Member Avatar for cwarn23

Hi, I just upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7 Home Premium in my virtual box so that the operating system could recognize all of the cpu. My Virtual box setup is a 5 core 1 thread per core setup and XP Pro only sees 2 cores (dual core). Then I upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium and discover I now have 1 core. So I read up about it on the net and discovered Home premium does not support multiple cores. Only multiple threads but I have just the one thread. Then I find out if you want 2 cores to be recognized with it's associated threads then Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate will do the job. But I don't have 2 cores. I have 5 cores each with 1 thread. So when will Microsoft be serious and remove the limitation so that up to 255 cores can be recognized like Linux can. In the end I had to switch to Linux and use the wine emulator for my software. I believe that the 64 bit version of Windows Vista & 7 are really screwed because they are by far more limited then what they should be. For example. The theoretical limitation of 64 bit ram is 2^64 bytes which in gigabytes is ((2^64)/(1024^4)) = about 167771450GB RAM. However Microsoft limits this to 8GB in Windows 7 Home basic and 192GB in Ultimate edition.
The bottom line here is "Is Microsoft trying to force us to upgrade to the next operating system by limiting the possible specs of usage to something below what will be common in 5 years?" What I mean by that is in 3 years computers will have at least 30GB of RAM due to a new IBM RAM chip forcing the customer to upgrade or not use this new technology. So what do you think of Microsofts strategy to forcing us to upgrade?

  • 4 Contributors
  • 4 Replies
  • 267 Views
  • 6 Days Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by cwarn23

Dani AI

Generated

Short version: this is a topology + edition issue, not a core-count bug. Windows 7 client SKUs limit the number of physical processor packages (sockets), not the number of cores inside a package. Home Premium is limited to one physical CPU package, but it will use multiple cores/threads that live in that package if the hypervisor presents them as cores (not as separate sockets). ’s symptom (guest seeing one processor) usually comes from the VM topology or IO‑APIC settings, not a Windows inability to use many cores. Microsoft: supported physical processors per SKU.

Windows also distinguishes logical processors (what the OS schedules: cores and SMT threads) from physical sockets. 64‑bit Windows 7 supports more logical processors by using processor groups (groups of up to 64 logical processors); combined with the group limit in Windows 7 this yields the documented high logical‑processor ceiling for x64 editions. This explains why people talk about “256 logical processors” while client SKUs still limit sockets. Processor groups / logical processors · PROCESSOR_NUMBER / group info.

Practical troubleshooting for a VirtualBox guest that shows “1 core”: power the VM off, open Settings → System → Motherboard and enable I/O APIC, then System → Processor and increase the virtual CPU count (or use VBoxManage --cpus). VirtualBox requires I/O APIC enabled to present more than one vCPU and Windows installs different kernels depending on whether I/O APIC was present at install time—so enable I/O APIC before installing the guest (otherwise a reinstall may be needed). After boot, verify with Task Manager / msinfo32 or Sysinternals Coreinfo to see sockets/cores/threads and mapping. VirtualBox user manual (I/O APIC + Processor tab) · Coreinfo (Sysinternals).

On RAM and product segmentation: Microsoft documents edition memory limits (Home Premium x64 vs Professional/Ultimate, etc.), so if you need very large RAM or multi‑socket support choose the edition/server OS that documents those capabilities—or use a Linux distro for extreme core/socket scaling. ’s observation that Home Premium will use multiple cores for a normal dual‑core CPU is correct; ’s frustration about segmentation is a business/design reality, not a technical mystery. Windows memory limits by edition.

Recommended Answers

All 4 Replies

Member Avatar for BLuv

the worst part is: its working. and they make millions off it.

Member Avatar for chrishea

These articles contradict what you are saying:

I have a core-duo and Win 7 (Home Premium) and it uses both cores (I have a gadget that tracks usage of everything). Don't know if there is a limit on the number of cores that it will support but it is at least two.

Member Avatar for khakilang

That means they are very sure of making another $billion in 5 years time. As for Linux they uses latest Intel and AMD sourse code and add it to the kernel. That is why Linux is ahead of Microsoft in a way.

Member Avatar for cwarn23

These articles contradict what you are saying:

I have a core-duo and Win 7 (Home Premium) and it uses both cores (I have a gadget that tracks usage of everything). Don't know if there is a limit on the number of cores that it will support but it is at least two.

I have just checked those links and still it proves my point with one exception. That is Windows Home Premium supports 2 cores instead of 1 while Home basic and Starter editions support only 1 core. But still that does not allow Windows 7 to read all my 5 cores. Note the difference between cores and threads. There are usually 2 threads in a core but in my case it is one thread in each of the 5 cores. So if for example you have a 2 core processor with two threads then windows will read 4 cores when it is actually 2 cores with two threads each. But anything beyond the 2 cores 2 threads windows will not recognize. And as I said I had 5 cores and 1 thread per core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions#Comparison_chart

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.