Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Microsoft Windows 98 to recognize Dual-Core processors (project?)

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#1
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
As already mentioned in the Topic description, i am hoping htis would be a nice place wher we can all gather and see the possibilities on making the most famous and loved operating system, run on some of today's advance technology, i.e. a processor which helps us all delightly that contains 2 cores, thus it being a Dual Core processor.

now ith amny of the projects here, like the Autopatcher, the 98SE2ME, and the KernalEX which has to dow ith XP itself (which that can recognize 2 cores itself) makes me wonder, why not make this the next thing? surethere will be some who will disagree and as well as disregard it, but because of hte operating system's less system demand, it does make it furthermore effiencent, but either way, heavy duty programs that run on XP to run on 98 will still be abit of a slowdown. one of course i will like to add is 'Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5', which a professional editing program for video and can recognize multicore cpus, but having to wonder if it was placed in a Win98 machine with dual core but not having the OS recognize it, i will assume the application wont recognize itself at all.

knowing that Premiere Pro is a beef eater in its own way, having it on Win98 wil help a tiny bit, but having Win98 seeing 2 cores and making the applications to see this as well, will more or less be heaven for us all!

thats one example in detail that can expand on.

so really, may i ask, is it possible whatsoever? i have heard there has to be something like a Kernal rewrite or modification, and was also hoping on those who can volenteer or wanting to make this a reality, maybe we can all sort out a small donation, hahahaha.

so please someone tell me on those who is interested and expanding the knowlege on what can be done instead of it just been dissed like that or completely.

thats all i can think of at the moment, but more will come ever so soon.

i would really appreciate it if u can respond to this in any way.

i will look forward to your replies.

thanks very much.

"Long Live Microsoft Windows 98(Second Edition)!!!"

Edited by ohmss006, 08 July 2007 - 06:18 AM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
anyone at all may i ask?

would b e something nice as well for the anniversary in 2 days time where Microsoft ceased support for Windows 98, as well as ME to add.

apprantly, as we should all know, Windows 98 was the first operating system to use Windows Driver Model, with hardware producers are not developing drivers optimized for Windows 98, the drivers written to WDM standards are compatible with Windows 98–based systems.

that is a very nice put up for Win98, and deserves more.

can anyone tell me if it is possible to make the operating system recognise multiple Cores in processors?

#3
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05
You should have posted this topic in the service pack subforum I think.

I am not saying it is impossible but it's probably very hard.

I am not sure hacked drivers for NT systems would do but I am not knowledgeable enough to say so.

I would guess from the little I know about the 9x architecture that vxds will be required but I am not sure either.

Interesting topic anyway especially for the next generation of multicore chips which I have heard (can someone confirm that ?) will allow to use multiple cores as it were one, which means that any old or new number-crunching applocation should be able to benefit from the power of several cores.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#4
galahs

galahs

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Joined 01-December 05
If not allow Win98 to use multiple cores, can we make it use 1 of the cores? ie. simulate a single core processor. Yes you wont get all the benefits a multicore cpu offers but it would mean Win9x can still be run on the latest hardware.

Posted Image
Australia, it's time we became a Republic!


#5
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
well if i can, i would move this thread, but i am glad i have posts from both of you.

it is not impossible, but yes i assume it is hard, htat is why i am asking what needs to be done in order for it to happen.

cause if 98SE2ME can be done, maybe a 98SE2XP or 2000pro can be done? having to know that they recognise multiple cores, still having the little system demand from 98Se as usual.

anyone may i ask?

#6
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 02-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
well me and 98se are similar in the same line but 2k and xp are different.
multiple cpus seems like a rearchitecture but i dont really know.
if you were going to steal stuff from 2k or xp. id go with nt4 because it would probably be more compatible with 98se than 2k and xp are.

#7
newsposter

newsposter

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined 20-November 04
How about running your Win9x stuff under VMWare Server??

#8
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 02-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

How about running your Win9x stuff under VMWare Server??

why?
by using vmware server you would limit yourself because you will lose things like 3d Acceleration and a vm isnt as fast as the actual OS on that cpu (from my experience anyway. Afterall it means you have to rely on another OS.

but it could possibly be faster on a core2duo or something

#9
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
i would assume using a VM would only make Win98 run on another machine on specs it was made for and not using the ful potential of the actual specs on the computer itself.

and about Win NT, technically, Win2000 and XP are NT but with different names and designs based off from hte hybrid kernals from Win98 and afterwards. not to forget to mention Vista also.

so if ur saying NT4, maybe it can start from NT4 and work itself way up to XP perhaps?

anyone?

#10
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 02-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
well i was saying that if you were going to implement dual cpus/cores from an NT OS you should try doing something with NT4 first because its the smallest, and probably the simplest

#11
marxo

marxo

    UI Designer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Joined 30-September 06
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Well implementing dual core support in NT4 would (maybe!?) be easier to do because it is NT based... I really don't get what controls that "support"? A driver?

Posted Image
You don't wanna click there.


#12
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 463 posts
  • Joined 11-April 07
AFAIK all NT versions (NT3.1 and newer) support multiprocessor. I've had NT4 on a dual PIII, years ago. So I'd expect NT4 to run without problems on a DualCore machine. Of course you will have problems to find drivers for a modern machine.

#13
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
well having Win98SE with all the paches and stuff, will make it modern enough, and thanksd for letting me know about NT4 and onwards can support (and recognise?) dual core processors, now all we need to do is find someone who is willing to take up the project on doing so, and we will give all the info and experiments on what htat person needs, like teasting the OS and which ones will see multicore cpus and many other things.

i will take your words on NT4 been the easiest and hte simplest, also not to forget to mention, all we need from that operating system is the support of mulitcore processors.

what do you think?

and is anyone wiling to take it up?

