• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
ohmss006

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

124 posts in this topic

@Sfor - Thank you! (see? I knew you were ejumukatid! you even know the definition of "symantics"...)

@all-who-argue-DOS

...read here for more info on MS-DOS (or is MDGx also wrong? :whistle: ) -

http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm

@ohms006 - no takers, too much hassle; guess you're on your own :thumbup

edit -

Looks like IO.SYS looks in SYSTEM.DAT to get the Configuration (which is where ALL used Hardware/Drivers is defined to set CurrentConfiguration) before starting WIN.COM (which it does). From there I guess you go for the Kernel, VMM stuff (all those VXD's), etc etc (an assumption of course, not having dug into that). Still proves that there is more to this than just one single module mod.

And AFAIK NT-type HAL has something to do with multi-cpu support, or tell me I'm wrong on that too? Seems that you would have to support multi-CPU in Win9x in the same fashion. More than just the kernel module or am I wrong again?.

IBM (used to for extra $; don't know about now) provides Source Code for every last scrap of the DOS/OS and all standard (exception COTS-type) software they provide. MS does not. Makes the project a bit harder unless you're willing to break the EULA, don't you think?

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Sfor - Thank you! (see? I knew you were ejumukatid! you even know the definition of "symantics"...)

@all-who-argue-DOS

...read here for more info on MS-DOS (or is MDGx also wrong? :whistle: ) -

http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm

@ohms006 - no takers, too much hassle; guess you're on your own :thumbup

edit -

Looks like IO.SYS looks in SYSTEM.DAT to get the Configuration (which is where ALL used Hardware/Drivers is defined to set CurrentConfiguration) before starting WIN.COM (which it does). From there I guess you go for the Kernel, VMM stuff (all those VXD's), etc etc (an assumption of course, not having dug into that). Still proves that there is more to this than just one single module mod.

And AFAIK NT-type HAL has something to do with multi-cpu support, or tell me I'm wrong on that too? Seems that you would have to support multi-CPU in Win9x in the same fashion. More than just the kernel module or am I wrong again?.

IBM (used to for extra $; don't know about now) provides Source Code for every last scrap of the DOS/OS and all standard (exception COTS-type) software they provide. MS does not. Makes the project a bit harder unless you're willing to break the EULA, don't you think?

"excuse me"

Microsoft marketing adopted Windows 95 as the product name for Chicago when it was released on August 24, 1995. Microsoft had a double gain from its release: first it made it impossible for consumers to run Windows 95 on a cheaper, non-Microsoft DOS; secondly, although traces of DOS were never completely removed from the system, and a version of DOS would be loaded briefly as a part of the booting process, Windows 95 applications ran solely in 386 Enhanced Mode, with a flat 32-bit address space and virtual memory. These features make it possible for Win32 applications to address up to 2 gigabytes of virtual RAM (with another 2GB reserved for the operating system), and in theory prevents them from inadvertently corrupting the memory space of other Win32 applications. In this respect the functionality of Windows 95 moved closer to Windows NT

You try and run a 32 bit app from a pure ms-dos prompt,i.e ping,traceroute not via windows but f5 on boot up,just because ms-dos is included for backwards compatibility does not mean that windows is a gui for 16 bit dos.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now what does IO.SYS do? AFAIK it defines basic hardware, grabs and processes some parameters, runs Config.sys/Autoexec.BAT, then tosses you to the command PROMPT awaiting input (didn't even imply you needed command.com).

So go on and boot, delete it from both the HDD and Memory. What now?

Well you said that IO.SYS (in DOS/Winx.x) is the primary Hardware Interface in conjunction with Command.com. If you say that you imply it is needed. Besides IO.sys appears to be a 32bit file. DOS is exclusively 16bit AFAIK. So where is DOS in IO.SYS ?

The 32-bit IO.SYS is really a combination of DOS's IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT files. The new IO.SYS contains all the instructions the operating system needs to initially interact with your hardware. IO.SYS also loads some default CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT commands, and it controls much of the remaining boot sequence.

A combination of several files. IO.SYS is the Windows 95 equivalent of DOS's IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT files.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/w...4.mspx?mfr=true

I repeat - THAT and every single bit of code inside is DOS and nothing else!

Inside what ? In 32bit IO.SYS ?

Without it, no Programs can access one whit of the hardware. Therefore, Windows is DOS-based.

