machine who can use both CPUs under Home Premium. There are many examples of people who cannot. All the anecdotal evidence so far - meagre as it is - points to a single CPU limitation for Windows 7 Home Premium. Note that Vista Home Premium and XP Home Edition were each limited to one phsyical CPU.

Yeah, it sounds about right now that the correlation was put into that context. But at the same time people with DP computers might opt for some of the features in the professional/enterprise versions. Now that I realise it, such as dual processors.

The original Mac Pros had two dual-core processors. If only one processor can be used, only two cores can be used.

Epic facedesk on my part, I admit it. I'm just used to people that have upgraded or are upgrading their machines, so I automatically assumed it was an 8-core machine. Still doesn't explain why there was no attempt to fix the OS or at least call Microsoft about the problem. I would, minus the fact that I don't own a DP machine with the right architectures.

 

[KeriJane]

Epic facedesk on my part, I admit it. I'm just used to people that have upgraded or are upgrading their machines, so I automatically assumed it was an 8-core machine. Still doesn't explain why there was no attempt to fix the OS or at least call Microsoft about the problem. I would, minus the fact that I don't own a DP machine with the right architectures.

Hi Dr.Pants

Yes, this is a relatively unmodified Mac Pro 1.1 with its two original 2.66ghz dual core XEONS. It does everything I want as-is so I see no point in modding it past an 8800GT, 8gb RAM and four drives inside / two outside.

The reason I made no attempt to fix this or contact MS is:
I do not intend to use Win 7. Especially not on this machine.

I was curious about a few things:
1- to try x64 on a MP1.1 (success),
2- the enabling of AHCI (success) and
3- to see if Win7 HP continued Vista HP and XP Home's lack of dual CPU support. (it doesn't support multiple CPU)

I felt that this information could be helpful to fellow Dual-CPU Mac Pro users who might otherwise waste good money on Home Premium.

I didn't realize that it would be mis-understood as much as it has, especially by the MS crowd. I did not intend the thread to be taken as an attack on MS even though I do not like MS at all and avoid their products as much as possible. But... all you gotta do with some people is point out a flaw or two and BOOM!

Have Fun,
Keri

PS. Why no attempt at "fixing" this? As I intend to make money with this system, "Professional" software should really be used. MS dislikes use of "Home" variants of their software for making a profit.
On this machine, all software is properly licensed and unmodified so as to avoid any potential nasty legal battles with huge corporations. That means my XP Pro drive goes back in soon.

Maybe I'll put that 7 HP on the Mini.
Nah! ***Registry!***

 

[Dr.Pants]

I didn't realize that it would be mis-understood as much as it has, especially by the MS crowd. I did not intend the thread to be taken as an attack on MS even though I do not like MS at all and avoid their products as much as possible. But... all you gotta do with some people is point out a flaw or two and BOOM!

Yeah, sorry about that on my part. Mainly because I was acting conservatively and working off of the page I was looking at. If I came off as an ingrate, it was mainly because of the fact that I was irked at the lack of response rather then a fan of Microsoft products. And I've been irritable as of late, but that's no excuse for my conduct.

PS. Why no attempt at "fixing" this? As I intend to make money with this system, "Professional" software should really be used. MS dislikes use of "Home" variants of their software for making a profit.
On this machine, all software is properly licensed and unmodified so as to avoid any potential nasty legal battles with huge corporations. That means my XP Pro drive goes back in soon.

Ah, I see now. Well, I thought you had bought a license, ergo contacting microsoft about the discrepancy might have scored you a Professional-flavored license. Or at least get the admitted "known flaw" line.

Maybe I'll put that 7 HP on the Mini.
Nah! ***Registry!***

Heh. Gotta be careful with those. I remember somebody leaving his account up and running.... Once again, no excuse for my conduct.

1- to try x64 on a MP1.1 (success),
2- the enabling of AHCI (success) and
3- to see if Win7 HP continued Vista HP and XP Home's lack of dual CPU support. (it doesn't support multiple CPU)

I felt that this information could be helpful to fellow Dual-CPU Mac Pro users who might otherwise waste good money on Home Premium.

Alright, well, you've certainly hit home in that case.