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

#26
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

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.


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts

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


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.

#28
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
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.



#29
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts

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.

#30
jroc

jroc

    18 Bravo

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 235 posts
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, 15 July 2007 - 02:59 AM.


#31
oscardog

oscardog

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 234 posts

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

I do hope they keep you well away from guns
Anyway back on track, as previously mentioned I would imagine the kernel and device drivers would need to be modified, perhaps bios.vxd for the motherboard to instruct the os the number of cpus onboard and how to use them. Also the kernel or a filter driver to handle the threads etc to each individual cpu. Software would need to be re written to then take advantage of this. Far easier would be just to make a farm of diskless win9x`s and have them boot up, map their network drives and get to work compressing videos or what have you

Edited by oscardog, 16 July 2007 - 03:38 AM.


#32
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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.


So we'v got the solution! Thread closed! :D LOL

Seriousely how efficient will it be to run windows twice on virtual machines based on a Linux system?
The idea is not bad and can be exploited but I doubt doing it outright as you said will make the PC be much faster than a single, yet same speed CPU, let alone allow much fee memory etc.

What we can imagine is a virtual machine based on a low-key, ultra light Linux version, especialy optimized for this task and a virtual machine application also modified for best performance.

-----------------

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


LOL. And someone who installed the w98toXP pack had forcibly the money to buy an XP installtion cd (doesn't work without that). :D
So here is an important question: there are poeple who can afford XP, bought XP, have a PC which can run XP, yet use w98... Well, maybe another day you will see pink elephants in the sky. Be careful. :hello:

HTASoft.com

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

#33
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

I would imagine the kernel and device drivers would need to be modified, perhaps bios.vxd for the motherboard to instruct the os the number of cpus onboard and how to use them.


including that, can i safely say that i will need to be looking for a person that is willing or would like to volenteer, to use Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 and implementing its multicore support to Microsoft Windows 98(Second Edition) inorder to make that operating system to see 2 cores in a dual core processor?

#34
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Far easier would be just to make a farm of diskless win9x`s and have them boot up, map their network drives and get to work compressing videos or what have you


What about detecting the second CPU as another computer and network them. Eventualy mounting a virtual drive in the memory for the virtual second computer.
Instead of the ethernet, the connection would be made through the internal connections of the MoBo. The dificulty is to build a driver which can manage the MoBo structure. Almost impossible to do without extensive manufacturer documentation. Unless we can take XP based drivers to detect the second CPU, then instead of instructed the kernel, it would immediately fully allocate this resource to either this virtual "networked" computer or the special application I was talking about above.
The advantage is that we don't need to mess up with the current kernel and other things.

HTASoft.com

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

#35
jimmsta

jimmsta

    computer janitor

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Is there even a DOS out there that supports multiple CPU's? I'd think that that'd be the first place to start. Obviously, MS-DOS does not support that functionality, and you'd need to re-write the entire 9x kernel to support multiprocessing, as it was not designed with MP in mind. I'm betting that someone, somewhere, in the mid-90's created a driver for 9x that enabled the use of 2 or more processors, but there's a good chance that it was not free, and was not intended for use with today's 'x86' CPU's.

* Most x86 CPUs nowadays are virtualized x86 implementations on top of another architecture - Intel has the Core/Core2 arch, and AMD utilizes the DEC Alpha 9 arch.
Creator and Maintainer of BootZilla.org

#36
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts

Is there even a DOS out there that supports multiple CPU's? I'd think that that'd be the first place to start. Obviously, MS-DOS does not support that functionality


I think this is irrelevant as Windows does not run on top of DOS.

As far as I understand, and I might be wrong, it is the virtual machine manager that is at the heart of windows and it provides an emulated layer of all the hardware (a virtual machine) to Windows.

When a DOS program is run, it is provided a separate virtual machine by the virtual machine manager.