Programs access the hardware through VXDs under the supervision of VMM. See below.

And in NT-type Windows, the NTLDR makes them OS-based. Without these, NOTHING runs, get the picture? I must assume NTLDR (not having looked inside it yet) does very similar processing. These two items prepare the remainder of Programs to do their job (eg the HAL which is a pain in the a@@ to change without reinstall because of other dependencies).

NTLDR means NT (OS) LoaDeR. It loads the OS. Period. You are confusing things. IO.SYS on 9x anf NTDLR on NT INITIALLY interact with the hardware. They are not responsable for hardware access after the OS is fully loaded AFAIK. Can you point out to some docs or specs proving your point ? Especially for 9x.

edit - just did the same in VPC on 98SE "Safe/Command Prompt" then rebooted "Normal" - "The Following File Is Missing Or Corrupt - Command.com - Type the name...". NO WINDOWS! Same message when "Safe/Command Prompt". So how DID you test that on the WinME, hmmmm??? Did you even reboot?

Yes mister I did reboot. And I even searched "My Computer" to make sure it was not loading a copy of it from an obscure location.

BTW, in safe mode Windows MAY BE running on top of DOS but have you noticed how poor it is with regards to supporting hardwre notably ?

Paging Through MS-DOS

When run on hardware for which 32-bit drivers are not available, Windows 95 may be forced to use MS-DOS and/or the BIOS for access to the paging device. When paging through MS-DOS, the VMM changes its behavior in significant ways, and new rules apply to existing VxDs. Windows 95 will also page through MS-DOS if the system is running in safe mode.

(From the Windows 95 Device Driver Kit Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) Reference Manual again)

The normal behaviour of VMM in normal mode is as follows :

The virtual machine manager (VMM) is the 32-bit protected-mode operating system at the core of Windows 95. Its primary responsibility is to create, run, monitor, and terminate virtual machines. The VMM provides services that manage memory, processes, interrupts, and protection faults. The VMM works with virtual devices, 32-bit protected-mode DLLs, to allow the virtual devices to intercept interrupts and faults to control the access that an application has to hardware devices and installed software.

Both the VMM and virtual devices run in a single, 32-bit, flat model address space at privilege level 0 (also called ring 0). The system creates two global descriptor table (GDT) selectors, one for code and the other for data, and uses these selectors in the CS, DS, SS, and ES segment registers. Both selectors have a base address of zero and a limit of 4 gigabytes (GBs), so all the segment registers point to the same address space. The VMM and virtual devices never change these registers.

The VMM provides multiple-threaded, preemptive multitasking. It runs multiple applications simultaneously by sharing CPU (central processing unit) time between the threads in which the applications and virtual machines run. The VMM is also non-reentrant. This means that virtual devices must synchronize access to the VMM services. The VMM provides services, such as semaphores and events, to help virtual devices prevent reentering the VMM.

The virtual machine manager provides a variety of services, messages, macros, and structures to help virtual devices manage their corresponding hardware devices and services. The following chapters introduce the services and provide details about how to call the individual services, messages, macros, and structures.

(Still from the Windows 95 Device Driver Kit Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) Reference Manual)

It seems that overall you are very eager to prove multiple core support for Win9x cannot be done. Are you on a mission or something ?

And forget modifying 9x to use dual-core! It's definitely not worth the effort (ref. IBM stuff; look it up...). The systems specs are too radically different...

Still, all-in-all, seemingly not worth the effort.

@ohmss006 - Give it up; ain't gonna happen. Be happy with a jet-engine Win9x PC using 1 core. Genuises many on MSFN, but unless there are any takers for such a vast project (ain't heard from any volunteers yet) forget it... Pipe dream...

@ohms006 - no takers, too much hassle; guess you're on your own

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>Microsoft marketing adopted Windows 95<snip>although traces of DOS were never completely removed<snip>386 Enhanced Mode<snip>up to 2 gigabytes of virtual RAM<snip>closer to Windows NT<snip>included for backwards compatibility does not mean that windows is a gui for 16 bit dos.
And your point is? Even remotely in relation to the topic? Ever heard of Software Enhancements (Win1.0 thru WinME)? Ever hear of Redesign? Notice the keyword "virtual" in "virtual RAM"? What does VMM stand for? What is the definition of "VIRTUAL"? And the last statement quoted seems to be an opinion, not necessarily fact (although it might be).

