Some misconceptions in the above few replies:
- @Unkno
You are always running more than one process. Hit Ctrl-Alt-Del in Windows, and look at the bottom left of the Windows Task Manager window. It shows you how many processes are running. Dual core is best used in a multitasking environment (multiple programs and/or windows open at once). Because there are two cores, programs have to wait in line for less time to use the CPU. The analogy is like airport check-in: one person behind the desk can only handle one task at any given time, but two people let's you handle two tasks, and theoretically twice as many people. I say theoretically because dual-core CPUs still have to share the same memory and hard drive buses.
- @munky
One process will run on one core. It will not run simultaneously on two cores. So, one process (a videogame, for instance) will use one core 100%. This is why dual-core CPUs currently offer very little, if any, performance boost to games, as there are just about no multi-threaded (one game spawns multiple processes) games out there. Expect multi-threaded games to come soon (they are already arriving for XBox360 and are in development for PS3). But, if you have a second core, then you can run two processes at (or, because of shared resources, near) 100% (like a game and video encoding).
Some answers:
- @Dexmaus
Windows XP automatically schedules processes for the CPU. It will automatically take full advantage of a dual-core system.
- @perdomot
You can always benchmark the programs. Run them without changing any settings to determine dual-core performance. Then, open Windows Task Manager (Ctrl-Alt-Delete), right click the process that you are looking for (often an odd but recognizeable abbreviation of the program name .exe), right click it, and set its Affinity to either CPU0 or CPU1. Benchmark the program again to get single-core results. If the dual-core results are better than single-core, you have yourself a winner.