My Next Mobo

[atiVidia]

dual opteron 200s (http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K8T_Master2_FAR&class=mb)

http://www.msicomputer.com/product/server/MS-9130_large.jpg

drooooooooooooooooooooooooool...


lol ill add on some firewire ports l8r :lol:


this just needs a 6800u, and an audigy zs gamer, inside a slick lanboy and itll r0x0r the h0w23!

[Marius24]

i can't tell the difference between motherboards, what makes that any better then any other mb? Apart from 4 ram slots and 2 processor things thats about all i kno about motherboards :lol:

2 processors would be pritty sweet. abit expensive?

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/clap.gif

[lynx]

Only supports dual Opterons, not dual FX51's.

With Opterons it only supports DDR333 memory.

Think I'll wait a bit.

[Mad Cat]

My motherboard (FX51 or Dual/Single Opterons) has 2x 2 DIMM slots for the RAM, for dual Dual Channel.

[3RA1N1AC]

Microsoft needs to get on the ball, and add basic multi-thread support to Windows in the same fashion as OSX. not just "some programs can use dual processors and some programs can't"... the whole system should be able to use it, without exceptions.

seems like MS are dragging their feet 'cause they don't think people are buying dual processor boards for home use (as opposed to professional & server use). maybe if they'd crank out an OS that takes full advantage of multi-processor setups, more people would buy 'em.

[gungrave]

thats cool :)

B)

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@13 April 2004 - 15:15
Microsoft needs to get on the ball, and add basic multi-thread support to Windows in the same fashion as OSX. not just "some programs can use dual processors and some programs can't"... the whole system should be able to use it, without exceptions.

seems like MS are dragging their feet 'cause they don't think people are buying dual processor boards for home use (as opposed to professional & server use). maybe if they'd crank out an OS that takes full advantage of multi-processor setups, more people would buy 'em.
plus, wouldnt multithreading help microsoft in the sense that HT processors are practically 2 processors?

im not sure if theyve already dealt with that yet tho...

[lynx]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@13 April 2004 - 20:15
Microsoft needs to get on the ball, and add basic multi-thread support to Windows in the same fashion as OSX. not just "some programs can use dual processors and some programs can't"... the whole system should be able to use it, without exceptions.

seems like MS are dragging their feet 'cause they don't think people are buying dual processor boards for home use (as opposed to professional & server use). maybe if they'd crank out an OS that takes full advantage of multi-processor setups, more people would buy 'em.
Win2k Pro and above are dual processor ready, Home versions are single processor only.

It really does require that the programs are written to multi-thread standards. No matter what may be claimed to the contrary, OSX can't provide multi-thread support for progs which are only written to single-thread standards.

I've been producing multi-threaded software for some time now, multi-thread support on NT based systems has been available since the mid 90's, although synchronisation of threads with semaphores, mutex's etc is a pain. If programming for multi-threading had been easier we would probably have seen much more of it.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by lynx@13 April 2004 - 12:34
It really does require that the programs are written to multi-thread standards. No matter what may be claimed to the contrary, OSX can't provide multi-thread support for progs which are only written to single-thread standards.
hmm, really? i was under the impression that most if not all OSX software benefitted from the system somehow requiring software to be multi-thread compliant. if not, then my bad. ;)

is multi-thread support in OSX software perhaps more common than in Windows progs 'cause OSX largely broke compatibility with earlier MacOS versions (except by running that "classic" VM thing), while it's more convenient for programmers to make one-size-fits-all programs for 9x/NT/2000/XP?