From eidenk -

The virtual machine manager (VMM) is the 32-bit protected-mode operating system at the core of Windows 95.
Seems that says it all...

Do you have a degree in Systems Analysis, Design, and Implementation (I have)? Do you have access to the source (I did on IBM Mainframes)? Do you specifically know the methodology behind a Page File (I do)? How many languages (not scripting) have you programmed in (I learned Assembler on IBM, went from there)? Sheesh, we all (maybe) have credentials to fall back on; is this a case of "who has more credentials"? Or who is "smarter" than who?

Or are you responding to the link provided in an attempt to refutiate it? My basic premise stands, even if I am incorrect on a number of points (thx to all for corrections/clarifications/information/links).

Win9x is not easily transformed for the support requested. Just too dang many modules and variables. Is that single sentence too much to understand? Do you agree with that sentence or not?

Stick to the subject! Give suggestions for or arguments against. Quit being so danged defensive just because someone else is also relatively (if not completely) informed. I was not slamming, merely attempting to correct as others are so willing to. Fine by me... I attempt to search on it and either confirm or give references. It makes me that much more the wiser. Are you then above all of that?

Finally, why has no other informed and talented member suggested such a modification (perhaps they have)? Multiple CPU boards have been around a loooong time (relatively speaking).

Someone step up to the plate and specifically propose a "fix" to Win9x for multi-CPU support or specifically state that you are against such a proposal. Simple information (accurate or not) without the rationale as to why it is being provided (for or against) is a waste of keystrokes.

Again - and your point was? For myself, this seems to be degrading into a bar-room brawl... started with "I like that picture on the wall; But I don't" and turned into "Tastes great; No, less filling". DUH! So many toes to step on and so little time. Wisdom dictates leaving the bar and leaving the drunks to their little bruhaha (got the analogy? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/analogy )...

@eidenk - Try reading my first post in this topic, then those following IN ORDER and then THINK of why I continued to respond (my bad for paying attention to y'all). I'm assuming I'm arguing against those who apparently want to do this little project. I wish you luck. Let us all know when it's completed.

BTW - your own words, dude -

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=671343

@oscardog - and here's yours -

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=673442

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/semantics

(yep, misspelled it again; anyway there's the link)

I've clearly (if not accurately) stated my case against; where do all of the rest of you stand? 1 means yes, 0 means no (simple enough?)...

Guess I'll have to start a thread in Site & Forum Issues questioning the validity of "bashing"... NOT! Probably everyone who THINKS I am bashing them would probably go there to bash some more. Have you no shame?

Summary -

1 You have my answer to this proposed project - IMHO, NoGo!

2 I have wasted enough time and server space here.

3 On to more fruitful endeavors (how about you all?)...

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you study this subject a little bit more, then perhaps you may have answers rather than to create further inaccurate questions. My latter answer dealt directly with windows in this particular forum in responding to your questions I would have thought you might have ascertained that(for windows take it that it means the relevant os being discussed hence win9x). The original poster asked Microsoft Windows 98 to recognize Dual-Core processors (project?), A place where we can gather all together to make this happen. The differences between the 3 different win2k uni and multiprocessor files, perhaps the examination of the previous use of a modified ntoskrnl.exe etc when dealing with ntfs, and above all the start of vxd,wdm programming might be a start.

I suggested clustering mainly because it could suffice until this forum gets up to speed on stubbing and/or filtering vxds,wdms.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello everyone, its me, now, im sorry if i just came in after so long, but i didnt know when or where to come in, after this thorough discussion between you lot.

dont u start EVER thining that im laughing my head off because of this, but this is knowleging myself and many other Windows 98 people out there! including my friends as well, as htey are very intrigued to know if something like this was possible, i also wanting to try and convince them to join here, also to prove i am not joking around.

i now know for a fact, that Windows 98 is based on DOS, and running on that, and that NT itself doesnt have DOs, but more like an emulation, like XP, but its processes are very much closer to 9x than XP itself.

maybe i should have made this thread in the Unofficial service pack forum, trying to find a way to move this place a well.

from what u lot are saying, it is still possible to make such a thing, but yes, effort wil need to be made into it, and i see not alot are willing to take that challenge, unless someone got the source code to Windows 98, then people can start messing around with it.

