• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

hyperthreading on windows 2000 pro

U

Unforgiven

Golden Member
ok i know that hyperthreading doesnt work on win2k pro but i have a question that i would like to open for discussion. do you guys think that microsoft (with nudging from intel) will incorporate the ability to hyperthread in 2k service pack 5? i think it would be a great idea and i dont see any drawback to it. i am one of those individuals that would rather run windows 98 than be forced to migrate to xp and i would like to see this done. anyone else have any thoughts on this? pardon me if this has already been discussed but it seems logical that if you can run dual cpu on the nt kernal that you should be able to hyperthread as well. i understand they wont patch nt 4.0 and thats understandable due to the fact that they are trying to phase it out, but i think 2k should be patched with a service pack to allow hyperthreading...
 
It works in a way, Win2K sees the logical CPUs as physical CPUs which can have good or bad effects depending on the workload.

And I doubt they'll put the HT scheduler in Win2K, they have XP to push for that. And they'd have to regression test the hell out of it, the HT scheduler was designed for XP and there's probably a lot of subtle changes in Win2K that could have bad interractions with it.

In general SPs are supposed to only contain bugfixes, not new features. New features cause other bugs to crop up and when you have a working system you don't want that.
 
Not gonna happen (IMHO). 2K is a back rev platform, all dev is on the XP platform and above. There is no business reason to make such a change, and Intel is not likely to 'nudge' for it.

Besides, you flipped the bozo bit when you sayd you'd rather run 98 than XP 😉

Bill
 
well i like an operating system that is down to business and doesnt contain frills and gimmicks such as xp. i was merely stating that to show how much i loathe xp 😛 i wouldnt seriously run 98, just an example! 🙂
 
Okay Windows 2000 Pro doesn't have Hyperthreading right? But I got an abit IC7-G MOBO with a 3.0 GHZ Intel processor and 2 sticks of 512 Ram from Corsair XMS series. When I went into bios it has the feat. for Hyperthreading, it's enabled. What is this doing to my comp if the bios feature is enabled, but 2000 doesn't have that feature? I also heared Hyperthreading can also slow your computer down instead of making it faster. Please explain thanks.
 
Originally posted by: NomisST
Okay Windows 2000 Pro doesn't have Hyperthreading right? But I got an abit IC7-G MOBO with a 3.0 GHZ Intel processor and 2 sticks of 512 Ram from Corsair XMS series. When I went into bios it has the feat. for Hyperthreading, it's enabled. What is this doing to my comp if the bios feature is enabled, but 2000 doesn't have that feature? I also heared Hyperthreading can also slow your computer down instead of making it faster. Please explain thanks.
Click to expand...

2000 sees a HT machines as a multiprocessor machine and treats it as if you have two physical CPU's. The scheduler is not optimized for HT so you generally get bad scheduling (althought it will work, and in some examples work ok).
Bill
 
I generally found HT on 2K slowed things down a little, and I think there's probably zero chance of it ever truly supporting it.
If MS were going to optimize 2K for HT, then they would probably have done it in sp4. AFAIK, they didn't.
 
well i like an operating system that is down to business and doesnt contain frills and gimmicks such as xp
Click to expand...

So disable the "frills and gimicks". XP is the best Micrsoft OS available as far as stability goes.
 
xp runs like ass for me no matter what i enable/disable. ive tried it various times and the networking of xp machines stinks compared to 2k and it runs like crap no matter what system specs ive seen it run on. im not alone in this and far as stability, almost all of the nt kernal os's are on an even keel in regards to that.
 
Originally posted by: plankton
xp runs like ass for me no matter what i enable/disable. ive tried it various times and the networking of xp machines stinks compared to 2k and it runs like crap no matter what system specs ive seen it run on. im not alone in this and far as stability, almost all of the nt kernal os's are on an even keel in regards to that.
Click to expand...

That's weird... I've used it on a P2 233 with 128MB ram, and it ran great for web browsing and as a NAT box.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
well i like an operating system that is down to business and doesnt contain frills and gimmicks such as xp
Click to expand...

So disable the "frills and gimicks". XP is the best Micrsoft OS available as far as stability goes.
Click to expand...
Why waste time having to disable "frills and gimmicks" that you dont want or need?
2K will give you a decent streamlined (compared to XP) OS out of the box.
As for XP being more stable, well its no more or less stable than 2K in my experience.
The fact that XP has HT support is the only reason I personally switched from 2K.

 
Originally posted by: Canterwood
Originally posted by: dnuggett
well i like an operating system that is down to business and doesnt contain frills and gimmicks such as xp
Click to expand...

