OSNews

Is that really so bad? Remember that multiple cores and HT are NOT included in that count so if you had two physical AMD 4 core processors you'd have 8 logical CPU's in your task manager....

Yes it's really so bad. Why buy 1 really expensive cpu when you can buy 2 cheaper ones. And who cares about what # I see in task manager. The end result is what matters and power users don't get the max cpu power available. Why? Other os's can do it.

Don't you see that this is just an artificial limitation to deprive choice in the market?

I beleive that 2 physical cpus is s licence limit rather than an actual limitation of the software even though they state otherwise (so 2cpus for Vista according to that graph).

Doesn't Vista share the same kernal as Windows Server 2003?

I went at looked at a graphic workstation vender and they have machines that are configured with four or eight proccessors (eight to sixteen cores). One of the OS choices was Windows Server 2003 64bit.

So it looks like if you want more than 2 CPUs, you need to run Server 2003 (or don't run Windows). But it seems to me that the limit is based on how MS wanted to liscence their software.

I believe you are right in the licensing question. But on whether Vista shares the same kernel as 2K3, that's not the case. Vista is version 6.0, which is mostly rebuilt or built from scratch, whereas 2K3 is version 5.2. It is however correct that the development initiated from verseion 5.2 (which of course is more sensible than to scrap 5.2 and build on XP/5.1).