unless, another theory, is that if there was a DOS that can do multitasking or multiprocesing, then Windows 98 on top of that, is another possible way to make the OS see dual core.

u lot may thingk im a dumb a**, but no, just no, by making htis thread isnt ridiculous, we are acknowledging as to wats right and not, and this has given me more of an idea on what to do, this isnt the end here. i am very aware there are still loads of people who hasmt came by this and probably knows what to do. i did mention donations as well didnt i?

thats all im going to say right now, need to start finishing bulding my new system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest you study this subject a little bit more, then perhaps you may have answers rather than to create further inaccurate questions. My latter answer dealt directly with windows in this particular forum in responding to your questions I would have thought you might have ascertained that(for windows take it that it means the relevant os being discussed hence win9x).
I don't recollect requesting any answers based upon creating inaccurate questions. I had already cited both outside reference and cross-reference (e.g. your own posts, ref. VMM), i.e. questioning your own answers. I may have created inaccurate answers (the opposite) and my questions have been perfectly accurate and have been totally ignored and unanswered (ref. previous post). Non-Win9x had been brought into the subject to discuss "which does and does not support multi-cpu"; this is perfectly valid and supports the suggestion that the obstacles to be overcome are numerous. I, sir, suggest that you should be the one to study the subject a bit more, unless you are again ignoring my previous posts on the relationship between IBM and Mr. Gates (source code and my former personal access to IBM's)...
The original poster asked Microsoft Windows 98 to recognize Dual-Core processors (project?), A place where we can gather all together to make this happen. The differences between the 3 different win2k uni and multiprocessor files, perhaps the examination of the previous use of a modified ntoskrnl.exe etc when dealing with ntfs, and above all the start of vxd,wdm programming might be a start.
True; lots of modules (as I had stated). However, here is where it started (you also commented) -

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=98123

Notice that the topic appears to be a dead issue. Here is where it migrated to -

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=99663

Also apparently a dead issue. And it finally wound up here... hilarious!

@eidenk - I see you never posted in those topics...

I suggested clustering mainly because it could suffice until this forum gets up to speed on stubbing and/or filtering vxds,wdms.
Here is a link to cluster definition -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_cluster

Yes, I had several years ago read up on the subject... and the last Mainframe I worked on was OS/390ESA on an Amdahl. I had assumed you were being facetious (need another definition?) when you suggested "firing up" multiple diskless Win9x', since it doesn't appear to be relevant (not a viable solution). Directly (opposite of indirectly) answer posed questions and the original poster will then have a solution or final answer to his/her overall request to insist on loading Windows 98 SE (specifically, BTW) under the hood of his Core-2-Duo Mobo. If you re-read the original topics you will see that this is the case...

"Stubbing" is a cake-walk (in Assembler). True, I don't have specifics on, eg., VXD or WDM constructs, but I'm sure others on this forum understand the concept as well as I do. "ZAPping" (not do be confused with MSZAP) is a method by which code to be "modified" is Branched-Around/Branched-Back-To or Branch-And-Linked/Returned-From tacked-on-code, potentially NO-OPing original binaries. The modified/new code is then executed (relocatable addressing aside). Granted, a simplified explanation (used it many a time), but common since day-one of BAL. That's Basic Assembler Language; the very first god-awful-to-manipulate since computations involved adder-registers for + and - ops and register-shifting for * and / ops. Look it up; I used it when I was trained to nuke cities (back in '69, gulp)! See, I not so toopid. But, sadly, EULA, EULA, EULA!. And DON'T YOU DARE argue ZAPping with me... I will eat you alive!!! With Specifics!

@ohmss006 - I'm quite sure your intentions are good. Recommend only accurate constructive criticism, suggestion, or actual code. I can't help unless I get super-smart super-fast (not gonna happen soon). I have given what I deem a "slightly educated" assessment of the subject and its feasibility. You need some real gurus, none to be found (IMHO) as of yet. Suggest looking back occasionally to see if that happens. I anxiously await the final solution as I too will someday have a multi-cpu MOBO/Server (already have NT-type opsys; not naming it...). So far, only vague relationships and possibilities. As far as "laughing", I would have (at the "I'm smarter than you" syndrome)...

BTW -

i now know for a fact, that Windows 98 is based on DOS
Careful... get ready for another flame!

