shaddam

intressting i never heard about a second hardware memory management unit which virtualize the virtual adress space again... can you please post some references to this? all i know about is the software reloc by the OS whic got several disadavantages over correct basing. but your second point is true... if we rebase all DLLs to the same address all should be based by the OS contiguously (sorry i'm not natural english speaker) ... with some performance disadavantages and some physical memory loss for the whole system. an intressting idea but only the second best solution over basing all to an perfect place.

I don't understand exactly. With reference to MSRK: does this mean that if the process tries to allocate 200 MB memory inside of its separate 4GB memory space, the Windows 98 system has to find contignous memory either in physical memory or in the swap file? And what dll rebasing could change on it? Petr hello petr, no, windows has to find only contignous memory in the virtual space...(physical memory can be fragmented, no problem) .... but finding a virtual memory chunk of 200Mbyte can be a problem if this space is divided by many DLLs (or other small allocated memory chunks) DLL rebasing can move those small memory chunks to larger or (in best case) to one big memory chunk. best case (unfragmented) : - available virtual memory = contignous-in-one-block allocateable memory worst case (fragmented) : - available virtual memory >> contignous-in-one-block allocateable memory (typical factor 2-10)

hello llx, thanks for your great works for the win98 community... but in this case you are not right. the point is NOT memory fragmentation which is not existing because of the virtual memory managment capability of the processor (which you state correct) which maps physical memory chunks from everywhere (which don't have to be continous) to an continous block of virtualmemory together (which is underlayed by physical memory). the point of rebasing is to avoid the fragmentation of the VIRTUAL Address space which is generated for every running process new and and only for the used adresses underlayed with physical (or paging disk memory). example: -free memory in this process: physical free + disk paging 500MByte -free virtual memory 1.5 Gigybyte -program try to allocate a chunk of 200Mbyte memory -Does this work always? looks like enough mem or? ... but to try to allocate an continous block of memory of 200MBytes CAN fail! because (maybe) there is no contignous block of virtual mem of this size available, because of virtual memory fragmentation (perhaps caused by bad based DLLs).

Found out that the "Citrix Presentation Server 4.0." do some automatic DLL Rebasing... exactly what we want to do. -citrix explanation http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX10602...archID=33095188 -virtual memory savings (per user) http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:RCBH_...t=clnk&cd=1

I'm afraid that there a enough dll's running constantly to keep your memory defragmented. I suppose that because of this the so-called memory defragmenters won't work too. hello noguru, even one running wrong placed DLL can half (in worst case) your maximum available in-one-block-allocatable memory. a DLL keep loaded until ALL processes are killed which use them AND unload dll registry switch is active... so for one process the (virtual) memory region is fragmented by the used DLLs. only after killing the last process which use this DLL the memory space is *maybe* defragmented (from this special DLL) nice article about memoryfragmen. & dll rebasing http://www.ittvis.com/services/techtip.asp?ttid=3346 MS explanation about the unload DLL registry switch http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default....g/debugging.asp this site lists alwaysunload dll as 'Bad Optimization' http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/supertweaks11.htm

thank you for your replies and interest... i also have to fool around to get some resonable results... perhaps a whitelist & blacklist could be usefull? perhaps everyone can share his experience here... WHITELIST (DLLs which are working rebased without problems/crashes/conflicts) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ddraw.dll rebased succesfull (MS rebase.exe) without problems/conflicts/crashes (dx9) - ? BLACKLIST (DLLs which are needed by some aplications exacatly at that address) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ? - ? - ?

