Windows 7 forum

General discussion

Windows 7 Editions and Processor limits

by karthikaravind / January 26, 2011 3:35 PM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Windows 7 Editions and Processor limits
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Windows 7 Editions and Processor limits
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
First off
by Jimmy Greystone / January 26, 2011 9:58 PM PST

First off, always remember an important Internet axiom: Your right to be taken seriously is forfeit if you quote Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is rife with misinformation, bad information, and flat out WRONG information. It's made by people just like you and me, who may like to think we know more on a subject than we really do.

Case in point: you clearly do not understand the difference between logical and physical processors, because the Wikipedia article is actually correct, and answers your question. I could give you the answer, but then you wouldn't learn the difference between physical and logical CPUs, so I will instead point you in the right direction and let you find the answer on your own.

Collapse -
unnecessarily negative answer
by robcat2075 / August 21, 2011 9:50 AM PDT
In reply to: First off

This really is an unnecessarily negative and antagonistic answer.

The original poster was obviously citing Wikipedia as a starting point for the conversation and asking for for further clarification since the article didn't explicitly use the term "threads".

The original poster was asking a very reasonable question. His question was one worthy of a reasonable answer even if he mentioned Wikipedia.

"PCs with multi-core processors:Windows 7 was designed to work with today's multi-core processors. All 32-bit versions of Windows 7 can support up to 32 processor cores, while 64?bit versions can support up to 256 processor cores.

PCs with multiple processors (CPUs):Commercial servers, workstations, and other high-end PCs may have more than one physical processor. Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate allow for two physical processors, providing the best performance on these computers. Windows 7 Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium will recognize only one physical processor.

I would take that to mean that Win7 will support the extra threads that hyper threading allows over the 4 physical cores.

Collapse -
And so
by Jimmy Greystone / August 21, 2011 11:01 AM PDT

And so you revived a thread that's like 7 months old just to add something that a simple Google search could have turned up?

While it may not be obvious to someone like yourself, there is a method to my madness so to speak. My aim is to try and get people to do at least the basic leg work themselves. They found something on Wikipedia... Good. They didn't understand it... Fine, but that's where they apparently just gave up, as opposed to spending a few minutes of quality time with google to try and gain some level of clarification.

I'm not here to reinforce people's learned helplessness, I'm trying to get people to think for themselves a little again. We can't all know everything, but we can all spend at least a LITTLE time trying to figure out the problem for ourselves. It's not like any of us were born with all this knowledge on computers. We put in the time to learn it. I'm not saying everyone has to become an expert on the same level as myself, or any of the others here, but in the time it took to make that post, the person probably could have found the answer by doing a little searching with Google. Or just applying a little logic. Like why would a company sell a laptop with a CPU that would then be crippled by the OS? The number of complaints they would get from ticked off customers, not to mention the bad PR, would far and away exceed any savings they might otherwise get from such a move. Those are just two possible approaches that would have answered the question in under 5 minutes. My response is modulated based on psychological research on various learning techniques. I am similarly not here to bring you up to speed on that. If you want to put in the time and effort to get an understanding of base level psychology, more power to you, but going forward maybe you should assume that there might be more going on than you're aware of.

Finally, Bob already provided an answer to the question, making yours both a day (well, more like 7 months) late and a dollar short since you just speculate whereas he confirms.

Collapse -
Unnecessary negativity
by Prometheus816 / May 12, 2012 3:15 AM PDT
In reply to: And so

The point remains that whether a response is 6 months late or 6 years late, your verbally abusive response is still being seen by anyone and everyone who DOES use google in addition to various other means to find answers to their questions. So in the end, you're not presenting yourself as someone who knows what they are talking about as much as just being an ***, plain and simple. If that's how you want the online world to view you, I could care less. The second you start to demean someone who may know less than you do, I am instantly disinterested in anything you have to say, and lose all respect for what you may or may not know. Even if you are trying to help people rely on themselves more than others, it really doesn't show. You just come across as a high school bully who's gotta push people around to feel good about yourself.

Thanks for the responses, but maybe a little less negativity?

Collapse -
Uh huh
by Jimmy Greystone / May 12, 2012 4:22 AM PDT
In reply to: Unnecessary negativity

Uh huh... So your answer then is to be verbally abusive because you think someone else is being verbally abusive. I often wonder what motivates people to go out of their way on things like this. You, for example, appear to have gone out of your way to create an account here just to perpetuate the very thing you claim to be railing against. You have made a grand total of a single post, from an account that was created today. Clearly there is more to the story than you're letting on, or you would have just said something like, "What an ***!" to yourself, and moved on. But no, you went quite a ways out of your way to register an account just to go on the record of expressing your opinion.

Considering this is now the second time this thread has been dredged up after 6+ months of inactivity, just to have some pointless comment added to it, I'll just go ahead and suggest that it be locked.

Collapse -
It's fine.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / January 27, 2011 5:23 AM PST

My wife has an all too similar dv7 with an i7m and all cores and threads are shown.

Then again you have folk that need more than this to move ahead.

-> BEWARE THIS CPU IN LAPTOPS! Unless this is a desktop or desktop replacement and even then you must accept hot air and warm machines.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
Laptops 20,411 discussions
Security 30,882 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
Phones 16,494 discussions
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions


Find the best hybrids on the market!

Hybrid technology can be applied to any type of car, and the best show the most significant fuel economy improvements over a similar gasoline-only car.