Come on, yay-sayers, let's get to debugging/disassembling and recompiling/patching (EULA?) or generating "replacement" modules instead; with examples! Or else point to someone who can (if not you); some support tech you would be if you didn't (I was and did)! Done tooting horns? Getting noisy again... then Chef Ramsey (of Hell's Kitchen) said "STFU and get busy, donkeys" (another analogy). That having been said...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@submix8c

Delusion, is that what you suffer from ?

Shall I answer you point by point or shall I not ?

:whistle:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shall I answer you point by point or shall I not ?
Yes. All of them and all questions (you know, those with ? at the end?). Offline, in a zip, with backing, not just your "word" (want a copy of my Tech history? I want yours :yes: !). Enough here... :crazy:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unless, another theory, is that if there was a DOS that can do multitasking or multiprocesing, then Windows 98 on top of that, is another possible way to make the OS see dual core.

Well, it should not solve the problem. The Windows 9x kernel takes direct controll over the hardware. So, the DOS layer can not do multi CPU support.

If the DOS would support multi CPU cores, the support would stop in the moment the Windows 9x kernel is started.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Win9x/me, IO.SYS combines the functions formerly split between IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS in MS-DOS 6.22 and older. MSDOS.SYS is merely a read only text file the IO.SYS process reads to obtain a few parameters- such as where Windows is located.

Once control is handed off to the Windows kernel, IO.SYS is out of the picture. IO.SYS could actually be named anything because the BIOS doesn't launch the bootstrap file by name, it launches it by the physical location of its first sector on the hard drive.

After that first sector is read, the boot process switches from BIOS to software control. Before Win95, MSDOS.SYS also had to have its first sector in a specific location or IO.SYS couldn't find it. With Win95 through Me, IO.SYS does what it should have all along- it uses the file allocation table to find MSDOS.SYS.

After IO.SYS has launched and read the parameters in MSDOS.SYS and passed them to WIN.COM- it's all 32bitsville and the DOS stuff is pushed out of the way.

It would be possible to use a completely new loader in place of IO.SYS to launch Win9x/Me but Microsoft did things that way to maintain the ability to run in a plain DOS mode and for running DOS programs in a virtual machine when Windows was running. If a DOS program makes a call to MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS intercepts it and redirects it to the appropriate function within itself.

DOS programs that cause problems with "DOS 7" or later or don't run under Windows 9x tend to be those that try to do things in undocumented ways. If a program tries to "strong arm" its way to an MSDOS.SYS function it'll crash because that file isn't what it was in DOS 6.22 and older.

That does have a nifty benefit, it makes it extremely simple to move a complete Windows 9x install to a new hard drive without requiring any 3rd party software.

With your new hard drive FDISKed and FORMAT d: /S 'ed with the first partition tagged Active, jumpered appropriate to where it's connected...

Step 1. Boot up then change the virtual memory file to use the root of C:\ and reboot.

Step 2. Launch Windows Explorer and go to the new drive.

Step 3. On the new drive, rightclick MSDOS.SYS, click Properties and uncheck the System and Read Only boxes.

Step 4. Click in the right pane on C: and hit Ctrl+A to select everything. Ctrl+click to UNSELECT IO.SYS WIN386.SWP and COMMAND.COM You *do* want MSDOS.SYS selected. (Without copying the old file, Windows won't know where to find itself on the new drive.)

Step 5. Hold the Right mouse button and drag all the selected files to the root of the new drive. Answer YES to overwrite any files.

Step 6. Shut down, re-arrange your hard drives so the new drive is connected how the old drive was and boot into Windows 9x exactly how it was, except on your new, larger and faster drive.

The only detail you may have to attend to is setting the swap file, Windows 9x sometimes gets confused about it when it "wakes up" in the unfamiliar surroundings of a roomier hard drive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i dontmean to be out of topic, but i thought it was worth mentioning this, but coming here to visit this forum, how funy was it that i saw threads titled 'Windows 98 Third Edition?' and another Windows 98 project, aiming to have new features and so on?

one of them was very much willing to acess the core and some sort of modifying to it.

has anyone saw these threads may i ask?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to come up again (even though i shouldnt :D)

but i have thread through the thread again, and even though it has been mentioned that NT 3.1 and newer support multiprocessors, it still wouldnt be compatible with near related versions of Windows 9x?

i mean like, for example, if u had like the source code to NT 4 at least, may i ask to anyone if that would help at all?