hello at work i have allocate often memorychunks of giant size (several 100 MByte to GigaByte), which often don't work even while the total amount of free memory seems way enough. So i had to learn that there is something like virtual memory fragmentation. I explored this topic and found that there is an solvable reason for this on win32 system why the available memory and the maximum (on block) allocateable memory differs sometimes massive. The reasons are often DLLs which are loaded in memoryregions which divide the available memory in 2 pieces instead of setting this DLLs on begin or end of this free region. here an typical report from matlab memdump (win2000) Startadress | size | free mem. after (with* it is allocatable) ... <anonymous> 21610000 00010000 00000000 <anonymous> 21620000 00100000 418e0000* C:\WINNT\system32\DDRAW.dll 63000000 00049000 00fb7000* C:\Programme\MATLAB\bin\win32\MFC42.DLL 64000000 000f2000 052ae000* C:\WINNT\system32\OPENGL32.dll 693a0000 000c7000 02d69000* C:\WINNT\system32\MFC42LOC.DLL 6c1d0000 0000e000 02152000* C:\WINNT\system32\INDICDLL.dll 6e330000 00006000 016ba000* C:\WINNT\system32\GLU32.dll 6f9f0000 00020000 01d00000* C:\WINNT\system32\COMCTL32.DLL 71710000 00084000 0107c000* C:\WINNT\system32\DCIMAN32.dll 72810000 00006000 0277a000* C:\WINNT\system32\WS2HELP.DLL 74f90000 00008000 00008000 C:\WINNT\system32\WS2_32.DLL 74fa0000 00014000 0000c000 C:\WINNT\system32\WSOCK32.dll 74fc0000 00009000 000f7000* ... As you can see the loaded DLLs are not as near as possible together... the memory is fragmented. But why the dlls want to reside in this special places? Because in the PE header of an DLL (or exe) a prefered adress is defined (standard value = 10000000h). The OS tries to load an DLL on this prefered place...but what happens when this place is already used by another DLL? Then the OS has to do an dynamical reallocating which got some disadvantages. First, loading is slower, and all adress calculations have to be recalculated in realtime on access. Second is that an dll which is loaded by several process (like several open explorer windows) has to be loaded several times in memory -> real memory loss. If the dll can live on the prefered place the system can 'map' the same loaded dll to several process (physical memory saved). So, for an optimal behaving system the Dlls have be placed on optimal adresses. Microsoft tried this for their dlls but it seems they do it not anymore consequently (especially for fixed files for win9x!). the region which they tried to fill continously is 0x70000000 to 0x7FFFFFFF. So why not try to do this again for our uSP2? ------------------------------------ Tools for Rebasing -To get an overview over loaded DLLs (and reallocations and memory fragmentation), Sysinternals ProcessExplorer is very usefull. http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/ProcessExplorer.html -Cygwin rebasing tool (works for also for stripped files but not for MS files) http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/rebase/ -For MS DLLs rebase.exe from MS Visualstudio (search the folder) More Info - Dr.dobbs articel on rebasing http://www.ddj.com/184416272 -nice explanation of dll rebasing http://www.codeproject.com/dll/rebase.asp -load performance test http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0500/hood/ -interessting link about security reasons for DLL rebasing http://archive.cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archi...2/msg00018.html PS: Contras - why not doing this for ALL System DLLs? because some 'bad' written software have hardcoded stuff like absolute jumps inside which need the original base address but this is some kind of hack, which could break this software also in other circumstances. - rebasing conflicts possibly with the MS eula because it is some kind of binary hack(?) Pros - sligthly faster loading times for dlls - sligthly faster dll functions - slightly more physical memory - much more virtual memory - maleware which needs those known bases don't work anymore

not totally correct, buffer underrun protection, prevents the complete break of burnprocess but reduce not the total amount of buffer underruns, even when enabled a small errors exist on this area of the disk, but burning goes on later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BurnProof#Buf...rrun_protection a nice tool to check the REAL errorrate and Quality is Kprobe (but only for liteon) http://www.cdrlabs.com/kprobe/

hello got a amd 64 based board also with ac97 from realtek. got also devicemanager problems, solution was for me NOT to use latest driver (3.68 works for me 3.89 & 3.90 not) another thing i got with realtek av97 sound and win98... quickreboot ('shift' + restart) not works ... soundcard is dead until next hard reboot. greets what kind of AC'97 sound drivers do your AMD boards use, Waywyrd? also, what does the error message say in Device Manager for the AC'97 audio driver? well the WinME sound drivers may work under Win98SE ONLY if they are WDM-based drivers. WDM-type drivers are drivers that work under Win98se/2000/ME/XP and they usually come in .SYS files and NOT .VXD files. ex. the DFI CM33-TL mobo on my XP computer that uses VIA VT8601 chipsets use Realtek AC'97 Audio driver [alcxwdm.sys].

