does CS2 support dual core

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

--
"My first thought was, he lied in every word,
That hoary cripple, with malicious eye
Askance to watch the working of his lie"

- Browning

Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors. PhotoShop needs to split an intensive task up into multiple threads for it to run faster on a multi-core system (which it does). If PhotoShop wasn't threaded, or multi-processor aware at some level, it wouldn't run any faster on a Quad Xeon than it does an old single core G5, for example.

XP is only friendly for two cores. XP Pro, I think supports 4. You need Vista or Server if you want to use two quads (8 core).

Anyway it has nothing at all to do with the OS.

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors.

And if the OS isn't multi-cpu friendly that doesn't mean a pile of shit.

--
"My first thought was, he lied in every word,
That hoary cripple, with malicious eye
Askance to watch the working of his lie"

- Browning

Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors. PhotoShop needs to split an intensive task up into multiple threads for it to run faster on a multi-core system (which it does). If PhotoShop wasn't threaded, or multi-processor aware at some level, it wouldn't run any faster on a Quad Xeon than it does an old single core G5, for example.

XP is only friendly for two cores. XP Pro, I think supports 4. You need Vista or Server if you want to use two quads (8 core).
Anyway it has nothing at all to do with the OS.

XP and XP pro have the same support.

sam wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors. PhotoShop needs to split an intensive task up into multiple threads for it to run faster on a multi-core system (which it does). If PhotoShop wasn't threaded, or multi-processor aware at some level, it wouldn't run any faster on a Quad Xeon than it does an old single core G5, for example.

XP is only friendly for two cores. XP Pro, I think supports 4. You need Vista or Server if you want to use two quads (8 core).
Anyway it has nothing at all to do with the OS.

XP and XP pro have the same support.

Nope, XP Home does only support one single core or processor while XP Pro supports two.

On Mar 30, 3:56 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors.

And if the OS isn't multi-cpu friendly that doesn't mean a pile of shit.

Doesn't work like that - depends how much abstraction between hardware and Application there is, whether drivers allow it or not etc etc. Example; Windows XP doesn't natively support OpenGL, but you can quite happily run an OpenGL hardware accelerated application on it, because either the application can install support, or you have installed a driver than runs allows it. Nothing to do with the OS itself.

Under Windows there are 1000s of ways to call the hardware directly, so what Windows can do and what the programs on top of Windows can do aren't that related. You could write a program that is multi-core aware, or aware of CPU extensions (such as MMX, or SSE) that Windows itself ignores. Many, many computer games to exactly this.

Peter wrote:

sam wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors. PhotoShop needs to split an intensive task up into multiple threads for it to run faster on a multi-core system (which it does). If PhotoShop wasn't threaded, or multi-processor aware at some level, it wouldn't run any faster on a Quad Xeon than it does an old single core G5, for example.

XP is only friendly for two cores. XP Pro, I think supports 4. You need Vista or Server if you want to use two quads (8 core).
Anyway it has nothing at all to do with the OS.

XP and XP pro have the same support.

Nope, XP Home does only support one single core or processor while XP Pro supports two.

So which part of home xp is different that will not support duo or core2?? which files??

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 30, 3:56 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors.

And if the OS isn't multi-cpu friendly that doesn't mean a pile of shit.

Doesn't work like that - depends how much abstraction between hardware and Application there is, whether drivers allow it or not etc etc.

For someone who claims to know so much I find it odd that you still insist on using Google Groups instead of getting a proper reader...

Anyway... It does work like that.. I've done it like that.. I'm not going to argue it further with you. Thanks for playing.

--
"My first thought was, he lied in every word,
That hoary cripple, with malicious eye
Askance to watch the working of his lie"

- Browning

Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

evadnikufesin wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

Doesn't work like that - depends how much abstraction between hardware and Application there is, whether drivers allow it or not etc etc.

For someone who claims to know so much I find it odd that you still insist on using Google Groups instead of getting a proper reader...
Anyway... It does work like that.. I've done it like that.. I'm not going to argue it further with you. Thanks for playing.

My day-time studio is firewalled, the News port isn't open. Anything else you'd care to say?

Rob wrote:

Peter wrote:

sam wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:12 am, "evadnikufesin"
wrote:

Harvey wrote:

<nothing>

That's up to the OS, not the software. And XP is multi-CPU friendly.

No it's not. An application needs to be multi-threaded at least to use multiple processors. PhotoShop needs to split an intensive task up into multiple threads for it to run faster on a multi-core system (which it does). If PhotoShop wasn't threaded, or multi-processor aware at some level, it wouldn't run any faster on a Quad Xeon than it does an old single core G5, for example.

XP is only friendly for two cores. XP Pro, I think supports 4. You need Vista or Server if you want to use two quads (8 core).
Anyway it has nothing at all to do with the OS.

XP and XP pro have the same support.

