does a dual processor automatically dual process?
is there anything you need to manually set up?
The bios should recognize it at the system level, but not all OSes support dual processors. For example, Windows XP Home edition does not. You need the Pro version.
Also, software programs need to be made to use multiple processors, however, most cpu intensive programs nowdays should be compiled for that. Since you do video editing, I would assume most your video apps will support multiple processors. I know most Adobe products do.
In windows you can look at the task manager to see the multiple cpus and see how much of each one of them are being used, so if you are running a cpu intensive process, you can view that to see if both are being used.
True, but Windows XP Home will support a dual core processor and treat it as two CPUs.
XP Home supports one physical processor but that physical processor can have two cores.
XP Pro supports two physical processors and each processor can have two cores.
I have a dual core AMD X2. Most software does OK with it, but there are still some programs that will peg the CPU at 50% utilization because the main processing in the program is single threaded and can’t split between the two cores. The thing there, though, is that the OS and the UI are still responsive because they can use the CPU cycles on the second core. On a single core (or single CPU) the OS and UI can get bogged down when an app pegs the CPU at 100% utilization.
What a fallacy… hardware mfrs have put so much effort into building state-of-the-art machines and software developers are 10 years behind, still writing single-threaded code. WTF, man?
They key here is multi-threaded applications. A single-threaded app can only use a single CPU. At my company, we use a couple applications which are CPU intensive, which you would expect to be multi-threaded applications but are not, namely solidworks and matlab. Applications like this are better off with a single faster processor than a dual core or dual-CPU systems.
…of course the second CPU can still handle secondary applications and system calls, so there is some benefit.
Some algorithms don’t lend themselves to parallel processing and are going to be stuck in the single CPU (or single core) world. Not every process or algorithm can be made to take advantage of multiple CPUs or multiple cores. In other cases the developers are stuck with old legacy code and algorithms that are single threaded and updating the code isn’t going to happen till a major rewrite of the software. In other cases the developers may not know how to make their algorithms more multi-threaded. Developing parallel processing algorithms gets into masters and PhD level computer science and not all developers are up to that.
Yet another issue is that most software is only developed and tested on single processor single core systems. The software hasn’t been tested on multi-core or multi-CPU systems. If it works without issues on a dual-core or multi-CPU system they (the developers and testers) got lucky. Dual-core or dual-CPU systems can expose bugs related to race conditions and other threading issues that don’t show up on single-core single-CPU systems.
This will change as dual-core systems get to be mainstream. Mainstream use of multi-core systems is a new world for most software development.
Is there a big difference today between buying a tower computer and a laptop or note book?
For home computing, will a laptop suffice? My only problem is that when I get a problem with my computer, I have to lug a big tower over to the computer store, and a laptop would be easier.
What do you think?
Let us all bow our heads in memory of BeOS… Multi-Processor OS, and the compiler automaticly handled all that multi-thread stuff 
And that was almost a decade ago 
The only reason I wouldn’t get a laptop for home computing is because they’re harder to service yourself. Since you just take it to the store, that doesn’t sound like too much of a problem.
Other than that, laptops are almost as good as towers (spec wise) though are much more expensive for an equivalent system.
I’d say build two systems, or find two, one laptop, one tower, that are about equivalent, and see if the difference in price is worth it to you.
I use a laptop exclusively, and it’s just fine.
psh…nerds…jk.
you guys are waaaay over my head. the one thing i truly cannot understand is computers.
The decision between a tower and a laptop should be based primarily on how much you need to move it around. Laptops can be quite handy in their portability, but if you generally only use it in one place you’ll save money and have much more flexibility/expandability in an equivalent tower system.
If the portability you need is to take it back in for repairs, time to change brands or operating systems…
Thanks!!!