If cost is NOT an issue would 2003 then be the way to go? I'm asking because I was going to try 2003 and now want to be sure to I'm making the right decision.
Regards ----- Original Message ----- From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:05 PM Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > I think you mean 'making it expensive..' not useless. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Hartland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > Not true as far as I know it isn't hyperthread "aware" but that doesn't > stop u using it. The difference is that the scheduler it will treat the > logical > CPU's as real CPU's and as we all know this isn't the case. > The result is that it "may" not extract as good as performance as > a hyperthread aware OS like Windows XP or 2003 server. > > The fact remains though that 2003 is still a "server" OS and as such > is priced accordingly making it useless for running legal game servers. > > Steve / K > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > Nope, 2000 does not support Hyperthreading. This feature must > > be turned of in the bios to load and run 2000. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
