I mistakenly installed W2K Pro while HyperThreading was enabled in the
BIOS. My understanding (from reading in this NG) is that since W2K
sees a P4 with HT as two processors, the system will actually be
slower than if it were installed with HT disabled.

I know that one can change from a single to multi processor HAL, as
described here:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;234558

How do go the opposite direction *without* having to re-install the
entire system from scratch?

Thanks,
Sam

(E-Mail Removed) (Silence Seeker) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I mistakenly installed W2K Pro while HyperThreading was enabled in the
> BIOS. My understanding (from reading in this NG) is that since W2K
> sees a P4 with HT as two processors, the system will actually be
> slower than if it were installed with HT disabled.
>
> I know that one can change from a single to multi processor HAL, as
> described here:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;234558
>
> How do go the opposite direction *without* having to re-install the
> entire system from scratch?
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>

Actually I would not change to single processor HAL. Windows 2000 will
also benefit from Hyperthreading. It is possible for a specific
application to run slower but most will run faster, just not as well as
with a Hyperthreading aware OS. If you do change to single processor HAL
you can try doing it through Device Manager. If it causes problems you
can do a repair install.

Leonard Severt

Windows 2000 Server Setup Team

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

Not necessary.

If you only run one processor with a multi-processor
HAL, things will work fine.

"Silence Seeker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I mistakenly installed W2K Pro while HyperThreading was enabled in the
> BIOS. My understanding (from reading in this NG) is that since W2K
> sees a P4 with HT as two processors, the system will actually be
> slower than if it were installed with HT disabled.
>
> I know that one can change from a single to multi processor HAL, as
> described here:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;234558
>
> How do go the opposite direction *without* having to re-install the
> entire system from scratch?
>
> Thanks,
> Sam

Try disabling HT in the bios and see if the system works.

If not, restart, go back into the bios, and re-enable HT.

Then do the machine-type change throught the device manager if you insist on
downgrading.

NuTs

"Vance Green" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not necessary.
>
> If you only run one processor with a multi-processor
> HAL, things will work fine.
>
> "Silence Seeker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I mistakenly installed W2K Pro while HyperThreading was enabled in the
> > BIOS. My understanding (from reading in this NG) is that since W2K
> > sees a P4 with HT as two processors, the system will actually be
> > slower than if it were installed with HT disabled.
> >
> > I know that one can change from a single to multi processor HAL, as
> > described here:
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;234558
> >
> > How do go the opposite direction *without* having to re-install the
> > entire system from scratch?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sam
>
>

Thank you nut, Vance and Leonard. I accepted your suggestion and left
the BIOS at HT. Task Manager Performance tab shows 2 CPU windows -
each one showing different usage graph over time, which seems to
suggest that not only the "two halves" of the CPU are utilized, but
they are utilized differently.

Does that mean that W2K supports HT better than what Microsoft and
Intel claim? If so, it's a win-win (no pun intended) situation for me:
Avoiding Win XP without giving up anything.

BTW, this configuration is ROCK SOLID. No lockups or any of the
problems some other postings suggest.

Regards,
Sam



"nut cracker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<#(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Try disabling HT in the bios and see if the system works.
>
> If not, restart, go back into the bios, and re-enable HT.
>
> Then do the machine-type change throught the device manager if you insist on
> downgrading.
>
> NuTs
>
> "Vance Green" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Not necessary.
> >
> > If you only run one processor with a multi-processor
> > HAL, things will work fine.
> >

(E-Mail Removed) (Silence Seeker) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Thank you nut, Vance and Leonard. I accepted your suggestion and left
> the BIOS at HT. Task Manager Performance tab shows 2 CPU windows -
> each one showing different usage graph over time, which seems to
> suggest that not only the "two halves" of the CPU are utilized, but
> they are utilized differently.
>
> Does that mean that W2K supports HT better than what Microsoft and
> Intel claim? If so, it's a win-win (no pun intended) situation for me:
> Avoiding Win XP without giving up anything.
>
> BTW, this configuration is ROCK SOLID. No lockups or any of the
> problems some other postings suggest.
>
> Regards,
> Sam
>
>
>
> "nut cracker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<#(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> Try disabling HT in the bios and see if the system works.
>>
>> If not, restart, go back into the bios, and re-enable HT.
>>
>> Then do the machine-type change throught the device manager if you
>> insist on downgrading.
>>
>> NuTs
>>
>> "Vance Green" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Not necessary.
>> >
>> > If you only run one processor with a multi-processor
>> > HAL, things will work fine.
>> >
>

Glad it is working for you. Windows 2000 does not support HT at all,
doesn't know anything about it. It just sees 2 processors. I would not
expect you to have any problems as HT does not cause any stability
problems.

Leonard Severt

Windows 2000 Server Setup Team

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.