Dual processor support

'Leythos' wrote:
| Phil - we're OK, I did think it through, and almost always think of all
| angles before I post, been doing this since 84. The one thing I didn't
| think of, that was brought up in a later post, was that they might have
| disabled it via BIOS and not actually removed it - but I had thought the
| OP posted that it was "removed".

I guess the stunning stupidity shown by the 'new computer manager' mentioned
in the original post set us all back on our heels B^)

Phil Weldon
[doing this one way or another since '65]

"Leythos" <void.DeleteThis@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MBD7h.33097$Cq3.31157@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
| In article <uDw7h.261$tM1.255@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
| notdiscosed.DeleteThis@example.com says...
| > 'Leythos' wrote:
| > | It's not a problem for me, as I'm not stupid enough to remove the
Second
| > | CPU from a Dual thinking/claiming that XP won't support Dual CPU's.
| > |
| > | What I was suggesting is that, as the Op posted, that the reinstall of
| > | the second CPU might be a total PITA that might lead to unexpected
| > | problems due to different stepping levels and might not show up until
| > | later.
| > |
| > | And then there is the problem of HSP (Heat Sink Paste) since we all
know
| > | you can't reuse the goop on the chip, the used pad is no longer any
| > | good, and most people don't properly clean and re-paste the CPU/HS
when
| > | reinstalling one.
| > _____
| >
| > Pardon me, I just assumed you didn't think it through.
|
| Phil - we're OK, I did think it through, and almost always think of all
| angles before I post, been doing this since 84. The one thing I didn't
| think of, that was brought up in a later post, was that they might have
| disabled it via BIOS and not actually removed it - but I had thought the
| OP posted that it was "removed".
|
| --
|
| spam999free.DeleteThis@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me

'Leythos' wrote:
| Phil - we're OK, I did think it through, and almost always think of all
| angles before I post, been doing this since 84. The one thing I didn't
| think of, that was brought up in a later post, was that they might have
| disabled it via BIOS and not actually removed it - but I had thought the
| OP posted that it was "removed".

I guess the stunning stupidity shown by the 'new computer manager' mentioned
in the original post set us all back on our heels B^)

Phil Weldon
[doing this one way or another since '65]

"Leythos" <void.TakeThisOut@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MBD7h.33097$Cq3.31157@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
| In article <uDw7h.261$tM1.255@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
| notdiscosed.TakeThisOut@example.com says...
| > 'Leythos' wrote:
| > | It's not a problem for me, as I'm not stupid enough to remove the
Second
| > | CPU from a Dual thinking/claiming that XP won't support Dual CPU's.
| > |
| > | What I was suggesting is that, as the Op posted, that the reinstall of
| > | the second CPU might be a total PITA that might lead to unexpected
| > | problems due to different stepping levels and might not show up until
| > | later.
| > |
| > | And then there is the problem of HSP (Heat Sink Paste) since we all
know
| > | you can't reuse the goop on the chip, the used pad is no longer any
| > | good, and most people don't properly clean and re-paste the CPU/HS
when
| > | reinstalling one.
| > _____
| >
| > Pardon me, I just assumed you didn't think it through.
|
| Phil - we're OK, I did think it through, and almost always think of all
| angles before I post, been doing this since 84. The one thing I didn't
| think of, that was brought up in a later post, was that they might have
| disabled it via BIOS and not actually removed it - but I had thought the
| OP posted that it was "removed".
|
| --
|
| spam999free.TakeThisOut@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me