Windows OS
--
Questions
--
Followers
Top Experts
Windows XP Home issue with quad core processor
Hi,
I have a problem at the moment that has only recently came to my attention. About 2 years ago I purchased a new computer which came with Vista, though I formatted and re-installed Windows XP Home from my old computer which died (that prompted me to buy a new one to begin with).
The system has an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU (2.40Ghz). I didn't realize it at the time, but the installation resulted in one 1 core being used.
Task Manager only displays a single core under the performance tab. My brother purchased the same computer from the same supplier though he got Windows XP Pro installed by default, and his shows the correct 4 processors (he hasn't done any re-installation). A comparison between the device manager of our two PC's shows that the only differences are that his has 4 processors installed (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/923/intelcorequadcpu.jpg) while mine is missing that section completely, and that his is also "ACPI Multiprocessor" under the Computer section, while mine simply says "Standard PC".
My first question (which I think I know the answer to myself, but I want to verify with some experts here) is what can I do to get Windows to recognize the 4 processors. Based on some research I've done it seems like the only option is to do a repair installation of Windows and choosing the correct HAL option. If there's another way to do this then I'd be interested in knowing.
Which brings me to the main reason for this post. I've tried a re-installation with my current WinXP Home CD, but upon pressing 'F5' to enter the necessary menu upon setup bootup I only get 1 option (the standard PC one). I've tried to slipstream Service Pack 2 into the installation but still there are no other options. I've looked around and seen several posts where people have said that XP Home does support quad core processors, so I really hope I don't need to head out to buy another copy of the operating system, but at the moment I'm at a loss as to what to do.
Any help would be appreciated.
I have a problem at the moment that has only recently came to my attention. About 2 years ago I purchased a new computer which came with Vista, though I formatted and re-installed Windows XP Home from my old computer which died (that prompted me to buy a new one to begin with).
The system has an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU (2.40Ghz). I didn't realize it at the time, but the installation resulted in one 1 core being used.
Task Manager only displays a single core under the performance tab. My brother purchased the same computer from the same supplier though he got Windows XP Pro installed by default, and his shows the correct 4 processors (he hasn't done any re-installation). A comparison between the device manager of our two PC's shows that the only differences are that his has 4 processors installed (http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/923/intelcorequadcpu.jpg) while mine is missing that section completely, and that his is also "ACPI Multiprocessor" under the Computer section, while mine simply says "Standard PC".
My first question (which I think I know the answer to myself, but I want to verify with some experts here) is what can I do to get Windows to recognize the 4 processors. Based on some research I've done it seems like the only option is to do a repair installation of Windows and choosing the correct HAL option. If there's another way to do this then I'd be interested in knowing.
Which brings me to the main reason for this post. I've tried a re-installation with my current WinXP Home CD, but upon pressing 'F5' to enter the necessary menu upon setup bootup I only get 1 option (the standard PC one). I've tried to slipstream Service Pack 2 into the installation but still there are no other options. I've looked around and seen several posts where people have said that XP Home does support quad core processors, so I really hope I don't need to head out to buy another copy of the operating system, but at the moment I'm at a loss as to what to do.
Any help would be appreciated.
Zero AI Policy
We believe in human intelligence. Our moderation policy strictly prohibits the use of LLM content in our Q&A threads.
Indeed, XP home supports one socket. It should support quad core.
Since you got only "standard pc", the error lies in the system BIOS.
Prior to installing XP, you need to enable ACPI.
After this, Windows should see all CPU cores.
Since you got only "standard pc", the error lies in the system BIOS.
Prior to installing XP, you need to enable ACPI.
After this, Windows should see all CPU cores.
Hi, thanks for the reply.
I rebooted into the BIOS but was not able to locate the option to enable ACPI. The only ACPI option that was there was under the power management section (which was set to S1 (POS), but even changing it to S3 (Str) didn't change anything). Do I need to update the BIOS? It's an Award BIOS and it's copyright notice up top is 1983 to 2007.
Just to add too, I downloaded the Intel processor utility from their website and it was able to find all 4 cores without a problem.
I rebooted into the BIOS but was not able to locate the option to enable ACPI. The only ACPI option that was there was under the power management section (which was set to S1 (POS), but even changing it to S3 (Str) didn't change anything). Do I need to update the BIOS? It's an Award BIOS and it's copyright notice up top is 1983 to 2007.
Just to add too, I downloaded the Intel processor utility from their website and it was able to find all 4 cores without a problem.
I upgraded the BIOS but still no luck. The version I used was F11 from the Gigabyte website, though the highest is F13c which is in beta stage at the moment (http://www.giga-byte.com.au/Support/Motherboard/BIOS_Model.aspx?ProductID=2543)
EARN REWARDS FOR ASKING, ANSWERING, AND MORE.