#14
Nicon

Nicon

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 20 posts
  • Joined 02-November 05
You should give up on this idea of yours. You're not going to find someone who is able to do what you want done, and even if there was someone who could or would rewrite the kernel, I suspect he or she moved on from 98 years ago, like most people have. I'm not telling you not to dream or anything, I just think you're wasting your hopes and dreams on something that isnt going to happen. Good luck anyways. :rolleyes:

#15
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 02-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
thats not very nice thing to say

anyway i would totaly rely on me being right about nt4 being simplest i just kind of assumed since it is the oldest and the smallest that it would be easiser than the nt5x\6x
i dont know much about nt3x that might be even simpler but i dont know

#16
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
thanks, that is just one opinion and there are lots of peoploe who still lives on Windows 98.

im sure those who u say have moved on wont mind at all for this operating system as they did live with it before and im sure there wasnt a problem with that either.

love live Microsoft Windows 98 (Second Edition)!

anyone might be wiling to do so, im not doing it only for me u know, new technology goes through everyone here, and Win98 needs t support it.

anyone?

#17
TravisO

TravisO

    Trouble Starter

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined 16-December 04
Sorry to be the guy to bust your bubble, but nothing you will do will ever make 98 support multiple cores. This isn't simply a driver issue or grabbing some DLLs from 2000/XP. It's an architectural issue within the 98 kernel, so unless somebody is going to severely rewrite the 98 kernel, don't held your breath.

Supporting multiple cpus (or cores) was one of the reasons Microsoft had to rewrite Windows, creating the NT kernel, which 2000, XP and Vista all use. Microsoft didn't kill 9x just for giggles, it had some serious short comings that prevented it from scaling to future needs.

Despite, as far as I know, an Intel Core 2 Duo will still run Win98, it just won't make use of the second core. And that 1 core is still significantly faster than your P3,P4,AMD cpu you have now.

Edited by TravisO, 12 July 2007 - 07:43 AM.


#18
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 02-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
i thought part of the reason that microsoft dropped the 9x line was that it was cheaper to only support one operating system then two. thats why they combined the two to make xp

#19
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined 10-February 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Maybe more feasable albeit not yet easy, could be writing a driver for the second processor and a shell application to launch applications or processes on this second processor.

Instead of having a dual-core system, we would have the second processor as a separate hardware, like say, a scanner or a modem.
The shell application would offer a list of shortcut to the installed applications, and run these apps on the second core only.

Or perhaps easier:
Allowing a dual boot w98 + w98, each boot on each processor.

HTASoft.com

superchargedwindows9xig1.png
Still Using W98SE+++ ...Daily.

#20
marxo

marxo

    UI Designer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Joined 30-September 06
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
But that would make no sense...

Posted Image
You don't wanna click there.


#21
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
i found this, i hope this helps abit with memory wise on what win98 is capable of, so it gives potential on what the operating system can do:

http://answers.googl...dview?id=333688

#22
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined 10-February 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Maybe more feasable albeit not yet easy, could be writing a driver for the second processor and a shell application to launch applications or processes on this second processor.
Instead of having a dual-core system, we would have the second processor as a separate hardware, like say, a scanner or a modem.
The shell application would offer a list of shortcut to the installed applications, and run these apps on the second core only.

Or perhaps easier:
Allowing a dual boot w98 + w98, each boot on each processor.

But that would make no sense...


Why?
The goal of multicore is to get more free processor power. Not a faster computer because that doesn't work that way.
The only difference by using the second processor through a small app, would be that it requires user's initiative.
Let say you xant to compress a video, you know it will takes hours: you open your vido editor via the dual-core app.
After that you still use your pC on the first processor as if nothing was running while your divX compression goes at full speed.

That would even be an advantage to real dual core system as the user can control the processes for both processors, the way that best fit his need or the machine performance.
That would make the system even more stable.

We can also imagine some system protection, while using internet applications for example, as the processes on the 2d processors would not interfere with those on the 1st one.

I dream about something ike that on w98.

With dual boot, I agree it can be more complicated to use but much easier to realize for a similar effect.

Edited by Fredledingue, 13 July 2007 - 01:14 PM.

HTASoft.com

superchargedwindows9xig1.png
Still Using W98SE+++ ...Daily.

#23
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

cause if 98SE2ME can be done, maybe a 98SE2XP or 2000pro can be done?

FYI:
98SE2XP is actually known now as 98MP10:
http://www.mdgx.com/wmp.htm#98MP10

98MP10 is made of 2 [old] separate packs: 98SE2XP + 98SEMP10.
Complete details:
http://www.mdgx.com/98mp10/98mp10.php

HTH [Hope This Helps]

#24
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined 17-May 07
im really glad that u have came to mention on this thread, as u are a genius with your packs, cant wait to use them when i finalised my system, but with 98MP10, isnt that basically trying to get WMP10 on Win98?

i was also hoping that u could help me with this as well, regarding with that pack, is there a way to use the files of NT4 (assuming being the easiet and simpliest) to try and make Win98(SE) see both cores and run on both simustanteously? just like recent OS's?

#25
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined 02-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

i found this, i hope this helps abit with memory wise on what win98 is capable of, so it gives potential on what the operating system can do:

http://answers.googl...dview?id=333688


i read this and it doesnt really do much it just limits the ram to 512mb when it can be limited to 1gb this is done in usp2.1a

also 98se technically i thought could use up to 4gb but 1gb of that cant be used the 1gb is used for irqs i something i think




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users