• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

XP Home legal on a multi-core machine?

  • Thread starter Percival P. Cassidy
  • Start date
P

Percival P. Cassidy

Flightless Bird
I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?

And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.

Perce
 
D

duke

Flightless Bird
On Feb 26, 8:57 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>
> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
>
> Perce

Who are you ? Some kind of a sleeze bag lawyer?
 
V

VanguardLH

Flightless Bird
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> permitted to be used on a single CPU.

That is NOT what it says. Read it again. It defines "computer" and then
says you may run one (1) copy on the "computer".

> Since a multi-core processor is
> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package --

Nope. Cores are not full processors. Besides, if you read the EULA again,
it says you can run the license on up to two (2) *processors*. However,
Microsoft does not define what is a "processor".

The term is "multi-core processor" does not equate to "multiple cores across
multiple processors". A processor can have 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or more cores.
A core by itself is not sufficient to operate alone as a processor. Unlike
your claim, a core is NOT a processor. You could have two (2) processors,
each one a quad-core, and still be complying with the EULA to which you
agreed *if* you were using Windows XP Professional. I don't have the EULA
for Windows XP Home to see what it says (Home may be limited to one physical
processor but that is not a restriction on the number of cores within it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core

You are not required to following any stipulations that do not exist in the
contract. Don't read more into the EULA than is actually stated. It says
you can use it on one computer that has up to two physical processors. It
does not define what is contained within those processors.

Going to dual- or quad-core may not increase the performance of your host.
In fact, because Windows XP was not tuned properly for multiple cores, your
apps may run slower. There were tweaks and patches that you could apply
after SP-2 for Windows XP to assist with the tuning, as mentioned at:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=1435577&postcount=1

If the patches became part of SP-3, you shouldn't have to do the tweaking.
I don't know if you still need to adjust the PerfEnablePackageIdle registry
setting. Overclocker groups might now more about this.

Back to your question, Windows XP (both Home and Professional editions) will
support both dual- and quad-core processors as long as they are on the same
processors (i.e., physical processors are counted, not how many cores are on
them). There are no additional licensing fees based on a core count. While
XP Pro supports two physical processors, I don't have a EULA for XP Home to
see if it was limited to 1 physical processor. Not many consumer-grade
hosts have 2 physical processors anymore. They go with 1 physical processor
with 1, 2, or 4 cores. The following is a statment made by Microsoft:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not
affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per
processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors
regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP
Home supports one processor.

Microsoft has this site that discusses the multi-core per physical processor
issue:

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/multicore-processor-licensing.aspx

While it addresses server versions of Windows, I doubt it is different for
workstation versions of Windows. However, unlike their EULA, this page does
give a definition in Microsoft's terms as to what is a "processor". So,
again, don't read more into the EULA than it actually states.
 
J

John John - MVP

Flightless Bird
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>
> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/multicore-processor-licensing.aspx
Microsoft Volume Licensing - Multicore Processor Licensing

http://download.microsoft.com/downl...-b86e3f24e08f/multicore_hyperthread_brief.doc
Multicore and Hyperthreaded Processor Licensing (Word .doc document)

John
 
A

Anteaus

Flightless Bird
This point has been covered at length by Microsoft. A multi-core processor is
a single unit as far as licensing goes. Separate physical chips constitute
multiple processors.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>
> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
>
> Perce
> .
>
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:57:01 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
<Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote:

> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>
> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.


You are mixing up licensing and technical capability.

From a licensing standpoint, both Home and Professional are licensed
on a single *computer*. There is no limitation on the number of
processors.

From a technical capability standpoint, Professional can use two
physical processors, but Home only one. Either one, however, can use
multi-core processors.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
V

VanguardLH

Flightless Bird
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:57:01 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
> <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>
>> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
>> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
>> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
>> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
>> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>>
>> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
>
> You are mixing up licensing and technical capability.
>
> From a licensing standpoint, both Home and Professional are licensed
> on a single *computer*. There is no limitation on the number of
> processors.

You sure? The EULA for Windows XP Professional says it can be used on one
"computer" (which a minimal definition) with up to two "processors" (which
isn't defined by Microsoft has made separate public statements regarding
cores versus processors).