So that implementing support for dual-core in Windows has got nothing to see with DOS IMO.
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

#37
jimmsta

jimmsta

    computer janitor

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
What I mean is, if there's a multi-cpu enabled DOS, there would be some way to enable the second CPU in non-protected mode. VMM would need to be hacked to allow for the second CPU to come up at boot time. I'd bet that since the 98DDK has become available again, someone MIGHT want to try and write a driver to enable the x CPU to be booted... -_-
Creator and Maintainer of BootZilla.org

#38
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

I think this is irrelevant as Windows does not run on top of DOS.


infact, Windows 98 is more or less the GUI that runs on a DOS-based layer, so assuming now correctly i assume, Windows 98 does run on top of DOS.

Is there even a DOS out there that supports multiple CPU's? I'd think that that'd be the first place to start.


couldnt have said it better myself, this is where i mentioned where i will clearly need to look for someone to use NT4 as the basis for making Windows98 see multicores.

and i just purely believe that i dont see the need to make ay virtualness on the operating systemf or the hardware, cause its not solely for one person's need, but for everyone can do and dont need to do this and that. whereas it will be done already in the core itself and thus where all the power lays.

#39
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts

I think this is irrelevant as Windows does not run on top of DOS.


infact, Windows 98 is more or less the GUI that runs on a DOS-based layer, so assuming now correctly i assume, Windows 98 does run on top of DOS.


No, I don't think Win9x does run on top of a DOS layer.

http://win32assembly...r/vxd-tut1.html

DOS is apparently used in the boot sequence of Win 95 and 98 (but not ME which is why it boots faster) but that's it. Once Windows is running there is no DOS layer running underneath it.

Unless I am wrong but in this case you'll have to show where is this DOS layer that runs underneath the 9x GUI.
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

#40
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,190 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I think this is irrelevant as Windows does not run on top of DOS.


infact, Windows 98 is more or less the GUI that runs on a DOS-based layer, so assuming now correctly i assume, Windows 98 does run on top of DOS.


No, I don't think Win9x does run on top of a DOS layer.

http://win32assembly...r/vxd-tut1.html

DOS is apparently used in the boot sequence of Win 95 and 98 (but not ME which is why it boots faster) but that's it. Once Windows is running there is no DOS layer running underneath it.

Unless I am wrong but in this case you'll have to show where is this DOS layer that runs underneath the 9x GUI.

Re-read the referenced link. VMM (I believe) is interfacing with IO.SYS (the "DOS layer"), ergo DOS!

All Win 1.x/2.x/3.x and Win9x (including WinME) run "on top of DOS" That's why you can Upgrade from Past (DOS) through "current" WinME (with the appropriate Windows Upgrade sequences). Note that certain DOS modules are either replaced or eliminated as part of the Upgrade process (compatability). Also note that there is a "patch" for WinMe that allows you to "boot into pure DOS Command Mode" available on the internet. WinME from MS simply eliminated the access to it to phase Consumers into WinXP (an offshoot of NT, no DOS involved). Kind of like the difference between IBM Mainframe DOS-based (now defunct) and OS-based (still going strong).

Trust me, I've installed them all (including the IBM stuff)! It is definitely DOS-based (symantecs aside)!

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...

Edited by submix8c, 19 July 2007 - 11:32 AM.

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#41
Sfor

Sfor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
Indeed. DOS running with Windows GUI is not the same as DOS running without GUI.

I would rather say, the GUI DOS is just a DOS emulation.

The DOS itself can not work with multiple CPU cores. But, it could be possible to run two DOS instances on two different CPU cores. Still there is a problem dividing the system resources (ports, graphics cards and other). The DOS can not do it by itself.

A multitasking multi CPU enviroment, requires some OS layer between application and hardware resources. It is necesary to divide hardware between multiple threads. The windows 9x systems do provide such a layer. One of the kernel fuctions is thread managing through dividing the CPU time between threads. All it is necesary to replace is part of the kernel with a multi CPU one. This makes a multi CPU driver idea completely wrong, as the kernel core is responsible for the multi CPU support. Drivers are working on a higher layer then the CPU support. So, I see no possible solution with a multi CPU driver.

