So, Windows XP Professional supports up to 2 processors. Does that mean that it will support 2 physical processors, or 2 cores? Is this why we do not see an advantage when we use a Kentsfield processor? And also, if this is the case, it would make Vista sell a little better (if people knew what version they needed, because they don't, or at least I certainly don't), or it could make lots of people switch to Linux and make the world a much happier, more reliable place.

Does anybody know the answer?

I thought it supported as many as you wanted up to 32. Well that's what it looks like in task manager.

Only 2, according to my MCSE study guide :/

Hmm, strange...

Ah ha! Looks like XP supports up to 2 processors, but an unlimited number of cores. Fantastic. It looks to be the same scenario with Vista, too.

Ah, so it only supports 2 actual processors? (ie 2 sockets)

Yeah. Crazy eh. Windows Server will support as many as you want, I think. It may be a pay-extra-for-more-processors type agreement.

That's M$ for you.

IIRC Windows Server 2003 supports the following number of physical processors:

Standard: 1 - 4
Enterprise: 1 - 8
Datacenter: 8 - 32

Why you see the count up to 32 is because of them both being built on the same software, and as Datacenter supports 32, you see 32 check boxes in any version of Windows Server or the Windows Client, just with 30 greyed out.

Better in Vista, it only shows check boxes for the processors/cores that you actually have, the window is smaller and there are less greyed out check boxes (because none is less).

Linux server operating systems support unlimited processors

Yeah, I noticed that, thought it was a nice change, seeing as it's just annoying in XP.

And Aaron, that's because Linux pwns.