Some remarks: -many commercial tools, for most of them are even better opensource or freeware alternatives... -you want winzip & winrar? why? RAR can also decode & create zips... i would suggest the free 7-zip over both commercial programs http://www.7-zip.org/ -similar with divx...why not use the free (and superior) xvid? www.xvid.org -and as video & audio decoder ffdshow ((AC3 support, free & REALLY fast)? http://ffdshow.sourceforge.net/tikiwiki/ti...Getting+ffdshow -more important seems to me a software cpucooler...like this http://users.telvia.it/improta/kcpuc100.zip -maybe foxit instead of acrobat reader (only 1MBYte size & support for PDF level 1.5 & 1.6) www.foxit.com -as small antivirus software maybe Fprot, updated & small & freeware for home user http://www.fprot.org/fr_english.php -as mediaplayer mediaplayer classic ... Small and free http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=82303 -a mp3 id3tag shell extension (small and useful) http://www.mutschler.de/mp3ext/ -instead of bloated winamp 5.x the smaller 2.x http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/4players/mikemth...namp295_std.exe

which can be disabled from Adobe Reader 7 options dialog box. I hate it when it loads at startup. try running AR7 without their stuff loaded at bootup time. could be a difference in performance. Foxit Reader is a nice alternative to Adobe Reader. There's even a Foxit Reader Pro edition (shareware): http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_pro.php I'm going to use the free edition Foxit Reader. Foxit reader is almost unusable for reading text documents, it has much lower quality of displayed text. It depends on the pdf document itself too, of course. Petr the reason for lower visual quality is maybe the missing gdiplus.dll in window 98, but this dll can inserted by hand.... http://foxitsoftware.com/bbs/showthread.ph...d+1130+Released

not 100% ... but i see in 2 tools for mhz detection toggling between 1000 & 1800mhz .... (misdetection?)

yes, this software driver from AMD was installed (and active, have seen the frequency toogling with some tools), but this driver seems not install an idle process which execute all the time HLT ...like the software cooler do... so for maximum powersaving both should be installed. has someone done also some measurement with an amd64 system? ...ok maybe extended lifetime of cpu and noise reduction is a point for you energywasting americans?

hello got the chance to get an powermeasurement device for an day and do tests on my 2 win98se systems. system specs1: k6-2 500, 64mb Sd-ram, via mvp3 board, 40gb ibm hdd, s3-whatever 2d only card, 300watt powerdevice win98se german + usp2.1 + dx9 + via driver results1: 'off' = 2,2 watt boot = ~65watt idle(desktop) = 58 watt idle(kcpucooler) = 37 watt (34% overall saving!) (measurement of complete pc without monitor) system specs2: amd64 3000+(venice), 1gb ram, nforce3 board, 250gb samsung hdd, 120 gb hdd, geforce5700 fx, pci ide extension card, 350watt powerdevice win98se german + usp2.1 + dx9 + nforce driver+ amds gemback cool&quiet driver http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_ty...CNQ_1_0_8_1.EXE results2: 'off' = 6,4 watt boot = ~110watt idle(desktop+Amd C&Q) = 82 watt idle(kcpucooler+Amd C&Q) = 75 watt (measurement of complete pc without monitor) win98se seems not to do any cpu power savings (even when acpi enabled?) when the systems idles, so, perhaps a kind of software cpucooler should be added to the uSP , maybe as option. also intressting was , that even with the amd powernow driver, the softcooler (which uses the HLT command only) can get another 7 watt saving.... kcpucooler (free and small and robust) http://www.kt2k.com/software.php?id=8 greets

but problem with AR 5.x is , no support for pdf version 1.5 & 1.6 . (...but the free foxit reader supports win9x & pdf versions >1.4 http://www.foxitsoftware.com/foxitreader/foxitreader.zip it is only 1mb and much faster then the acrobat reader... ) I agree with LLXX, newer versions of Adobe Acrobat Reader are resource hogs unless you disable some of the plugins Acrobat Reader loads. there is an Acrobat Reader 5.1. you can find a copy of AR 5.1 at the Oldversion.com site. AR 5.1 is no longer available for download at the Adobe site.

