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

[BenoitRen]

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.

[marxo]

BenoitRen - It is pointless scaring them off they are multiplying rapidly. They are assimilating our people

[MrCobra]

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 August 5, 2007 by MrCobra

[BenoitRen]

Yet so true.

[MrCobra]

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.

[marxo]

Until that happens, STFU.

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

[teddy123]

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

[ohmss006]

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.

[cyprod]

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.

[ohmss006]

anyone may i ask?

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

[RJARRRPCGP]

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.

[RJARRRPCGP]

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.

[Sfor]

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.

[ohmss006]

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?

[raskren]

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.com/hk/windows2000/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 August 12, 2007 by raskren