also, unlike other projects of Windows 98 around here, as they focus on aving all the updates and features of Windows ME implanted, this one however focuses on the core itself where it is ideal to get through first before going on other things that seems simpler.

thoroughly researching Windows 98, it can be stripped down alot, so much it can go down to as little as 8MB and can be run on a Flash USB with immediate on and off power. these are from the creators of 98SELite. good stuff i assume.

if it can be stripped down that much, i am imagining how close htey might have gotten to the core but didnt mess around with it maybe due to laws and so on.

thats all i have to say for now, again i would really appreciate it if someone can help me answer these, and of course will get bcak to you.

this can happen! just need to look for the right people and place (here as well).

Excellent.

P.S. dont you wish that back in 2004 when the source code of Windows 2000 and NT 4 leaked in the internet was instead Windows 98 perhaps? :D

Edited by ohmss006
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dont you wish that back in 2004 when the course code of Windows 2000 and NT 4 leaked in the internet was instead Windows 98 perhaps? :D

I don't know if you guys realize that this is the only thing that can help you with your dual-core stuff...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i take it u were refering to the NT 4 source code leaked correct?

or would the W2K source code help as well may i ask?

also i have corrected my speling mistake on 'source code' from 'course code' :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well w2k source would be helpful...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well w2k source would be helpful...

even though it is a fraction of 15% of the actual final or complete source code?

and whats wrong with the NT 4 source code then may i ask?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well w2k source would be helpful...

even though it is a fraction of 15% of the actual final or complete source code?

and whats wrong with the NT 4 source code then may i ask?

AFAIK it is not only 15%. Well I suppose that both of them can do, but w2k is newer and stuff. Logically I thought that w2k would be a better solution...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that does seem logical, but it has also been said here in this thread that NT 4 would be better to use as it is the easiet and simplest version of Windows to Windows 98(SE) than others, and been confirmed here as well that it can support or recognize (though not mentioned in Wikipedia) multiprocessors.

and i think i mistyped what i said, the source code of Windows 2000 is either 40GB or 4GB where as only 15% has been leaed, and mentioned it being a fraction and u cant use it for making wondows, it could be the fraction refering to 40GB, but then, 40GB is basically a hard drive size files, so i was just painting a picture of that.

whereas, the code for NT4 seems more complete apprantly. correct me if im wrong on this.

this can be done! :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is the easiest way to do it, if not the only one...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and that would be the source code of Windows NT 4 may i ask?

and with that source code of with Windows 2000's bit, may i ask what would be done though?

not to forget to mention, Winodws NT 47 is as well a very much less system deand operating system very much like windows 98, correct me if im wrong on this.

anyone?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply can't understand what you said or asked.

It is simple: Use both Windows NT4 and W2K codes and do the **** thing (if you are able). There is no point in us repeating posts about the source code. Use the code u think that is better but IMO the only reasonable way to do this is to look at leaked source codes. Again I say, use the source code u think is the best.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Windows was never rewritten during any point in developement. During the time of the great Microsoft and IBM divorce, Microsoft took the code it was working on for OS/2 and renamed it Windows NT. That's why you can still use OS/2 1.x and 2.x apps on XP/Vista today. It's all verifiable online too.

In any event, the 9x line was rightfully killed and for good reasons.

Edited by MrCobra
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it isn't impossible to write dual-core processor support for 9x... Rewriting Windows is a fairy tale and it is not gonna happen soon...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it isn't impossible to write dual-core processor support for 9x... Rewriting Windows is a fairy tale and it is not gonna happen soon...

I would say that without the source to the 9x kernel and all the modules that interface to and from it, it would be impossible to get multi-cpu/core support. It could in theory be done if someone wanted to undertake the task of doing it but IMO that would be pointless. If you need multi-cpu/core support from the OS then I think it's time to update your OS.

IO.SYS is the OS loader, after that it is not there/in use anymore AFAIK. As for command.com, it is not needed to either boot or for the operation of the OS (not even for running DOS programs). At least not on WinME.

IO.SYS is the bootstrapper for the 9x systems. It is also required for the normal operation of the OS. Load Softice and do a trace on the make directory routine. After some extensive tracing you'll wind up back in the DOS system at the mkdir routine. All version of the 9x kernel rely on DOS to process most things.

Edited by MrCobra
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.