Earn free swag for participating on the platform.
strange.
Can you check the boot.ini file?
It should say this:
[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdi
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)par
Further: are you sure there is only one core?
In the taskmanager you can set the CPU history from one graph for all CPUs to one graph per CPU
Just for sure...
Can you check the boot.ini file?
It should say this:
[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdi
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)par
Further: are you sure there is only one core?
In the taskmanager you can set the CPU history from one graph for all CPUs to one graph per CPU
Just for sure...
SOLUTION
membership
Log in or create a free account to see answer.
Signing up is free and takes 30 seconds. No credit card required.
flubbster, you may have a good idea. Replacing the halmacpi file, you force the system into ACPI mode.
This could work.
This could work.
engeltje: My boot.ini reads:
[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdi
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)par
When I run MSConfig and go to the boot.ini tab, then "Advanced Options", /NUNPROC is unticked, but ticking it only gives the option for 1 (I got my brother to go through the same steps and when he ticks his NUMPROC it has the options from 1 to 4).
And yea, I checked task manager for View --> CPU History and there is only 1 option and it's selected + grayed out (One CPU Per Graph).
I'm almost certain that Windows cannot see the other cores, because:
1. As mentioned above, the task manager only shows 1 CPU
2. There's no processors in Device manager
3. msconfig --> boot.ini --> advanced --> NUMPROC only gives the option of 1, rather than 4
4. The computer type in device manager is currently standard PC rather than ACPI
[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdi
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)par
When I run MSConfig and go to the boot.ini tab, then "Advanced Options", /NUNPROC is unticked, but ticking it only gives the option for 1 (I got my brother to go through the same steps and when he ticks his NUMPROC it has the options from 1 to 4).
And yea, I checked task manager for View --> CPU History and there is only 1 option and it's selected + grayed out (One CPU Per Graph).
I'm almost certain that Windows cannot see the other cores, because:
1. As mentioned above, the task manager only shows 1 CPU
2. There's no processors in Device manager
3. msconfig --> boot.ini --> advanced --> NUMPROC only gives the option of 1, rather than 4
4. The computer type in device manager is currently standard PC rather than ACPI
Get a FREE t-shirt when you ask your first question.
We believe in human intelligence. Our moderation policy strictly prohibits the use of LLM content in our Q&A threads.
flubbster:
Thanks for the reply. At the moment my primary hope is to do an inplace install/repair, and not a completely format and repair, though I'll give it a shot. I'll let you know what happens.
Thanks for the reply. At the moment my primary hope is to do an inplace install/repair, and not a completely format and repair, though I'll give it a shot. I'll let you know what happens.
flubbster:
I probably should have checked this before making my previous reply. I did a search on my system but was not able to locate halmacpi.dll. ntkrnlmp.exe and ntkrpamp.exe were sitting in "C:\WINDOWS\Driver Cache\i386".
I probably should have checked this before making my previous reply. I did a search on my system but was not able to locate halmacpi.dll. ntkrnlmp.exe and ntkrpamp.exe were sitting in "C:\WINDOWS\Driver Cache\i386".
You may find it on the xp cd in the i386 folder. If so, it will be compressed and look like this:
halmacpi.dl_
If so, you can expand it from the recovery console like so:
expand x:\i386\halmacpi.dl_ c:\windows\system32\halmac
where x is the drive letter of the cd... usually D on most systems... yours may be different.
halmacpi.dl_
If so, you can expand it from the recovery console like so:
expand x:\i386\halmacpi.dl_ c:\windows\system32\halmac
where x is the drive letter of the cd... usually D on most systems... yours may be different.
EARN REWARDS FOR ASKING, ANSWERING, AND MORE.
Earn free swag for participating on the platform.
flubbster:
Alright, I found it on the CD. Before I start this though, what happens if it doesn't work? It sounds like the result will be a potentially corrupt windows that won't be bootable (based on your previous post), and at the moment I cannot enable the quad cores by booting from the CD, so this means I'll need to re-install windows under single core mode again?
Speaking of that, if this fails can I just revert back to what it is now without re-installing (possibly by refreshing some files)?
Regardless, I'll try this when I get home from work tonight, though I'll check back here first.
Alright, I found it on the CD. Before I start this though, what happens if it doesn't work? It sounds like the result will be a potentially corrupt windows that won't be bootable (based on your previous post), and at the moment I cannot enable the quad cores by booting from the CD, so this means I'll need to re-install windows under single core mode again?
Speaking of that, if this fails can I just revert back to what it is now without re-installing (possibly by refreshing some files)?
Regardless, I'll try this when I get home from work tonight, though I'll check back here first.
Strange. It seems all to be fine. I found out the BIOS version F11 should do. It has support for quad core.