As for replacing the Windows 9x kernel with NT kernel. I think it will not work. As, the NT kernel is a completely different design. The NT kernel does have some security features on the lowest layer, this makes it completely different than 9x kernel. NT based drivers are working on a higher layer than the 9x ones, as far as I know. This makes the system more stable, as a driver can not stop the system kernel.

Also, nobody mentioned a non paralel multitasking feature such as a system kernel running on one CPU with all remaining application threads running on the other CPU. This could increase the system stability mainly. The speed can go up a bit, but not very much. Also, one CPU can do all the hardware access, while the other would do the other things. With such a solution, it would not be necesary to divide system hardware between two CPU cores. The kernel core can be much simpler, that way.

#42
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,190 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Well said! You seem to be very knowledgable (a compliment).

GUI=Graphical User Interface (Interface being the keyword; symantecs again)

And don't anyone suggest a new/modified kernel. There's much more to the design than just that single item. Ask the KernelEX Project guys. Even in the Mainframe world there are multiple modules that need generated to support a single new configuration. The kernel is only the basis (ref. IBM's DOS/VSE/AF and OS/390, the latest I'm familiar with).

Still, all-in-all, seemingly not worth the effort. There doesn't appear to be any takers to code from scratch the necessary support. How many months/years of dedicated coding/testing for such a project to satisfy a "want" and not a "need" (without recompense)? That's why MS quit bothering (IBM DOS is history, IBM OS is not; same rationale).

On a side note, the SETI project allows for Computer Clustering via specialized software, but I hesitate to suggest this as relevant to Multi-CPU support, since it's task-specific (as are the other Cluster projects). Check out MS' latest "server inventions" to what's involved.

@ohmss006, how about a little "light reading" on the subjects/objections, 'k?

'Nuff said. As MCP said in Tron (the movie) "End of line..."

Edited by submix8c, 19 July 2007 - 12:36 PM.

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#43
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
That's why I suggested an application specialy dsigned to ddtect unused second core and use it.

HTASoft.com

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

#44
Sfor

Sfor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
As far as I remember, every memory block does have the access rights. Each thread does have the rights to access certain memory blocks. If a thread tries to access wrong memory block a protection fault error condition is raised by the CPU. The system core has the access rights to all memory blocks, while higher level processes do have some limits.

As the system kernel keeps the best access rights, the application running on the second core would not be able to work in the same manner, I think. The memory block list is maintained by the system core. The second CPU has to have the access to the memory block list, as a CPU can not work in protected mode without it.

The protected mode virtual memory block system used in Windows makes the second CPU used by another application idea looking impossible. As, the second CPU would not have the access to the memory block list.

#45
oscardog

oscardog

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 234 posts

I think this is irrelevant as Windows does not run on top of DOS.


infact, Windows 98 is more or less the GUI that runs on a DOS-based layer, so assuming now correctly i assume, Windows 98 does run on top of DOS.


No, I don't think Win9x does run on top of a DOS layer.

http://win32assembly...r/vxd-tut1.html

DOS is apparently used in the boot sequence of Win 95 and 98 (but not ME which is why it boots faster) but that's it. Once Windows is running there is no DOS layer running underneath it.

Unless I am wrong but in this case you'll have to show where is this DOS layer that runs underneath the 9x GUI.

Re-read the referenced link. VMM (I believe) is interfacing with IO.SYS (the "DOS layer"), ergo DOS!

All Win 1.x/2.x/3.x and Win9x (including WinME) run "on top of DOS" That's why you can Upgrade from Past (DOS) through "current" WinME (with the appropriate Windows Upgrade sequences). Note that certain DOS modules are either replaced or eliminated as part of the Upgrade process (compatability). Also note that there is a "patch" for WinMe that allows you to "boot into pure DOS Command Mode" available on the internet. WinME from MS simply eliminated the access to it to phase Consumers into WinXP (an offshoot of NT, no DOS involved). Kind of like the difference between IBM Mainframe DOS-based (now defunct) and OS-based (still going strong).

