• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

*POST DELETED* Increase System Speed - Is Your System missing Virtual Device Drivers?

M

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Edit: I deleted this post due to comments made below. It appears that I was misinformed and I do not want mis-inform anyone else. Sorry for the mistake...but to err is human.
 
I thought about it decided I don't want make people click on a link just to see my system. On the other hand, maybe some members are offended by system specs and don't want to see them😉...humm? Ya, I guess I'll do it.
 
Read about this a few months ago. It does seem to improve the reliability of 98SE from my experience.

Couple things though, the directions I have direct you to install the drivers in windows/system AND windows/system/vmm32 directories.

For 98SE all of the drivers were found in cab 54 and 53.
 
This supposed issue has been floating around for a while.
I remember it being discussed on the Win98-L mailing list back in may of 1999.

This is inaccurate information, the "missing" files are actually built into
the VMM32.VXD file during Windows install. The only reason to have any
of those vxd files included on their own would be if there was an updated
version of the driver that needed to take precedence over the version
inside VMM32. There is no record (AFAIR) of any performance difference
from having those files loaded seperately.

Here's a link correcting the assumption that this is a bug in Windows
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9905C&L=win98-l&P=R8460

"Those VxDs are *supposed* to be inside VMM32, not as free
standing files on the disk.
When you have updated VxDs they are placed in the VMM32
subfolder where they load in preference to those in the monolith."


Here's a few other comments from that thread.
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9905C&L=win98-l&P=R9605
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9905D&L=win98-l&P=R493

For a full writeup on this topic, plus tips on how to rebuild your VMM32 file:
http://www.windows-help.net/techfiles/vmm32.html
 
Hey CQuinn, thanks for clearing this up for me. I had a feeling Microsoft wouldn't continue to leave out the specific VXDs in later versions of Win9X/ME if it really was an issue in previous versions.
 
I agree with CQuinn on this one.

it does not speed up anything,and the missing files are in the vmm32.vxd.
 
I kind of wondered to myself why I've never seen this posted anywhere before...this certainly explains it.😱😀

However...I do not know what this is worth...doing this to an old system of mine improved boot time at least 5 seconds. Certain operations in win98 did seem to proceed faster as well.

I'm not a CS/IT guy so forgive me if this is ignorant...but if the VMM32.vxd is only instantized once in the OS would multiple device technically be sharing the same instantized code/instructions and therefore fuddling with one another's operation (ie: the OS is jungling control/resoruces of the VMM32.vxd between multiple device)?? Installing the smaller component VXD's would lessen the jungling required...

Or are the needed components of VMM32 instantized separately for each device requiring support?

Could someone please comments on this? Thanks.
 
After reading CQuinn's links...I think it best for me to delete the post lest I become an agent of misinformation.

Thanks for the input CQuinn...
 
You guys are welcome, I hope my reply did not sound too harsh... I was
rushing a little to look up valid links to explain the issue.

miniMUNCH, I think the idea was that any app that would be sharing a VXD should
be addressing the same instance of the driver; whether it is loaded from the VMM
or separately. This is a trade-off, more efficient management of the resource with
a slightly greater risk that the driver will poorly handle multiple requests.

That doesn't really answer the question, but as far as I know, the VMM32 file is
designed to react to the system as if it was the individual file.
 
Ya I guess my real question is "what is the situation here?":

Say we have ten devices that need and share VXD support included in VMM32.vxd. Does loading the required VXD's seperately now effectively reduce sharing of VXD drivers among devices because each VXD is it's own instance where as the VMM32 is a single instance; so only three devices need to share ntkern.vxd while only one device needs "fictious.vxd" instead of ten device sharing VMM32. Devices would not need to "wait" as long for their VXD resources.

If the OS sees VMM32.vxd as individual instances of the VXD driver components then this discussion is moot and we are only talking about semantics, and loading the VXD's separately is a waste of time.

However, I have noticed a small improvement in general performance of windows...how fast windows pop up and close, how fast Explorer comes up...ya know, little. And my system definitely boots faster (about 3-5 seconds faster I'd say). Of course, this all subjective and could be a figment of my imagination.
 
Dont feel sorry miniMUNCH,

That's what these forums are all about,people sharing ideals & exploring them.🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top