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

#76
BenoitRen

BenoitRen

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • OS:95
  • Country: Country Flag

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

Great, another NT fanboy has come to troll our forum. Go away.
Using Windows 95 OSR 2.5
SeaMonkey - surfing the net has never been so suite
Posted ImageLight Blue Ribbon Campaign for Freedom of Skin


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#77
marxo

marxo

    UI Designer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
BenoitRen - It is pointless scaring them off they are multiplying rapidly. They are assimilating our people :D

Posted Image
You don't wanna click there.


#78
MrCobra

MrCobra

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

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

Great, another NT fanboy has come to troll our forum. Go away.

Very childish.

Edited by MrCobra, 04 August 2007 - 11:36 PM.


#79
BenoitRen

BenoitRen

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • OS:95
  • Country: Country Flag
Yet so true.
Using Windows 95 OSR 2.5
SeaMonkey - surfing the net has never been so suite
Posted ImageLight Blue Ribbon Campaign for Freedom of Skin

#80
MrCobra

MrCobra

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
Well, when you become the owner of this site then you can make all the rules you want about who can post where. Until that happens, STFU.

#81
marxo

marxo

    UI Designer

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

Until that happens, STFU.


I don't think that this is nice either. And you told him that he is childish?

Posted Image
You don't wanna click there.


#82
teddy123

teddy123

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 13 posts
somewhat related to this thread,

it could be possible to recreate the win98 kernel (like the persons that make ReactOS have
recreated the winXP-kernel) ?

Ok it took a couple of years for the reactos folks to do this, but I don't plan to die
that soon, and win98 should be simpler to make right? (correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm not too good at programming these sort of things (os-kernels), but it is never too
late to learn something new :-)

Do anyone know of some good info about the win9x kernel parts, like the uh.. spec
for it?

If we can make a new win98-kernel that works exactly as the current one, then perhaps
later someone interested can modify the source to use dual-core/multi-core processors later

#83
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

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.


well, i am new to hte whole source code thing, i do not know what/which program to use and i am not sure what to look for within them, especially looking for 'something' that makes the operating system recognise multi-core processors.

#84
cyprod

cyprod

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 44 posts
Please don't flame if I'm incorrect on this as I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems you peeps are under the impression Windows 2000 supports multi-core CPUs. This is a falicy. Windows 2000 supports multi CPU systems, not multi core system. Proof of this is that I'm currently on my work laptop which has an intel core 2 duo T7200 processor in it and we're forced to use windows 2000, and though the device manager shows it as a multi cpu system, the task manager only shows one CPU workload. Further proof of this is the HP support people we get (we get better support than most as we're an R&D center and get HP R&D tech support) who are always laughing that we've got $3000 laptops with windows 2000 on them which is unable to utilize both cores. And yet more proof is, bog down one process, easy for me to do as I'm a software developer(lets not talk details here, lets just say I meant to make an idle thread and accidentally made it time critical), and watch how the whole system comes to a crawl, when doing the same thing on my home pc doesn't effect system responsiveness. Windows XP is the first windows with multi-core support.

#85
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
anyone may i ask?

i am willing to go ahead and wanting to try some stuff out as well.

#86
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

All version of the 9x kernel rely on DOS to process most things.


I dunno about that. While it definitely does to boot, I haven't heard of it using DOS to create directories!

It's less dependent that 3x. It's not supposed to use DOS for disk access.
Asus P5QL Pro, Core 2 Duo E4500, eVGA GeForce 9500 GT with XP Pro x64 Edition -> Works great with Asus P5QL Pro!

#87
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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.


This sounds more like it.
Asus P5QL Pro, Core 2 Duo E4500, eVGA GeForce 9500 GT with XP Pro x64 Edition -> Works great with Asus P5QL Pro!

#88
Sfor

Sfor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

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..


Almost correct. But there is no bootstrap file in the first sector of the hard drive. This sector is called Master Boot Record. There is a partition table there, and a program responsible for selection of the partition and further boot actions. It is not a file, certainly.

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.


That's right. To be more specific, the code from MBR calls code from boot sector of some active partition. Then the system files are loaded. The code located in boot sector is put there during the OS installation. So, the code loading system files is different for each OS.

#89
ohmss006

ohmss006

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

well, i am new to hte whole source code thing, i do not know what/which program to use and i am not sure what to look for within them, especially looking for 'something' that makes the operating system recognise multi-core processors.


of course not being rude or anything, and wanting to brag alot, but anyone may i ask?

#90
raskren

raskren

    I ♥ Longhorn

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts

Please don't flame if I'm incorrect on this as I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems you peeps are under the impression Windows 2000 supports multi-core CPUs. This is a falicy. Windows 2000 supports multi CPU systems, not multi core system. Proof of this is that I'm currently on my work laptop which has an intel core 2 duo T7200 processor in it and we're forced to use windows 2000, and though the device manager shows it as a multi cpu system, the task manager only shows one CPU workload. Further proof of this is the HP support people we get (we get better support than most as we're an R&D center and get HP R&D tech support) who are always laughing that we've got $3000 laptops with windows 2000 on them which is unable to utilize both cores. And yet more proof is, bog down one process, easy for me to do as I'm a software developer(lets not talk details here, lets just say I meant to make an idle thread and accidentally made it time critical), and watch how the whole system comes to a crawl, when doing the same thing on my home pc doesn't effect system responsiveness. Windows XP is the first windows with multi-core support.

You must be using the wrong HAL. Windows 2000 handles up to two physical CPUs (cpu sockets). Windows uses the same HAL for multi core and multi cpu systems. Your admins may need to select a "custom" HAL at the time Windows is installed.