I found an online copy of the EULA for Windows XP Professional at:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/pro.mspx

You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a
single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
´Workstation Computer¡). The Product may not be used by more than two (2)
processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

An online copy of the EULA for Windows XP Home is at:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx

You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on
a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one
processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

So, with the Home edition, you get to use it on a computer with 1 processor.
With the Professional edition, you get to use it on a computer with 2
processors.
 
P

Percival P. Cassidy

Flightless Bird
On 02/27/10 05:49 pm, VanguardLH wrote:
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:57:01 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
>> <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
>>> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
>>> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
>>> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
>>> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>>>
>>> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
>>
>> You are mixing up licensing and technical capability.
>>
>> From a licensing standpoint, both Home and Professional are licensed
>> on a single *computer*. There is no limitation on the number of
>> processors.
>
> You sure? The EULA for Windows XP Professional says it can be used on one
> "computer" (which a minimal definition) with up to two "processors" (which
> isn't defined by Microsoft has made separate public statements regarding
> cores versus processors).
>
> I found an online copy of the EULA for Windows XP Professional at:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/pro.mspx
>
> You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a
> single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
> ´Workstation Computer¡). The Product may not be used by more than two (2)
> processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
>
> An online copy of the EULA for Windows XP Home is at:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx
>
> You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on
> a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
> ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one
> processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
>
> So, with the Home edition, you get to use it on a computer with 1 processor.
> With the Professional edition, you get to use it on a computer with 2
> processors.

Exactly. And the "Performance" tab shows CPU usage for two CPUs on my
dual-core machine.

Perce
 
P

Paul

Flightless Bird
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:57:01 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
> <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>
>> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
>> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
>> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
>> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
>> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>>
>> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
>
>
> You are mixing up licensing and technical capability.
>
> From a licensing standpoint, both Home and Professional are licensed
> on a single *computer*. There is no limitation on the number of
> processors.
>
> From a technical capability standpoint, Professional can use two
> physical processors, but Home only one. Either one, however, can use
> multi-core processors.
>
>

Partially covered here, if in need of a reference.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/multicore-processor-licensing.aspx

"How does this licensing policy affect products such as Windows XP Professional?

Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy because
they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional
can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor.
Windows XP Home supports one processor."

Win2K was licensed by "CPUs", so my copy of Win2K Pro would not be
expected to play nice with a quad core, only a dual core.

http://www.dewassoc.com/support/win2000/require.htm

HTH,
Paul
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:49:19 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:57:01 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
> > <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> >> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
> >> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
> >> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
> >> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
> >>
> >> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
> >
> > You are mixing up licensing and technical capability.
> >
> > From a licensing standpoint, both Home and Professional are licensed
> > on a single *computer*. There is no limitation on the number of
> > processors.
>
> You sure? The EULA for Windows XP Professional says it can be used on one
> "computer" (which a minimal definition) with up to two "processors" (which
> isn't defined by Microsoft has made separate public statements regarding
> cores versus processors).
>
> I found an online copy of the EULA for Windows XP Professional at:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/pro.mspx
>
> You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a
> single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
> “Workstation Computer”). The Product may not be used by more than two (2)
> processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.


My understanding is that that's a technical issue, not a licensing
issue. But am I absolutely sure? No, and it's possible that I'm wrong.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
S

Skiffle

Flightless Bird
If there is this much uncertainty, and apparently there is after reading the
previous threads, then Microsoft should be more specific.

Then again, there are those that would disagree with *my* remark above (i.e.
there is no uncertainty, it is clear).

Skiffle

"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote in message
news:hma52g$ol$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
>permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
>technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and is
>recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is illegal
>to use XP Home on such a machine?
>
> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
>
> Perce
>
 
V

VanguardLH

Flightless Bird
Skiffle wrote:

> If there is this much uncertainty, and apparently there is after reading the
> previous threads, then Microsoft should be more specific.

The EULAs were written before the prevalent use use of multi-core
processors. Hell, they were written before dual-core processors were even
available. Just how could they write a EULA to encompass technology that
did not yet exist? Remember that Windows XP was released back in 2001. How
many users have motherboards or hosts that even supported dual-core
processors back then? None.

IBM came out with its dual-core Power4 RISC processor in 2001. AMD's
dual-core showed in 2005 and Intel's in 2006. How would a EULA written back
in 2001 encompass hardware changes made 4, or more, years later?
 
