--thanks for the answer, I honestly couldn't remember which was what on that. I first heard about that issue reading about intels xeon processor that is sorta kinda two processors in a virtual way but because of the hardware. It's a floorwax, no it's a dessert topping-stop it you boys,it's both! hahaha! Shows ya what my understanding of this is! HAHAHA! And the debate then with using xp on them.
I think it's kinda silly microsoft wanst you to pay 50% more for two or more processors on your machine, but that's what they did. hmmm. Thanks again.
The 50% more is acually the price you pay for a workstation/server setup and abilities vs a home system. There are really quite a few differences beside multi processor support. I think MS was correct in assuming that the vast majority of home users are not going the adaptive server and multi processor route. XP is really the first time MS has mad its heavy weight professional operating system compatable with typical home use. You are actually getting quite a bargin at the XP Home edition price.
If I spell checked and proofed here is what my reply would say... The 50% more is actually the price you pay for a workstation/server setup and abilities vs. a home system. There are really quite a few differences beside multi processor support. I think MS was correct in assuming that the vast majority of home users are not going the adaptive server and multi processor route. XP is really the first time MS has made its heavy weight professional operating system compatible with typical home use. You are actually getting quite a bargain at the XP Home edition price.