Q: What is the SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processor) Support for Windows 2000?
A: In August, We announced the final packaging for Windows 2000 that we are doubling the Symmetric Multi-Processor (SMP) support for the products in the Windows 2000 Server family. Therefore:

Windows 2000 Professional will support up to two processors.
Windows 2000 Server will support up to four processors.
Windows 2000 Advanced Server will support up to eight processors.
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server will support up to thirty-two processors.

http://www.microsoft...ows2000/faq.htm

On topic, Windows 98 isn't going to do to SMP any time soon. It's time to move on to a modern operating system fellas!

Edited by raskren, 12 August 2007 - 08:51 AM.


#91
marxo

marxo

    UI Designer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Some people need money to, firstly, get a "modern" computer and then some of them might consider moving to NT...

Posted Image
You don't wanna click there.


#92
awergh

awergh

    MSFN Expert

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

It's time to move on to a modern operating system fellas!

a modern os what makes 98se unmodern and a slightly newer os modern

#93
Sfor

Sfor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
The greatest advantage of a Windows 9x OS is the simplicity. It's easier to backup, restore, move to other hard drive and so on. The DOS included is not without a meaning, as well.

The system performance is not the most important parameter for many users. It is possible to buy a better computer with a newer OS, if the performance is necesary. That's why I do believe multi CPU support is unnecesary. A much more important task would be to remove some of the Windows 98 old issues.

#94
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Please don't flame if I'm incorrect on this as I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems you peeps are under the impression Windows 2000 supports multi-core CPUs. This is a falicy. Windows 2000 supports multi CPU systems, not multi core system. Proof of this is that I'm currently on my work laptop which has an intel core 2 duo T7200 processor in it and we're forced to use windows 2000, and though the device manager shows it as a multi cpu system, the task manager only shows one CPU workload. Further proof of this is the HP support people we get (we get better support than most as we're an R&D center and get HP R&D tech support) who are always laughing that we've got $3000 laptops with windows 2000 on them which is unable to utilize both cores. And yet more proof is, bog down one process, easy for me to do as I'm a software developer(lets not talk details here, lets just say I meant to make an idle thread and accidentally made it time critical), and watch how the whole system comes to a crawl, when doing the same thing on my home pc doesn't effect system responsiveness. Windows XP is the first windows with multi-core support.

You must be using the wrong HAL. Windows 2000 handles up to two physical CPUs (cpu sockets). Windows uses the same HAL for multi core and multi cpu systems. Your admins may need to select a "custom" HAL at the time Windows is installed.

Q: What is the SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processor) Support for Windows 2000?
A: In August, We announced the final packaging for Windows 2000 that we are doubling the Symmetric Multi-Processor (SMP) support for the products in the Windows 2000 Server family. Therefore:

Windows 2000 Professional will support up to two processors.
Windows 2000 Server will support up to four processors.
Windows 2000 Advanced Server will support up to eight processors.
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server will support up to thirty-two processors.

http://www.microsoft...ows2000/faq.htm

On topic, Windows 98 isn't going to do to SMP any time soon. It's time to move on to a modern operating system fellas!


What about quad core? Does that mean everybody is required to get Windows 2000 Server or Windows Server 2003?!
Asus P5QL Pro, Core 2 Duo E4500, eVGA GeForce 9500 GT with XP Pro x64 Edition -> Works great with Asus P5QL Pro!

#95
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

What about quad core? Does that mean everybody is required to get Windows 2000 Server or Windows Server 2003?!

No. It's a licensing problem, not a technical. All W2000 versions have the same kernel, and MS have licensed the different versions for a different number of processors.

When Intel came with it's P4 HT processor, MS stated that a multicore processor (an HT acts like a dualcore) is only 1 processor, and in one of the XP servicepacks this policy is added. So all XP versions can handle a quadcore, and XP pro can even handle two quadcores. I don't know if the latest servicepack of W2000 also adds this feature.

I suppose W2003 can handle 8 quadcores. I think the maximum number of cores which can be handled by a 32 bit NT version is 32. Funtions like GetProcessAffinityMask suggest so.

#96
Sfor

Sfor

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
So, we are facing a law related problem, possibly. Is it legal to add a multicore support to Windows 98?

#97
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts
Depends on where you live. In Iran, it's not illegal, AFAIK. In much countries it's illegal to disassemble the W98 kernel and change it. I think in most countries it is legal to write a whole new kernel from scratch, and use that in your (licensed) W98. But maybe you need some information to do that (interfacing with the rest of windows) which you can't get legally.

#98
marxo

marxo

    UI Designer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
It's not illegal here neither.... Like most things... But creating a new kernel is way too big project...

Posted Image
You don't wanna click there.


#99
BenoitRen

BenoitRen

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • OS:95
  • Country: Country Flag
Yeah, just look at the ReactOS people. 10 years of work, and it only sort of works.
Using Windows 95 OSR 2.5
SeaMonkey - surfing the net has never been so suite
Posted ImageLight Blue Ribbon Campaign for Freedom of Skin

#100
jimmsta

jimmsta

    computer janitor

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
I wandered into VMWare and ran a Windows 95B virtual machine. I enabled debug logging, and watched the log fill up - it seems that VMM32 is what controls the CPU functionality in 9x. There's this topic over on boot-land: http://www.boot-land...?...d&pid=15326 which is essentially how to make your own 32-bit DOS using Win9x files.

I went ahead and created this 'new' DOS... When used, it is essentially what happens when you create a dos-box in Windows 95 - Windows 95 initializes a new DOS session, in protected memory. An actual multi-tasking 32-bit DOS. Of course, the limitations are still present - it seems that the services within VMM32.VXD in windows 95 hold the key to how the kernel gains access to the CPU. I'm certain that such a project IS possible, but it would take YEARS to get it working. And what definition of 'working' do I mean...
Creator and Maintainer of BootZilla.org




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN