ohmss006

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

124 posts in this topic

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.