ohmss006

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

124 posts in this topic

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.