Nope, XP Home does only support one single core or processor while XP Pro supports two.

So which part of home xp is different that will not support duo or core2?? which files??

Why not look it up yourself?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.m spx

I think this means;
Home doesn't support two-way multi-processor. So you can have a single processor with two cores, or a single processor with HyperThreading. You cannot have two processors, or two processors with multiple cores (such as Windows XP Pro or OS X Tiger).

You ask what files are different? The difference between XP Home and XP Pro is a few hundred driver files and a registry entry. You CAN hack XP home to become pro. But that's not the point.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

### future media, video, flash, animation @

# http://www.northleithmill.com

### music industry web & promotion @

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk

# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

SpaceGirl wrote:

evadnikufesin wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

Doesn't work like that - depends how much abstraction between hardware and Application there is, whether drivers allow it or not etc etc.

For someone who claims to know so much I find it odd that you still insist on using Google Groups instead of getting a proper reader...
Anyway... It does work like that.. I've done it like that.. I'm not going to argue it further with you. Thanks for playing.

My day-time studio is firewalled, the News port isn't open. Anything else you'd care to say?

Yes.

*plonk*

--
"My first thought was, he lied in every word,
That hoary cripple, with malicious eye
Askance to watch the working of his lie"

- Browning

Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

SpaceGirl wrote:

Rob wrote:

Peter wrote:

Anyway it has nothing at all to do with the OS.

XP and XP pro have the same support.

Nope, XP Home does only support one single core or processor while XP Pro supports two.

So which part of home xp is different that will not support duo or core2?? which files??

Why not look it up yourself?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.m spx
I think this means;
Home doesn't support two-way multi-processor. So you can have a single processor with two cores, or a single processor with HyperThreading. You cannot have two processors, or two processors with multiple cores (such as Windows XP Pro or OS X Tiger).

You ask what files are different? The difference between XP Home and XP Pro is a few hundred driver files and a registry entry. You CAN hack XP home to become pro. But that's not the point.

I didn't have to look it up to have an understanding of the differences.

You are incorrect by stating that there are a few hundred files - the core of Home has the same files as Pro and its mainly in the networking side of pro which is additional to the home edition.

So this has not answer the question - "does CS2 support dual core" - and hence its nothing to do with the operating system.

Its not the OS but the program has to be compatible with a twin processor motherboard.

Don't be confused with the later generation of processors which are hyperthreaded, core Duo and Core 2 these are all single processors.

Adobe has supported twin processors well over 10 years now. Maybe back to V5.0 or V6 - there was a patch for this to work. (I did have P2 400 processors at the time) and its been built in since.

Rob wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

Rob wrote:

Peter wrote:

Anyway it has nothing at all to do with the OS.

XP and XP pro have the same support.

Nope, XP Home does only support one single core or processor while XP Pro supports two.

So which part of home xp is different that will not support duo or core2?? which files??

Why not look it up yourself?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.m spx
I think this means;
Home doesn't support two-way multi-processor. So you can have a single processor with two cores, or a single processor with HyperThreading. You cannot have two processors, or two processors with multiple cores (such as Windows XP Pro or OS X Tiger).

You ask what files are different? The difference between XP Home and XP Pro is a few hundred driver files and a registry entry. You CAN hack XP home to become pro. But that's not the point.

I didn't have to look it up to have an understanding of the differences.
You are incorrect by stating that there are a few hundred files - the core of Home has the same files as Pro and its mainly in the networking side of pro which is additional to the home edition.

Sure? IIS is not shipped with XP Home, which consists of 100s of files.

So this has not answer the question - "does CS2 support dual core" - and hence its nothing to do with the operating system.

I know... that's what I was arguing. It was the other chap who insisted I was wrong then plonked me :)

Its not the OS but the program has to be compatible with a twin processor motherboard.

Yep.

Don't be confused with the later generation of processors which are hyperthreaded, core Duo and Core 2 these are all single processors.

No I'm not. The later generation processors arn't hyperthreaded. None of the multi-core chips currently have HT enabled. Windows counts HyperThreaded CPUs as two CPUs, so if you had 2 cores, both with HT... Windows XP home would not see some of the CPUs.

Adobe has supported twin processors well over 10 years now. Maybe back to V5.0 or V6 - there was a patch for this to work. (I did have P2 400 processors at the time) and its been built in since.

Yep. Also, you can see the list of plugins when CS2 starts up (MMX) which supports another set of processor instructions for multimedia that XP also totally ignores. PhotoShop has no problem using them.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

### future media, video, flash, animation @

# http://www.northleithmill.com

### music industry web & promotion @

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk

# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

SpaceGirl wrote:

Why not look it up yourself?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.m spx
I think this means;
Home doesn't support two-way multi-processor. So you can have a single processor with two cores, or a single processor with HyperThreading. You cannot have two processors, or two processors with multiple cores (such as Windows XP Pro or OS X Tiger).

