From owner-freebsd-smp  Mon Apr 28 11:03:31 1997
Return-Path: <owner-smp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA28141
          for smp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cypher.net (black@zen.pratt.edu [205.232.115.155])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA28131
          for <smp@freebsd.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from black@localhost) by cypher.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id OAA23966; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:01:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:01:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: michaelv@MindBender.serv.net, csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk, smp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Quad Pro 150 motherboard?
In-Reply-To: <199704281753.KAA02242@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970428135905.32065b-100000@zen.cypher.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Terry Lambert wrote:

> > > >(hint: NT4 Workstation can't handle more than 2CPUs and that is the most 
> > > >popular commercial SMP-capable OS)
> > > 
> > > Bullshit.
> > > 
> > 
> > perhaps you'd like to clarify.  NT *server* can handle more CPUs, but NT 
> > *workstation* is limited to 2.  if you have a microsoft URL i can peruse 
> > to dispute that, i'd be happy to admit my mistake.  but i doubt you can 
> > provide such a thing.
> 
> Maybe he was disputing the claim that it's the "most popular commercial
> SMP-capable OS".
> 
> 8-) 8-).
> 

then perhaps i should clarify.  we are on a freebsd list discussing SMP 
x86 boards.  i was referring to operating systems that run on those 
boards.  certainly there are more Solaris/SPARC installs out there than 
NT, but last i checked Solaris/SPARc didn't run very well on my P6.


b3n