Trust me, I've installed them all (including the IBM stuff)! It is definitely DOS-based (symantecs aside)!

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...

Windows 9x uses a new system file, IO.SYS, which replaces the MS-DOS system files (IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS). This real-mode operating system file contains the information needed to start the computer.
The actual underlying os in win9x is the base system and the real core is the virtual machine manager hence it allowing multiple threads in multiple memory address spaces

#46
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,190 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Windows 9x uses a new system file, IO.SYS, which replaces the MS-DOS system files (IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS). This real-mode operating system file contains the information needed to start the computer.
The actual underlying os in win9x is the base system and the real core is the virtual machine manager hence it allowing multiple threads in multiple memory address spaces

I beg your pardon? Press F8 on Start-up, select "Safe Mode Command Prompt", key in WIN.COM and watch Windows start up...

Win3.x, same deal. Is Win3.x then the base system/real core? The only reason IO.SYS changed (ref. my statements/posts above in "configuring a new IBM OS") was to recognize the "new design". VMM only interfaces with DOS (IO.SYS/COMMAND.COM). Also changed to directly utilize 32-bit addressing (Win3.x cheated).

Ever use Linux/Unix (any Mainframe OS's)? When the Computer (not PC) "boots", it is called IML (Initial Microcode Load), which is, in essence, the equivalent of the "hard wired" code within the CPU of a PC. Next, is IPL (Initial Program Load), which is the "base system" (DOS/OS/Unix/Linux, etc. Command Prompt). Next, start the Partitions/Address Spaces (VMM). Now you have the option of either manually or automatically starting other software on top (GUI's like CICS, the equivalent of W-I-N-D-O-W-S) within a given Space, which in turn allows other software (eg GUI editors like MS-Word and Inventory Systems like SQL+Apps) to run on top of it. Where do you think Billy got the ideas from? Remember IBM (all source code supplied)? Fact!

It's all in the design of the operating system. But there's still an underlying "DOS/OS" that needs to be changed to get the rest to work (Windows components changes). IO.SYS (in DOS/Winx.x) is the primary Hardware Interface in conjunction with Command.com, hence the underlying OS (ref. previous paragraph). Windows (utilizing VMM interface) is written to simply route its commands to the underlying DOS (single-threaded). It does indeed "ride on top of" DOS!

Winx.x is not capable of what is being suggested unless the basis (IO.SYS) is modified as well and that is the reason NT-oriented Windows is so radically different (NTLDR, not IO.SYS; ref. IBM DOS vs OS). Are you suggesting eliminating/rewiting IO.SYS and changing the MBR (which is also different)? How many modules in VMM? One, two, a gazillion? How many to change? One, two, a gazillion?

Again, go ask the KernelEX Project people whether a SINGLE module can be changed/written to access multi-cpu's. It's in the overall design. I refuse to disassemble the key components of Windows just to prove the point of "forget it, not worth it". "Migrate" NT/XP code to 9x if anyone thinks they can; it would be faster!

Systems Mainframe 2themax! Done it all and recognize the direct relationships to Windows x.x/NT... (p.s. Mainframes also have SQL)

Sheesh! Symantics (mis-spelled before; was that what confused you all?)

@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...

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#47
marxo

marxo

    UI Designer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

"Migrate" NT/XP code to 9x if anyone thinks they can; it would be faster!


AFAIK for this "operation" u need a source code of a kind... Probably a source code of nt-based Windows :D

Posted Image
You don't wanna click there.


#48
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts

All Win 1.x/2.x/3.x and Win9x (including WinME) run "on top of DOS" That's why you can Upgrade from Past (DOS) through "current" WinME (with the appropriate Windows Upgrade sequences).