You ask what files are different? The difference between XP Home and XP Pro is a few hundred driver files and a registry entry. You CAN hack XP home to become pro. But that's not the point.

The primary factor to consider is what the hardware is going to be used for, i.e., the application load and the user base. Multi-core systems thrive most when they're fed highly multithreaded, paralleled applications—programs that can split their workload off among multiple CPUs. Such applications include:

* Multimedia. This includes video editing suites, audio workstations, Photoshop, 3D rendering, CAD and Flash. Most multimedia programs run in a highly parallel, multithreaded fashion. However, there are a few exceptions—some kinds of video encoding (e.g., QuickTime) that aren't as heavily optimized for multithreading and can't always be.

In short, it's the applications that make the difference. Applications that only run in a single thread, or that can only be moderately paralleled, won't show much improvement on a multi-core system. Examples of such applications include word processing, Web browsing and reading static content (i.e., Adobe Acrobat or Word documents).

Rob wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

Why not look it up yourself?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.m spx
I think this means;
Home doesn't support two-way multi-processor. So you can have a single processor with two cores, or a single processor with HyperThreading. You cannot have two processors, or two processors with multiple cores (such as Windows XP Pro or OS X Tiger).

You ask what files are different? The difference between XP Home and XP Pro is a few hundred driver files and a registry entry. You CAN hack XP home to become pro. But that's not the point.

The primary factor to consider is what the hardware is going to be used for, i.e., the application load and the user base. Multi-core systems thrive most when they're fed highly multithreaded, paralleled applications—programs that can split their workload off among multiple CPUs. Such applications include:

* Multimedia. This includes video editing suites, audio workstations, Photoshop, 3D rendering, CAD and Flash. Most multimedia programs run in a highly parallel, multithreaded fashion. However, there are a few exceptions—some kinds of video encoding (e.g., QuickTime) that aren't as heavily optimized for multithreading and can't always be.
In short, it's the applications that make the difference. Applications that only run in a single thread, or that can only be moderately paralleled, won't show much improvement on a multi-core system. Examples of such applications include word processing, Web browsing and reading static content (i.e., Adobe Acrobat or Word documents).

Or, several large single threaded applications along side each other :)

As far as I know FireFox isn't multi-threaded, and it's also a nasty resource hog when playing back Flash (I mostly do video work with Flash etc). It's useful having FireFox stuck to one CPU/core, leaving 3 cores available for other things! I can also do things like ahem... play World of Warcraft, while FCP is rendering a video in the background. Works fine (no slowdown in WoW at all).

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

### future media, video, flash, animation @

# http://www.northleithmill.com

### music industry web & promotion @

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk

# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

In article <DOoOh.82502$ says...

Yes. Photoshop has supported dual processors (dual-core are, in general, seen as multiple processors) since about v5. Back then one did have to install the Dual Processor support module (same for the old MMX module before), but it worked with at least 2. When I boot CS2, on the splashscreen, I see the acknowledgement for Dual Processors with my Dual-Core machine, and saw it with my Dual Xeon processors before.

Hunt

### future media, video, flash, animation @

# http://www.northleithmill.com

links to an annoying graphic??

### music industry web & promotion @

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk

links to nothing??

"SpaceGirl"

<snip>

On Apr 1, 8:37 pm, "KatWoman"
wrote:

### future media, video, flash, animation @
#http://www.northleithmill.com

links to an annoying graphic??

My cute annoying graphic? :) Our commercial sites are down at the moment :s

"SpaceGirl" wrote in message

On Apr 1, 8:37 pm, "KatWoman"
wrote:

### future media, video, flash, animation @
#http://www.northleithmill.com

links to an annoying graphic??

My cute annoying graphic? :) Our commercial sites are down at the moment :s

well a lot of flash sites are somewhat unclear as to whether you need to click on some graphic (often subtle or otherwise obscure element) to make it do something or link to another page ...
so yes annoying to click your graphic and go nowhere

look forward to seeing your sites up
welcome to NG
you are becoming a "regular"

On Apr 2, 5:43 pm, "KatWoman"
wrote:

"SpaceGirl" wrote in message

On Apr 1, 8:37 pm, "KatWoman"
wrote:

### future media, video, flash, animation @
#http://www.northleithmill.com

links to an annoying graphic??

My cute annoying graphic? :) Our commercial sites are down at the moment :s

well a lot of flash sites are somewhat unclear as to whether you need to click on some graphic (often subtle or otherwise obscure element) to make it do something or link to another page ...

Oh nothing like that. I *hate* splash screens with a passion, so shoot me the day I do that.

so yes annoying to click your graphic and go nowhere

We have a small site that will be up over the Easter weekend. Our priorities are elsewhere :(

look forward to seeing your sites up
welcome to NG
you are becoming a "regular"

Thanks :)