Multi-Cores & Timings - Are they driver related or system?

[UltraO]

Hello. If I am correct Windows 95 has problems with cpu clocks above 350MHz? And Windows 98 SE can at a max utilize 2.8 GHz? Anyways I at least know that they aren't capable of using Multi-Core CPUs and/or Multi CPUs. So I wonder , is this driver related or system related? Because I remember that in Windows XP, Service Pack 2 is required to be able to use more than 1 cpu/cpu core. I had a look at a fresh XP install with a Pentium M 740, the driver version was signed at 2001, then, after XP SP2. It was signed 2004, and that year is when Service Pack 2 was released. So it makes me think, if it would be possible to make a cpu driver or maybe modify one from XP, and then put it in Windows 9x systems, giving suppport for high clocks AND multi-cores/multi CPUs . If that is not possible then maybe take the Windows 98 SE or Me cpu driver and put in in Windows 95, so Windows 98 will be able to run well on CPUs with a 350Mhz+ clock speed. I believe it is driver related, rather than system related as I found out that thing with Windows XP(although it's a NT based system, not DOS). Is it possible that I am right?

[TravisO]

You can't, multiple CPUs/cores requires multi-threading support within the kernel. This is why MS had to drop Win9x entirely and create the NT kernel (aka Win 2000), it required a massive rewrite from scratch.

And as far as supporting higher Mhz/Ghz, that's irrelevant, that's like saying you need a different glove box in your car to support a V8 vs a V6. Win98 will be twice as fast an a 3ghz system as it would a 1.5ghz system, so in other words, it does "support" higher clock rates.

If you have a dual core system, you need to just move on to XP, you're system will run twice as fast as it does on 98, you'll be much happier.

[UltraO]

Ok

[blackwire]

You can't, multiple CPUs/cores requires multi-threading support within the kernel. This is why MS had to drop Win9x entirely and create the NT kernel (aka Win 2000), it required a massive rewrite from scratch.

If you have a dual core system, you need to just move on to XP, you're system will run twice as fast as it does on 98, you'll be much happier.

You mean aka Windows NT 3.1 circa 1993. In 1993 if you had a single core 32 bit CPU with an FPU, you were on the cutting edge. NT was not created for 64bit or quad core CPU's, it was created to be a Unix competitor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt

Be careful what version of XP you get, XP home does not support multiple CPU's. My understanding is that it will support 1 multicore CPU, but sources are not clear on this.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

Quote:"Multi-processor support - Windows XP Pro supports up to two microprocessors, while Home Edition supports only one. "

Edited May 19, 2009 by blackwire

[eidenk]

Rudolf Loew, the guy who did the RAM patch, has said in a post that he was working on a patch to add multiple core support to Win 98SE/ME if I am not not mistaken. It will be an interesting shareware to buy if he suceeds.

[eidenk]

BTW what TravisO says is not correct I think.

Running XP will not make your system run twice as fast on a dual core than on a similarly clocked single core. It certainly won't do that.

It will boost applications whose calculations can be parallelized and that have been coded specifically for that or it will allow you to use two CPU intensive apps on a core each for example but the system won't be faster at any rate as the system runs on one core only AFAIK.

[cluberti]

BTW what TravisO says is not correct I think.

Running XP will not make your system run twice as fast on a dual core than on a similarly clocked single core. It certainly won't do that.

It will boost applications whose calculations can be parallelized and that have been coded specifically for that or it will allow you to use two CPU intensive apps on a core each for example but the system won't be faster at any rate as the system runs on one core only AFAIK.

Windows NT-based systems like 2000, XP, Vista, and Win7 are all capable of running the Windows kernel across multiple processors. However, it is correct that you won't see double the speed of Windows by adding a second CPU or CPU core - Windows is almost always far more memory-starved than CPU-cycle starved. You will likely make an NT-based system more responsive with multiple CPUs or CPU cores and/or able to run more applications in parallel, but it won't be much faster.

Be careful what version of XP you get, XP home does not support multiple CPU's. My understanding is that it will support 1 multicore CPU, but sources are not clear on this.

Windows XP Pro supports 2 sockets (what Microsoft considers a CPU, regardless of how many cores the CPU has), and XP Home supports 1 socket. Meaning if you have one quad-core CPU, Windows XP Home and Professional would all see 4 "processors" - however, if you added a second quad-core CPU, Windows XP Home would still only see 4 processors but Windows XP Professional would see all 8. From the link:

Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.

[LoneCrusader]

Ahh... I can make my first post in a thread that I know something about.. heh.

Windows 95 does have problems with many CPU's higher than 350 MHz. (Windows Protection Error in IOS.VXD) However, Microsoft and AMD issued a fix for this (amdk6upd.exe - remember when K6-2 Super Socket 7's were the screaming processor? lol ) This patch fixes the problem with processors up to 2.1 GHz, where a second problem occurs. (Windows Protection Error in NDIS.VXD) I spent many hours trying to get around this problem. This problem also affects 98FE, and M$ issued a hotfix for 98FE. The hotfix will not work on Windows 95.. I tried pulling files out of it and installing them manually, etc etc, it did not work.

Here's what happens: 95 will install properly, then on the reboot you will get the first (IOS) error. After patching this error, you will get the second one (NDIS). I tried copying versions of ndis.vxd from the 98FE hotfix and from 98SE and putting them into 95, but this was unsuccessful. Being exasperated at this point, I just went and deleted ndis.vxd and then it gave another error concerning nwredir.vxd so I deleted it as well. Then - lo and behold, it said those two files were missing, press a key to continue.. and 95 loaded up. Only one more error message was displayed, "The NetWare compatible shell is unavailable." then, 95 went happily about its business. All this was done on a 3.06 GHz P4 HT machine.

So - other than networking functions, 95 will run on processors faster than 2.1GHz. Getting there is rough, and the lack of networking (dial up, broadband, etc) effectively kills a lot of usefulness; but it CAN be done. (I'll bet Rudolph Loew could fix it )

As far as I know, Windows 98 SE does not have a limit on the speed of processor it can use (or at least it hasn't been hit yet).

[BenoitRen]

Indeed, it's a timing error in a system file. What you do is boot into DOS and replace IOS.VXD with the patched version manually.