D

DG

Flightless Bird
"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> écrivait news:hma52g$ol$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> permitted to be used on a single CPU. Since a multi-core processor is
> technically a collection of CPUs -- even if in a single package -- and
> is recognized as such by the OS, has Microsoft ever claimed that it is
> illegal to use XP Home on such a machine?
>
> And I think I read that even XP Pro is licensed for use only on two CPUs.
>
> Perce
>

Personnally, I don't ask myself hypothetical question like that. If Windows
installs and ACTIVATES, I'm good to go. My P4 shows 2 processors under
device manager in XP Home, and my Core2Quad shows 4 in Windows7 HOME
Premium, I paid for them and they both activated, so I am entitled to use
them.

Activation process should check these kind of things, if it doesn't, it's
not my problem; and my XP Home machine has been checked many times by WGA,
so...

Of course one computer-one license and OEM licenses die with the first
computer on which they're installed.
 
L

Leythos

Flightless Bird
In article <hma52g$ol$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Nobody@NotMyISP.net
says...
> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
> permitted to be used on a single CPU.
>

Microsoft has been clear on this:

A CPU is a single physical CPU device. It doesn't matter if it has
2000000 cores, it's still a single CPU.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
J

John John - MVP

Flightless Bird
Leythos wrote:
> In article <hma52g$ol$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Nobody@NotMyISP.net
> says...
>> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
>> permitted to be used on a single CPU.
>>
>
> Microsoft has been clear on this:
>
> A CPU is a single physical CPU device. It doesn't matter if it has
> 2000000 cores, it's still a single CPU.

Exactly. And Microsoft made it perfectly clear many years ago that per
processor licensing was unaffected by multi-core processors:


Licensing Microsoft Software on Multicore Processors

On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that
is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be
licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model. This policy
enables customers to recognize more performance and power from Microsoft
software on a multicore processor system without incurring additional
software licensing fees.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/multicore-processor-licensing.aspx

John
 
C

Chuck

Flightless Bird
On 2/28/2010 11:51 AM, John John - MVP wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <hma52g$ol$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Nobody@NotMyISP.net says...
>>> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
>>> permitted to be used on a single CPU.
>>>
>>
>> Microsoft has been clear on this:
>>
>> A CPU is a single physical CPU device. It doesn't matter if it has
>> 2000000 cores, it's still a single CPU.
>
> Exactly. And Microsoft made it perfectly clear many years ago that per
> processor licensing was unaffected by multi-core processors:
>
>
> Licensing Microsoft Software on Multicore Processors
>
> On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that
> is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be
> licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model. This policy
> enables customers to recognize more performance and power from Microsoft
> software on a multicore processor system without incurring additional
> software licensing fees.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/multicore-processor-licensing.aspx
>
>
> John

There was a generation of motherboards that accepted more than one CPU
chip in multiple sockets. Microsoft had stated at that time that these
systems required multiple licenses. The current crop of CPU's with
multiple cores was exempted.
 
J

John John - MVP

Flightless Bird
Chuck wrote:
> On 2/28/2010 11:51 AM, John John - MVP wrote:
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <hma52g$ol$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Nobody@NotMyISP.net says...
>>>> I was just reading the XP Home EULA and noticed that it said it was
>>>> permitted to be used on a single CPU.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Microsoft has been clear on this:
>>>
>>> A CPU is a single physical CPU device. It doesn't matter if it has
>>> 2000000 cores, it's still a single CPU.
>>
>> Exactly. And Microsoft made it perfectly clear many years ago that per
>> processor licensing was unaffected by multi-core processors:
>>
>>
>> Licensing Microsoft Software on Multicore Processors
>>
>> On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that
>> is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be
>> licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model. This policy
>> enables customers to recognize more performance and power from Microsoft
>> software on a multicore processor system without incurring additional
>> software licensing fees.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/multicore-processor-licensing.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>
> There was a generation of motherboards that accepted more than one CPU
> chip in multiple sockets. Microsoft had stated at that time that these
> systems required multiple licenses. The current crop of CPU's with
> multiple cores was exempted.

Multi-processor boards still exist, they aren't rare at all. Different
Microsoft operating systems have "per processor" licensing, none have
"per core" licensing. XP Home can run multi-cores but it can only
handle a single processor. XP Pro can handle two processors. None of
these client versions are affected by processor licensing, per processor
licensing applies only to some of the Server versions.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top