Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


rloew

AHCI and Windows 9x

Recommended Posts

I'm a win-98 "power user" and I certainly can get by very easily without any of your patches. Anyone investigating the use of win-9x should be aware of what their options are, and some of those options involve setting up systems that don't need your patches.

As of Mar 15, 2015, there are 54 machines, owned by 37 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

Of these, 30 machines are multiboot setups and 23 machines use the RAM Limitation Patch.

Statistics don't lie. Most multibooting power users here at MSFN use the RAM Limitation Patch and some use also other RLoew programs besides that one. Some don't. Everybody should know the options, of course. With LLXX's patch and Usher's method, it's relatively easy to set an up to 1.5 GiB system on a non-SATA only motherboard. Going further up gets tough. Then again, why would anyone want to go beyond 1.5 GiB? Easy: multibooting. That's how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistics don't lie.

Sure they don't,  but the way they are represented may :unsure:, the fact that 9 machines in the list actually belong to the Author of the patch may influence the attribution of "most" and "some". :whistle:

 

DATA don't lie.

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is: the list has 21 machines without RLoew's patches and 23 using them, having 2 GiB or more of RAM installed.

Of course, RLoew contributed with 9 machines, but the point I'm trying to make is RLoew's patches are more necessary for 2 GiB and above. Below that, with no SATA drives, Usher's method and LLXX patch should be enough in most cases (but Xeno86's Vcache also helps). The list, as it is, supports these conclusions, IMO.

And, BTW, statistics don't lie and neither drink coffee: people, OTOH, do both, and may use both statistics and coffee as props for lying, but coffee is of little help for that end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is: the list has 21 machines without RLoew's patches and 23 using them, having 2 GiB or more of RAM installed.

Of course, RLoew contributed with 9 machines, but the point I'm trying to make is RLoew's patches are more necessary for 2 GiB and above. 

Sure :), and most probably, at a confidence level of (IMHO)  95% (i.e. very high) this represents the actual truth :thumbup, the point I was raising was on the methodology, not on the results.

 

You have a 21 to 23 ratio (which in statistics means 50%, not "most" or "some") situation in which at least one relevant part of the sample is inherently prone to be biased and this part (IF it is actually biased) is so relevant to undermine the whole procedure and results, 9 out of 23 is almost 40%.

 

If you apply a wrong methodology and by pure chance you get a correct result, the result remains correct and the method remains incorrect.

 

AND, JFYI, coffee does help in NOT lying ;):

http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/news/2014/04/Sleep-study-release

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have a Computer that runs slower, has less RAM, little or no RAM DISK space, only one useable core and a moderate sized Hard Drive at best.

 

 

Are you runnnig windows 98 on more than one core? Seems you are in for a 9x version of ReactOS...haha, no not that...better with the real thing, though modified... :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have a Computer that runs slower, has less RAM, little or no RAM DISK space, only one useable core and a moderate sized Hard Drive at best.

Are you runnnig windows 98 on more than one core? Seems you are in for a 9x version of ReactOS...haha, no not that...better with the real thing, though modified... :whistle:

Windows 98 only runs on one Core, which can be any one of them.

I wrote an API to use the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That's great, rloew, at least one dedicated 9x-developer who can work full time (I assume) on solutions... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Performance. I am currently running a Program that will take five months to complete. Based on smaller runs, it would have taken 40 years to run on 2004 Hardware.

I'm sorry - are you running a Program that will take five months to complete ON WINDOWS 98?

Are you sure it can stay up that long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Performance. I am currently running a Program that will take five months to complete. Based on smaller runs, it would have taken 40 years to run on 2004 Hardware.

I'm sorry - are you running a Program that will take five months to complete ON WINDOWS 98?

Are you sure it can stay up that long?

Yes and No. There is no way I could guarantee even having power for five months.

The Program saves it's intermediate results roughly daily. It passed the halfway point a few days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×