One thing we can try is to do a full BIOS reset.
This can be done by getting the battery off of the motherboard (remove the powercable first)
After about one minute, you can put it back on. You will have to enter date and time information back.
After that, boot into Windows, go to the device manager and let Windows do a rescan for the hardware.
If this still makes no effect, I 'm afaraind there must be a hardware failure.
One thing we can try is to do a full BIOS reset.
This can be done by getting the battery off of the motherboard (remove the powercable first)
After about one minute, you can put it back on. You will have to enter date and time information back.
After that, boot into Windows, go to the device manager and let Windows do a rescan for the hardware.
If this still makes no effect, I 'm afaraind there must be a hardware failure.
engeltje:
I just tried to reset the BIOS but no luck. I had to restore the BIOS features and re-enabled RAID to allow me to boot back into Windows, but a) Windows still reports only a single core, and b) the Windows setup still only has the Standard PC option when pressing F5.
I still haven't done the suggestion by flubbster yet because I ran into another hiccup in that when booting completely into Windows Setup at the start, after choosing "Press Enter to setup windows" it reports that it cannot find the hard drives. This is after I've already slipstreamed the SATA and RAID drivers into the windows installation (which I did ages ago when I first re-installed XP Home on the computer to begin with). Frustration. Sometimes I wish I had the simple IDE hard drives again.
Anyway, at the moment this makes re-installation and repair of windows abit out of the question until I manage to find a solution to this, which hopefully should happen tonight.
I just tried to reset the BIOS but no luck. I had to restore the BIOS features and re-enabled RAID to allow me to boot back into Windows, but a) Windows still reports only a single core, and b) the Windows setup still only has the Standard PC option when pressing F5.
I still haven't done the suggestion by flubbster yet because I ran into another hiccup in that when booting completely into Windows Setup at the start, after choosing "Press Enter to setup windows" it reports that it cannot find the hard drives. This is after I've already slipstreamed the SATA and RAID drivers into the windows installation (which I did ages ago when I first re-installed XP Home on the computer to begin with). Frustration. Sometimes I wish I had the simple IDE hard drives again.
Anyway, at the moment this makes re-installation and repair of windows abit out of the question until I manage to find a solution to this, which hopefully should happen tonight.
Get a FREE t-shirt when you ask your first question.
We believe in human intelligence. Our moderation policy strictly prohibits the use of LLM content in our Q&A threads.
SOLUTION
membership
Log in or create a free account to see answer.
Signing up is free and takes 30 seconds. No credit card required.
engeltje:
Can you recommend a live linux program to download? I downloaded puppy linux and booted into it, and although it accurately identified the model of the processor in the hardware manager thing I wasn't able to locate a place that will let me know the amount of cores that are available. I've never used Linux before and so I don't know any commands.
Can you recommend a live linux program to download? I downloaded puppy linux and booted into it, and although it accurately identified the model of the processor in the hardware manager thing I wasn't able to locate a place that will let me know the amount of cores that are available. I've never used Linux before and so I don't know any commands.
No matter what linux you use, there is allways the console.
Start the console and type this command:
SUDO dmesg | grep -i cpu
you should get an output like this:
Note in this output, you can see 2 CPU's.
% dmesg | grep -i cpu
[ 0.000000] Initializing cgroup subsys cpuset
[ 0.000000] Initializing cgroup subsys cpu
[ 0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 3FEE7CA0, 0380 (r1 PmRef CpuPm 3000 INTL 20040311)
[ 0.000000] SMP: Allowing 4 CPUs, 2 hotplug CPUs
[ 0.000000] PERCPU: Allocating 41628 bytes of per cpu data
[ 0.000000] NR_CPUS: 64, nr_cpu_ids: 4, nr_node_ids 1
[ 0.000000] Initializing CPU#0
[ 0.004000] SLUB: Genslabs=12, HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=4, Nodes=1
[ 0.004000] Initializing cgroup subsys cpuacct
[ 0.004000] CPU: L1 I cache: 32K, L1 D cache: 32K
[ 0.004000] CPU: L2 cache: 1024K
[ 0.004000] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
[ 0.004000] CPU: Processor Core ID: 0
[ 0.433808] CPU0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1.80GHz stepping 0d
[ 0.004000] Initializing CPU#1
[ 0.004000] CPU: L1 I cache: 32K, L1 D cache: 32K
[ 0.004000] CPU: L2 cache: 1024K
[ 0.004000] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
[ 0.004000] CPU: Processor Core ID: 1
[ 0.520411] CPU1: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1.80GHz stepping 0d
[ 0.520428] checking TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]: passed.