nt dlls disassemled and reprogrammed.... http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t...der=asc&start=0

bugreport 2.1a German: dsound.dll seems older than from directx 9c... after install of servicepack the dsound.dll from directx9 was overwritten and diablo2 crashed on start, also DXDIAG reports an version error with dsound.dll ... after reinstall of direct x 9c, it works again. dsound.dll in servicepack comes from dx7? please change install behaviour of this dll.

anybody else, who can confim this? This issue does not seem to appear here did you comply with the install guide? no... simply over sp2.1. Route : SP 1.6, sp16.2 ..., sp2.0 , sp2.1, sp2.1a

bug report for 2.1a GERMAN: - wordpad don't crash anymore one some doc files (like in version 2.x) --> good - but now the pulldown menu for the font size is empty, but the font size is changeable through the edit field

thanks for suggestion... got the last available DFI bios... and tried also an generic bios patcher -> http://www.rom.by/ no difference. i'm aware of the posible problematic of weak psu... got problems with shutdown & or hdd some time before... abd PSU was reason... capacitators are ok (not exploded nor bulged) and 2. thing.... the fx5700 was the first 0.13 produced gfx chip from nvidia with low power demands... look here -> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/dis...nv-power_9.html agp should also be compatible look here -> http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html tried also the newest 9x compatible detonator release 81.xx (i think) ... same behaviour... so... i think the reason is bios or win9x is set... also tried to force an irq and changed slot... no difference (ps: irq is NOT shared) i think , irq is not the problem. checked... no other graphiccard installed (used detonator remover and removed by hand.... and tried fresh win98se install ...same problem)

hello krick, maybe you are right... it can be an initalizing problem on boot up... but the card is always initalized correct but only everytime with another set of memory... this is not allowed for win98se? can win98 se not handle this? if i change the ressources of an other device (eg IRQ) it is detected instantly on startup of win98 no second reboot is needed ...why not on my graphiccard? When a computer is starting up is when the heaviest demands are made on the electrical system. There's a big spike in the load with all the drives and fans starting up at the same time. It makes perfect sense that the computer would have trouble initializing a device that demands a lot of voltage like a video card. I still stand by my original assessments. Just for fun, get your system running "stable", then run the Prime95 torture test overnight and let me know it makes out... http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm

hello krick, when it works ...it work stable...run succesful warcarft 3 and other stuff... according to the agp spec. this universal agp card is agp 1.0 slot compatible... so i don't think it is an power or voltage issue... (i would be randomly crashing on load...but it runs stable) th only issue is the intializing problem....

hello got an socket 7 system with k6-3+, via mvp3 chipset and win98se + sp2.0.2 german... via 4in1 driver 4.35 and nvidia driver 53.xx but got an problem ... on every reboot the graphic card (leadtek geforce 5700) allocate a new set of memeory range...and windows don't recognize it... instead it stated an resource conflict... removing the card from the hardware manager , and redetecting leads to correct detection... and then i have to do a SOFT reboot (with shift pressed) and then it works... someone know this problem? or an workaround? (perhaps in the .inf file for alllowed memory regions?) here another post from me to this topic...some pcitures and more information... http://www.k6plus.com/index.php?name=PNphp...iewtopic&t=1476

hmmm... use an silicon image ata controller and have to say ... it works. ..but the flash bios support sucks bad... have to seek LOONG time in internet for an version which works on my socket 7 board... the only one which works for me was an very old without raid support... so be warned

I wonder if WINE's implementation of some of the DLL's would work... They're basically what you're talking about. Heck, I wonder if, given the current speed of the WINE project, if a partially free Windows could be created using WINE-based DLLs. Seeing as DirectX9 support is beginning to be implemented into Wine, there's probably enough of an understanding for kernel32.dll's code for an alternative dll to be compiled for use in Windows 9x... But then again, I'm no programmer, so I'm probably wrong. ;( <{POST_SNAPBACK}> nice idea! ....someone related (or near) to the wine project?