Question about 'Making Sure the Correct HAL is Installed'
Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:16 pm
Posted by CyBorge
(2 messages posted)
quote from an annoyances.org article:
Although Windows will allow you to specify a new HAL here by double-clicking, selecting
the Driver tab, and clicking Update Driver, DON'T DO IT. Instead, to install a new
HAL, you need to reinstall Windows:
i'm wondering specifically why it's recommended not to just update the "driver."
in my environment at work, we use a standard clone for virtually every machine, but
there is one dual processor oddball. the clone works fine, but it only uses one
cpu. i wanted to enable both cpu's, and the update driver method seemed to work.
the user has been running for several months with no complaints. sooo, what's the
reasoning behind not using this solution?
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Question about 'Making Sure the Correct HAL is Installed'
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 at 10:17 am
Posted by coyote
(2 messages posted)
From what I've read recently, switching the drivers will replace the active 'hal.dll'
with the appropriate halxxxx.dll for the hardware. The real problem is switching
between Standard PC and ACPI PC because the registry definitions of hardware are
different. Since, presumably, your uni and multi processor machines are both defined
as ACPI, just swaping the hals works. Again, BIG TIME "not so" when trying to switch
between Standard and ACPI.
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:16 pm, CyBorge wrote:
>quote from an annoyances.org article:
>
>Although Windows will allow you to specify a new HAL here by double-clicking, selecting
>the Driver tab, and clicking Update Driver, DON'T DO IT. Instead, to install a new
>HAL, you need to reinstall Windows:
>
>i'm wondering specifically why it's recommended not to just update the "driver."
>
>in my environment at work, we use a standard clone for virtually every machine,
but
>there is one dual processor oddball. the clone works fine, but it only uses one
>cpu. i wanted to enable both cpu's, and the update driver method seemed to work.
> the user has been running for several months with no complaints. sooo, what's
the
>reasoning behind not using this solution?
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