[ 0.524055] Brought up 2 CPUs
[ 0.524080] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
[ 0.524093] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
[ 0.576042] Switched to high resolution mode on CPU 0
[ 0.576457] Switched to high resolution mode on CPU 1
[ 2.148572] cpuidle: using governor ladder
[ 2.148575] cpuidle: using governor menu
[ 2.275330] ACPI: SSDT 3FEE7680, 022A (r1 PmRef Cpu0Ist 3000 INTL 20040311)
[ 2.275856] ACPI: SSDT 3FEE7B40, 0152 (r1 PmRef Cpu1Ist 3000 INTL 20040311)
[ 3.417141] [<c010288d>] cpu_idle+0x7d/0x140
Start the console and type this command:
SUDO dmesg | grep -i cpu
you should get an output like this:
Note in this output, you can see 2 CPU's.
% dmesg | grep -i cpu
[ 0.000000] Initializing cgroup subsys cpuset
[ 0.000000] Initializing cgroup subsys cpu
[ 0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 3FEE7CA0, 0380 (r1 PmRef CpuPm 3000 INTL 20040311)
[ 0.000000] SMP: Allowing 4 CPUs, 2 hotplug CPUs
[ 0.000000] PERCPU: Allocating 41628 bytes of per cpu data
[ 0.000000] NR_CPUS: 64, nr_cpu_ids: 4, nr_node_ids 1
[ 0.000000] Initializing CPU#0
[ 0.004000] SLUB: Genslabs=12, HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=4, Nodes=1
[ 0.004000] Initializing cgroup subsys cpuacct
[ 0.004000] CPU: L1 I cache: 32K, L1 D cache: 32K
[ 0.004000] CPU: L2 cache: 1024K
[ 0.004000] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
[ 0.004000] CPU: Processor Core ID: 0
[ 0.433808] CPU0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1.80GHz stepping 0d
[ 0.004000] Initializing CPU#1
[ 0.004000] CPU: L1 I cache: 32K, L1 D cache: 32K
[ 0.004000] CPU: L2 cache: 1024K
[ 0.004000] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
[ 0.004000] CPU: Processor Core ID: 1
[ 0.520411] CPU1: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1.80GHz stepping 0d
[ 0.520428] checking TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]: passed.
[ 0.524055] Brought up 2 CPUs
[ 0.524080] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
[ 0.524093] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
[ 0.576042] Switched to high resolution mode on CPU 0
[ 0.576457] Switched to high resolution mode on CPU 1
[ 2.148572] cpuidle: using governor ladder
[ 2.148575] cpuidle: using governor menu
[ 2.275330] ACPI: SSDT 3FEE7680, 022A (r1 PmRef Cpu0Ist 3000 INTL 20040311)
[ 2.275856] ACPI: SSDT 3FEE7B40, 0152 (r1 PmRef Cpu1Ist 3000 INTL 20040311)
[ 3.417141] [<c010288d>] cpu_idle+0x7d/0x140
engeltje: I ran the console option on desktop for Puppy linux and put "SUDO dmesg | grep -i cpu" in though it came up with an error about unknown command "SUDO"?
EARN REWARDS FOR ASKING, ANSWERING, AND MORE.
Earn free swag for participating on the platform.
Mmm, may be the distribution.
SUDO stands for SUpervisor DO. It gives adminrights to the user before starting the command.
You can try the command without, eg.
dmesg | grep -i cpu
I don't know the Puppy distribution, but this should work.
SUDO stands for SUpervisor DO. It gives adminrights to the user before starting the command.
You can try the command without, eg.
dmesg | grep -i cpu
I don't know the Puppy distribution, but this should work.
Alright, I ran the command and got this:
cpuidle: using governer ladder
ACPI: processor [CPU0] (support 8 throttling states)
Only two lines. I ran dmesg by itself and manually went through the lines but the above two were the only ones that came up with the word CPU in them.
Thinking this could be the problem I called my brother who has the same computer (as mentioned in my initial post up top) and also has 4 working CPU's in windows and asked him to do the same thing (so I could see what it looked like if everything was working fine). His test resulted in the same above 2 lines though....
cpuidle: using governer ladder
ACPI: processor [CPU0] (support 8 throttling states)
Only two lines. I ran dmesg by itself and manually went through the lines but the above two were the only ones that came up with the word CPU in them.
Thinking this could be the problem I called my brother who has the same computer (as mentioned in my initial post up top) and also has 4 working CPU's in windows and asked him to do the same thing (so I could see what it looked like if everything was working fine). His test resulted in the same above 2 lines though....
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
Log in or create a free account to see answer.
Signing up is free and takes 30 seconds. No credit card required.
Windows OS
--
Questions
--
Followers
Top Experts
This topic area includes legacy versions of Windows prior to Windows 2000: Windows 3/3.1, Windows 95 and Windows 98, plus any other Windows-related versions including Windows Mobile.