ohmss006

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

124 posts in this topic

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that would make no sense...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.google.com/answers/threadview?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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I dream about something ike that on w98.

That is relatively simple. Just startup your computer with some multiprocessor OS (Linux) and start a virtual machine with W98 twice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.google.com/answers/threadview?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

That 4gb is the maximum that a processor with a 32bits adressbus (486+) can adress. For win98 it's not a technical but a theoretical limit :) Nobody said that Win98 actually supports it. A quick search will give lots of reports of people who claim to have 1gb or more running with win98 but not above 2gb.

Win98 uses the upper gb as virtual mem to allocate AGP mem and stuff. Not only irqs, you don't need 1gb for that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh well i was close, i did mean that the 3gb was theoretical.

That 4gb is the maximum that a processor with a 32bits adressbus (486+) can adress.

what about the 386 couldnt that address 4gb as well?

afterall the 386 was a 32bit processor as well.

i read this on wikipedia

The 80386 featured three operating modes: real mode, protected mode and virtual mode. In the real mode, the 80386 (like the 80286) would run just as a fast 8086. The protected mode allowed the use of all the possibilities of the 286 and the protected mode extension of the 386, especially addressing up to 4 GiB of memory. Finally, the virtual 8086 mode (or VM86) made it possible to run one or more virtual 8086 machines in a protected environment.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about the 386 couldnt that address 4gb as well?

afterall the 386 was a 32bit processor as well.

Well, I was close too :), your totally right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...this is like someone wanting to stick a 45rpm record into a CD Player and expecting it to work...surely if a person can afford a Intel Core 2 Duo...they can upgrade their OS.

even Windows XP (Student Version) is a leap into the 21st Century

Edited by jroc
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.