answers:

1. no
2. yes
3. yes
4. no

Basically with windows 2000, it will use both processors as equally as possible. Even if the games don't. Q3 was the first popular game to use multi processors. Its the same thing as having a multi-core system today, except "back in the day" the "cores" were purchased separably and at great expense.

thanks

1.- Linux and other systems will benefit too, if they support multiple CPUs (Windows 9x won't be able to use both CPUs, I think).
2.- Yes, but don't expect a big impact on performance. If the program is using only a thread, you may expect one CPU using that thread and the other executing other programs (a little improvement), but if the program was designed to support multiple threads the improvement would be big (both CPUs executing pieces of the game at the same time).
3.- As stated before, all games will work... a few games will show big improvements.
4.- Not exactly... both CPUs share RAM and I/O devices, so the computer won't work as a 200% P3... it will be more like a 150~175% P3. That is, provided that you could put both CPUs at 100% work with threads from different applications (if you're executing a monothreaded app, it only get as much as a 110% P3 because the other core will only be executing OS threads).

Is it the same exact cpu? Fab, stepping?

DosFreak wrote:

Is it the same exact cpu? Fab, stepping?

It doesn't have to be. As long as both chips run at the same speed and voltage. That being said, windows vista and newer DOES care and actually checks for matching s-codes.

Also, I seem to remember from my old dual-CPU box, that Quakes support was fairly flakey. Would frequently crash/hang shortly post startup.

both CPU's are identical, because they came out of two identical computers. The problem I'm having is locating a VRM (voltage regulating module) for my Dell precision 220 system there in. Terns out, dell were cheap bastards and didn't include it on the main board. BUT win2k runs pretty smooth on just one PIII 1000, and it's help buy A trick i know to get it running at 4.6gb's of usable ram.

luckybob wrote:

DosFreak wrote:

Is it the same exact cpu? Fab, stepping?

It doesn't have to be. As long as both chips run at the same speed and voltage. That being said, windows vista and newer DOES care and actually checks for matching s-codes.

It would matter, though, if you were overclocking. You would want to find two chips that are as closely matched as possible so that both could overclock to the same speed.

pinkdonut666 wrote:

both CPU's are identical, because they came out of two identical computers. The problem I'm having is locating a VRM (voltage regulating module) for my Dell precision 220 system there in. Terns out, dell were cheap bastards and didn't include it on the main board. BUT win2k runs pretty smooth on just one PIII 1000, and it's help buy A trick i know to get it running at 4.6gb's of usable ram.

You can use the Intel PSE-36 or PAE cpu extensions to access above 4GB on the Pentium 3, I'm aware of that, but how on earth do you install 4.6GB of ram on a desktop/workstation class board?

I don't have 4.6gb's of ram on the board. It assigns hard drive space as ram, sort of like kernel memory, but it lets me use a lot more all the time. I do this in all of my lower ram systems.

By any chance are you talking about pagefile?

No, it a simple kernal memory mod/glitch that only works if done right. I can't say how to off hand (it's almost like muscle memory) but there a trick to get kernal memory manager to assign more ram than the physical amount aloud. Sometimes it dosn't work and all you can do is double the ram in the system effectively. But what i would recommend is to go into the virtual memory manger, and set the maximum ram to the highest you can, then set the minimum at the same. This is what i do for systems that aren't mine. It makes it so it's allocating the extra ram all the time so applications can take advantage of it. otherwise it only uses it if it is demanded by the app. This show some real performance increases, not as good as having real ram, but better for systems that don't have much ram and any improvement would help.

The Virtual Memory Manager is what is used to configure how the Swap File operates, it has no influence over physical RAM etc. Also increasing the minimum size of the swap file doesn't increase the likely hood of an application taking even more advantage of it over physical RAM as that would be stupid and do nothing but significantly degrade performance.