You can upgrade from anything to anything if a proper installer/setup is written. Please avoid that kind of nonsense arguments.

Win3.x, same deal. Is Win3.x then the base system/real core? The only reason IO.SYS changed (ref. my statements/posts above in "configuring a new IBM OS") was to recognize the "new design". VMM only interfaces with DOS (IO.SYS/COMMAND.COM). Also changed to directly utilize 32-bit addressing (Win3.x cheated).

It's all in the design of the operating system. But there's still an underlying "DOS/OS" that needs to be changed to get the rest to work (Windows components changes). IO.SYS (in DOS/Winx.x) is the primary Hardware Interface in conjunction with Command.com, hence the underlying OS (ref. previous paragraph). Windows (utilizing VMM interface) is written to simply route its commands to the underlying DOS (single-threaded). It does indeed "ride on top of" DOS!

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.

I have deleted all instances of command.com (as well as the C:\Windows\Command folder) from an install of ME in a virtual machine and I can boot it and run it normally, I can even run DOS programs except of course for command.com because it is not there anymore.

So you'll have to find something else because it obviously does not work as you say.

The DOS programs seem to be running thanks to DOSMGR.VXD, the MS-DOS Emulation Manager and V86MMGR.VXD, the MS-DOS Memory Manager.

Here is a bit of information about them from the Windows 95 Device Driver Kit Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) Reference Manual :

Chapter 32. The MS-DOS Manager

The virtual MS-DOS manager virtualizes the elements of the MS-DOS operating system, such as device drivers and internal flags. This device also manages instance data for MS-DOS.

Chapter 35. The V86-Mode Memory Manager

The V86MMGR manages memory for V86-mode applications. It supports the Expanded Memory Specification (EMS) and the Extended Memory Specification (XMS), is responsible for allocating the base memory for new virtual machines, and translates calls made from protected-mode applications to V86-mode API functions.

http://rapidshare.co...kernel.doc.html

Initially downloaded from the MS FTP site but I could not remember where in this labyrinth

So ?
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

#49
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,190 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
IPL (on Mainframe DOS) = IO.SYS
IPL (on Mainframe OS) = NTLDR

Yep, the Boot Sector "loads" and "executes" it. 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?

I repeat - THAT and every single bit of code inside is DOS and nothing else! Without it, no Programs can access one whit of the hardware. Therefore, Windows is DOS-based. 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).

The thread was started suggesting that some poor soul sucker-up to making Win9x use more than one CPU/Core. It's the interaction between modules that makes this "project" unfeasible. If YOU had the Source Code, you would see what I mean...

Now if this is going to be a flame-fest instead, have at it; we're not ALL geniuses. And the thread-starter is probably laughing his bootie off at us "geniuses" (or should I say fools?)... Bye Bye :wacko:

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?

Edited by submix8c, 20 July 2007 - 06:34 PM.

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#50
Sfor

Sfor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
It is possible to say Win9x systems are DOS based and they are not DOS based, in the same time. Everything depends on what "based" word means to the person speaking in the particular moment.

There are no "real" DOS in the NT based systems, except for the emulation.

It is true the DOS is used to run the Win9x kernel. The DOS is still present in the memory while the 9x OS runs. The windows has a feature to shut down the kernel and run a DOS application, without a reboot. Also, all DOS drivers loaded before Win9x kernel starts are available when it is working. Windows can use DOS supported disk access if needed, as well. So, DOS is a part of the Windows 9x design.

Windows 3.xx was more DOS based for sure. All disk and network acees was done trough DOS layer drivers (except for the 32bit disk acces feature, I think).

In relation to the system boot and design, Windows 9x and 3.xx are DOS based.
In relation to the system kernel operations only the Windows 3.xx is DOS based, I believe.
Windows NT is not DOS based, for sure.

What matters in the multi CPU systems is the hardware and memory access management. And, the windows kernel is the one holding both jobs, in the 9x systems.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN