Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 30804	2003-03-03 21:24:00	Redundant Pentium 111	Scouse (83)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
125266	2003-03-03 21:24:00	Requesting advice from the wizards.... I'm running a gifted second-hand box (from a son), from which all programs had been deleted, and in to which I have relocated my Win98SE and all other odds-and-sods accumulated over some years. A number of my old DOS related programs do not function well, or at all but that seems a small price to pay for speed and stability. I now find myself with a system with Intel Pentium 111x2, 765 MB RAM and a 30 GB drive. QUESTONS: 1. Win98 uses only one Pentium 111 - how did it make the selection when I loaded Windows? 2. At each start up, does the system choose the same 111 or is it a random thing? 3. What, if anything, does the redundant 111 do in normal system use? (I plan to leave both in, just in case I ever, ever upgrade from the safety of Win98.) 4. Did I read somethere once that Win98 can have too much RAM? If so, how much is too much, and why?	Scouse (83)
125267	2003-03-03 21:36:00	a dual cpu p3 really needs an os that can use dual cpu's. win98 can't. you will proberly need to disable oneof the cpu's to run win 98. you would better to use win2k, XPpro or linux. to much ram? the motherboard will proberly max out before windows does.(tho win98 needs a few adjustments when running more than 512) match your software to the hardware and you'll have less problems	tweak'e (174)
125268	2003-03-03 21:39:00	> I now find myself with a system with Intel Pentium > 111x2, 765 MB RAM and a 30 GB drive. Ummm... Is this a Pentium 3 or not? Can't quite understand what you've described there. > QUESTONS: > 1. Win98 uses only one Pentium 111 - how did it make > the selection when I loaded Windows? Pentium 3 refers to the CPU (processor). Your computer will only have one CPU running it. > 2. At each start up, does the system choose the same > 111 or is it a random thing? Choose it to do what? I'm sorry I don't reaaly follow this... > 3. What, if anything, does the redundant 111 do in > normal system use? I'm pretty certain you would only have one CPU in there... not 2. > (I plan to leave both in, just in case I ever, ever > upgrade from the safety of Win98.) > 4. Did I read somethere once that Win98 can have too > much RAM? If so, how much is too much, and why? Too much is anything over 512mb. I had troubles with any combination of DDR333 ram over 512mb on my old system, even after tweaking etc. Ended up shifting to Windows 2000 Pro and have 1gig of ram in there running very nicely. Might pay to check the specs of your PC. I don't think you've got 2 P3 processors in there. Lo.	Lohsing (219)
125269	2003-03-03 21:42:00	Actually, on reading Tweake's reply I know you can get a dual processor P3 system, but it just seems wierd that your son would have a dual processor system AND be running Windows 98... It'd be pretty expensive to have a dual processor system anyway, wouldn't it?! Lo.	Lohsing (219)
125270	2003-03-03 21:49:00	A few answers to your questions. Both CPU's will be running, but the operating system is not capable of utilising the second CPU so it remains in an idle state. You would need to use a multiple CPU OS to obtain any performance increase. Windows 2000, XP Professional or a pentium optimised flavour of linux. With RAM it depends on who you listen to and what you read. Win9x supposedly can have performance and stability issues over the 700 or 800 Mb limits. From memory this may have been primarily ME. Performance increase with additional RAM over 256Mb is meant to be small. A recent APC article showed increases of about 1-2% when going from 256 to 512Mb. So, yes there is an increase but... Hope this helps :)	Gorela (901)
125271	2003-03-03 21:51:00	lohsing.....u need glasses ;-) if i read it right he's been given a dual p3 system without any software and has installed his own win98 which of course will not run right as win98 is for single cpu system only. yeah dual cpu systems are not cheap and you need to have the right software for them for it to be worth it. you'll only get a decent speed increase if the software is designed for dual cpu's.	tweak'e (174)
125272	2003-03-03 22:17:00	Thank you folks . Don't stop as I feel we are getting there . As Tweak'e says, Win98 was installed for my use . My queries arose from a Pcpitstop check after my stuff was all installed - just to check things out . The response included the following: ""Windows 95/98/Me Uses One Processor This system has more than one processor (CPU) and is running Windows 98 4 . 10 . 2222 A . This version of Windows does not support the use of more than one processor, therefore, the additional processor(s) is not being used . Note: This may be normal if the system is configured to boot between multiple operating systems and one or more of them support more than one processor . Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP Pro/Server, and Linux support multiple processors . Solutions: If this system only runs the operating system it is currently using, then the additional processor should be removed so it can be used more productively elsewhere . "" Thanks again .	Scouse (83)
125273	2003-03-03 22:49:00	another name for multi-processors is SMP - but anyway... as others have said any version of win 9x is not a multi/dual cpu OS ( and in windows 98se case also a fix for having more than 384mb or ram and 32gb of harddrive space ) so you'd have to look at xp pro or a version of linux ( and maybe use wine if you want to use your windows programs in linux ) and you could also try out the cool copy of knoppix that pcworld nz gave you on the October 2002 cd - you did get that issue didn't you? :-)	minos (3185)
125274	2003-03-03 22:55:00	> lohsing . . . . . u need glasses ;-) I feel like such a rookie right now . . . . :8} > if i read it right he's been given a dual p3 system > without any software and has installed his own win98 > which of course will not run right as win98 is for > single cpu system only . > > yeah dual cpu systems are not cheap and you need to > have the right software for them for it to be worth > it . you'll only get a decent speed increase if the > software is designed for dual cpu's . Windows 2000 and XP handle dual CPU's, right? Hope I got that part right, I know i'm no expert there! ok . . . keeping quiet now . . . Lo .	Lohsing (219)
125275	2003-03-03 23:08:00	Thanks minos, yes I subscribe and do have: ""and you could also try out the cool copy of knoppix that pcworld nz gave you on the October 2002 cd - you did get that issue didn't you?"" Having had a quiet, relatively clean run up through the versions of Windows for the last 12 years or so, I have read in horror the seemingly endless problems facing folks who use the later versions. I don't seem to recall as many problems with 3 and 3.11, 95 and my old favourite 98SE. (Perhaps there were not the platforms for discussion.) I've been fortunate enough to have never had to send all or parts of my systems for major servicing, never had a system crash and never lost data. If I have to upgrade to take advantage of this windfall machine's potential, then I face making a choice from what looks (from the safety of 98SE) like a choice between various cans of worms - which at my advancd age I can do wthout. Perhaps I might start a subject asking for advice on the best - though it has probably been done to death and will be in a FAQ somewhere. Thanks folks	Scouse (83)
1