[Harley]

I read this article the other day from PCWorld Mag dated 2002 (forgot month).
Anyway the articl stated that HT Technology is not supported in Windows XP
Home edition. Is this still true?
--
Roaddog

[Thorsten Matzner]

Harley <Harley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I read this article the other day from PCWorld Mag dated 2002 (forgot month).
>Anyway the articl stated that HT Technology is not supported in Windows XP
>Home edition. Is this still true?

I scanned the MSKB for that and all articles about HT that I found,
apply to Home Edition as well. So I doubt that PCWorld is correct
here.

--
(tm)
ICQ: 192649233

[Jim Macklin]

What they said (I'm sure) was that XP Home does not support
multiple processors and you have confused that with
hyperthrerading.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Harley" <Harley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8089B2B5-DCB1-4660-B123-6C01AE55901E@microsoft.com...
|I read this article the other day from PCWorld Mag dated
2002 (forgot month).
| Anyway the articl stated that HT Technology is not
supported in Windows XP
| Home edition. Is this still true?
| --
| Roaddog

[Tom Porterfield]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 00:45:03 -0700, Harley wrote:

> I read this article the other day from PCWorld Mag dated 2002 (forgot month).
> Anyway the articl stated that HT Technology is not supported in Windows XP
> Home edition. Is this still true?

It never was true. XP Home has always supported hyper-threading. See
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=810231 for more info.
--
Tom Porterfield
MS-MVP Windows
http://support.telop.org

Please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup only.

[NoNoBadDog!]

"Harley" <Harley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8089B2B5-DCB1-4660-B123-6C01AE55901E@microsoft.com...
>I read this article the other day from PCWorld Mag dated 2002 (forgot
>month).
> Anyway the articl stated that HT Technology is not supported in Windows XP
> Home edition. Is this still true?
> --
> Roaddog

You are misunderstanding the article. Windows XP HE does not support more
than one processor. It does support HyperThreading, although you may want
to disable it. Hyperthreading only has benefit for those programs that are
written to take advantage of it, and the majority of the stuff out there is
not written to take advantage of hyperthreading. You may wish to conduct a
test...go a few days with H/T on and then a few days with H/T off and see
which is faster.

Bobby

[Bill]

Bobby,

I just got a Dell XPS Pentium 4 3.8GHz with HT - I assume this is
Hyperthreading Technology. It also has Windows XP Home SP2 - they seem to
work well together<G>

Are you saying it may be faster with H/T disabled?
If so, how do I do that?
Any down side to disabling HT?

Thanks,

Bill




"NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u7i97CVgFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"Harley" <Harley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8089B2B5-DCB1-4660-B123-6C01AE55901E@microsoft.com...
>I read this article the other day from PCWorld Mag dated 2002 (forgot
>month).
> Anyway the articl stated that HT Technology is not supported in Windows XP
> Home edition. Is this still true?
> --
> Roaddog

You are misunderstanding the article. Windows XP HE does not support more
than one processor. It does support HyperThreading, although you may want
to disable it. Hyperthreading only has benefit for those programs that are
written to take advantage of it, and the majority of the stuff out there is
not written to take advantage of hyperthreading. You may wish to conduct a
test...go a few days with H/T on and then a few days with H/T off and see
which is faster.

Bobby

[beamish]

"Bill" wrote:

> Bobby,
>
> I just got a Dell XPS Pentium 4 3.8GHz with HT - I assume this is
> Hyperthreading Technology. It also has Windows XP Home SP2 - they seem to
> work well together<G>
>
> Are you saying it may be faster with H/T disabled?
> If so, how do I do that?
> Any down side to disabling HT?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:u7i97CVgFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "Harley" <Harley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8089B2B5-DCB1-4660-B123-6C01AE55901E@microsoft.com...
> >I read this article the other day from PCWorld Mag dated 2002 (forgot
> >month).
> > Anyway the articl stated that HT Technology is not supported in Windows XP
> > Home edition. Is this still true?
> > --
> > Roaddog
>
> You are misunderstanding the article. Windows XP HE does not support more
> than one processor. It does support HyperThreading, although you may want
> to disable it. Hyperthreading only has benefit for those programs that are
> written to take advantage of it, and the majority of the stuff out there is
> not written to take advantage of hyperthreading. You may wish to conduct a
> test...go a few days with H/T on and then a few days with H/T off and see
> which is faster.
>
> Bobby
>

Hello, Your BIOS should have the HT settings. Have WindowsXP Home, tried
running with and without HT. Found when video editing seems to be a little
bit faster with HT enabled other wise I cannot tell the difference. Unit ran
fine either way.
Take Care.
beamish.

[Bill]

beamish,
I found the setting.
Tried "with" and "without" - I agree with you - can't tell the difference.
I went with "with".
Bill




Hello, Your BIOS should have the HT settings. Have WindowsXP Home, tried
running with and without HT. Found when video editing seems to be a little
bit faster with HT enabled other wise I cannot tell the difference. Unit ran
fine either way.
Take Care.
beamish.

[beamish]

Hello, So have I.
Take Care.
beamish.

"Bill" wrote:

> beamish,
> I found the setting.
> Tried "with" and "without" - I agree with you - can't tell the difference.
> I went with "with".
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> Hello, Your BIOS should have the HT settings. Have WindowsXP Home, tried
> running with and without HT. Found when video editing seems to be a little
> bit faster with HT enabled other wise I cannot tell the difference. Unit ran
> fine either way.
> Take Care.
> beamish.
>
>
>