So disable the "frills and gimicks". XP is the best Micrsoft OS available as far as stability goes.
Click to expand...
Why waste time having to disable "frills and gimmicks" that you dont want or need?
2K will give you a decent streamlined (compared to XP) OS out of the box.
As for XP being more stable, well its no more or less stable than 2K in my experience.
The fact that XP has HT support is the only reason I personally switched from 2K.
Click to expand...



Well you are right about the stability, really. They are both from the same NT kernel. I guess it boils down to personal taste.
 
I personally like 2000 more because of it's none extra programs that it doesn't have. I like to keep everything down to what I install. When I first tried xp too much was there...I felt like I wasn't in control of the computer. And even if you could delete all those programs like MSN messenger and so on it's still the fact that everytime you install the OS you have to delete them...anyways so does that mean I should disable Hyperthreading in my bios or not? Thanks for all those replies helped a lot.
 
Originally posted by: plankton
xp runs like ass for me no matter what i enable/disable. ive tried it various times and the networking of xp machines stinks compared to 2k and it runs like crap no matter what system specs ive seen it run on. im not alone in this and far as stability, almost all of the nt kernal os's are on an even keel in regards to that.
Click to expand...

You dont have a clue on how to run a quality operating system then. Or so it seems from your posts.
 
Originally posted by: DaZ
Originally posted by: plankton
xp runs like ass for me no matter what i enable/disable. ive tried it various times and the networking of xp machines stinks compared to 2k and it runs like crap no matter what system specs ive seen it run on. im not alone in this and far as stability, almost all of the nt kernal os's are on an even keel in regards to that.
Click to expand...

You dont have a clue on how to run a quality operating system then. Or so it seems from your posts.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I have run XP all the way down to some P3 machines. It is MSFT's best OS yet.
 
AFAIK, you should disable HyperThreading while running Windows 2000. It really doesnt have a performance benefit for windows 2000, and a lot of times it slows down your computer while running Windows 2000! So bottom line, unless running Windows XP (and maybe linux - im not sure), keep HT disabled.
 
Originally posted by: NomisST
I personally like 2000 more because of it's none extra programs that it doesn't have. I like to keep everything down to what I install. When I first tried xp too much was there...I felt like I wasn't in control of the computer. And even if you could delete all those programs like MSN messenger and so on it's still the fact that everytime you install the OS you have to delete them...anyways so does that mean I should disable Hyperthreading in my bios or not? Thanks for all those replies helped a lot.
Click to expand...
XP offers much more control than you give it credit for, just because you dont like the default setup doesnt mean it is incapable. Some people have complained that they dont like that they "have to change" the way it is setup to suit their needs and I can certainly understand this; however Windows XP offers much better deployment options that will eliminate this need on new Windows installs if setup correctly.

One of the problems about having more options is that you have more options.

-Spy
 
If you're running Win2K, use hyperthreading if you run multiple instances of very heavy CPU-intensive applications like video encoding; it can make a big difference. However, with routine business applications and even benchmarks, Win2K with hyperthreading is slower. My personal experience. For example, I get very significant performance boost if I run three similtaneous instances of FlaskMPEG with hyperthreading, but If I run a single instance of SuperPi 1M, I get 40 seconds without hyperthreading and 45 seconds with hyperthreading. So it depends on what you're doing. I run hyperthreading all the time because everything seems a bit smoother, bouncing between applications.
 
Originally posted by: WarpSpeed
If you're running Win2K, use hyperthreading if you run multiple instances of very heavy CPU-intensive applications like video encoding; it can make a big difference. However, with routine business applications and even benchmarks, Win2K with hyperthreading is slower. My personal experience. For example, I get very significant performance boost if I run three similtaneous instances of FlaskMPEG with hyperthreading, but If I run a single instance of SuperPi 1M, I get 40 seconds without hyperthreading and 45 seconds with hyperthreading. So it depends on what you're doing. I run hyperthreading all the time because everything seems a bit smoother, bouncing between applications.
Click to expand...
My work PC had HT and Win2K Server. I too noticed a significant increase in responsiveness with CPU-intensive activities. For example, I would create some quick-n-dirty Access reports on non-indexed fields that would absolutely choke my previous PC, but the HT-enabled one would allow me to do other stuff concurrently. One of the virtual processors would be pegged, which told me the HT was doing its job.

Of course, it was an upgrade from a P3-700, so that may have had something to do with it. I'm about to put a 2.4C into service with HT and Win2K for my wife. She has complained that her printer driver chokes the CPU, so that will be a good test to see if it is worth doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top