PC Review


Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread

PIC vs. APIC, hardware independent images, and Driver Roll Back

 
 
=?Utf-8?B?VC4gVHlyb25l?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      15th Mar 2006
Hello, all;

I have been building Windows XP SP 2 images and have been trying to create
one that will work for most hardware in use where I work. I have run into
the situation that others have where using the "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" (ACPI
APIC UP HAL) on my master build machine causes the image to fail on machines
that use the "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC" (ACPI PIC
HAL) driver. Like others have, I found that using "Advanced Configuration
and Power Interface (ACPI) PC" on the master build machine causes the image
to work on most hardware. However, now I have the situation where any PC I
put this image on is using the ACPI PIC HAL, and as it says in KB article
309283, "...running a PIC HAL on an APIC computer is not supported" (not to
mention my multiprocessor PCs only show one processor).

I have read where others manually copy the HALAACPI.DLL for APIC PCs. I now
have the image autologon after the minisetup and script the use of the
SMBIOSD.EXE utility and flag for the "On-chip APIC supported" string. If the
string is found, the script copies the HAPAACPI.DLL to %sysdir%\system32,
then reboots. This works well, because if the PC is multiprocessor or
hyperthreaded, XP will automatically update the HAL to HAPMACPI.DLL. The
downside to this is now my builds are not supported: from the same KB article
309283: "Microsoft also does not support swapping out the files that are used
by the HAL to manually change HAL types."

A brief aside: I can take my personal workstation that uses the "ACPI
Multiprocessor PC" (ACPI APIC MP HAL) and "update driver" to "Advanced
Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC." Since this is not supported
(PIC HAL on APIC PC), I can "Roll Back Driver" to "ACPI Multiprocessor PC."
Now I assume my PC is supported again.

So if I can't manually copy the file, can I do this:

Build my master image with "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" and then update the driver
to "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC." Sysprep my image,
and then when ghosted onto the target PC, have it autologon and use
SMBIOSD.EXE to flag for APIC. If found, instead of manually copying the
file, do an automated Driver Roll Back. Viola, no manual swap of files,
hence, still supported.

This brings me to my question: is there a way to script the roll back of the
driver?

Thanks;
T. Tyrone
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Adam Leinss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      16th Mar 2006
=?Utf-8?B?VC4gVHlyb25l?= <T. (E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Hello, all;
>
> I have been building Windows XP SP 2 images and have been trying
> to create one that will work for most hardware in use where I
> work. I have run into the situation that others have where using
> the "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" (ACPI APIC UP HAL) on my master build
> machine causes the image to fail on machines that use the
> "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC" (ACPI PIC
> HAL) driver. Like others have, I found that using "Advanced
> Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC" on the master build
> machine causes the image to work on most hardware. However, now I
> have the situation where any PC I put this image on is using the
> ACPI PIC HAL, and as it says in KB article 309283, "...running a
> PIC HAL on an APIC computer is not supported" (not to mention my
> multiprocessor PCs only show one processor).


Sorry, no solution, just a comment! I've used the APCI HAL for
all my Windows 2000 and Windows XP images at two different companies
without incident. Dells, Compaqs, HPs, Gateways, even clones, it all
works great.

I understand your want to conform with Microsoft's recommendations,
but using a 3rd party tool to determine the processor type and then
have it pick the right HAL isn't supported either. Microsoft only
supports using different images for different HAL types:

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Window...16a9be2c-156d-
45d7-8329-b9b23097b3b61033.mspx.

Curiously, some Microsoft employees have praised people for making an
"universal image" for all hardware using "unsupported Microsoft
methods", others have condemened it. At the end of the day when I
have 8 different types of hardware and I can use one image or
several, I choose one. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of
the few or the one", as Dr. Spock would say.

P.S. I have yet, after asking why using an ACPI HAL on a Uniprocessor
is bad, gotten a response as to why it is bad or unsupported (other
then Microsoft simply stating "not supported").

Adam
--
Visit my PC Tech blog at www.leinss.com/blog
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?Utf-8?B?VC4gVHlyb25l?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      16th Mar 2006


"Adam Leinss" wrote:

> =?Utf-8?B?VC4gVHlyb25l?= <T. (E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> in news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > Hello, all;
> >
> > I have been building Windows XP SP 2 images and have been trying
> > to create one that will work for most hardware in use where I
> > work. I have run into the situation that others have where using
> > the "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" (ACPI APIC UP HAL) on my master build
> > machine causes the image to fail on machines that use the
> > "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC" (ACPI PIC
> > HAL) driver. Like others have, I found that using "Advanced
> > Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC" on the master build
> > machine causes the image to work on most hardware. However, now I
> > have the situation where any PC I put this image on is using the
> > ACPI PIC HAL, and as it says in KB article 309283, "...running a
> > PIC HAL on an APIC computer is not supported" (not to mention my
> > multiprocessor PCs only show one processor).

>
> Sorry, no solution, just a comment! I've used the APCI HAL for
> all my Windows 2000 and Windows XP images at two different companies
> without incident. Dells, Compaqs, HPs, Gateways, even clones, it all
> works great.
>
> I understand your want to conform with Microsoft's recommendations,
> but using a 3rd party tool to determine the processor type and then
> have it pick the right HAL isn't supported either. Microsoft only
> supports using different images for different HAL types:
>
> http://technet2.microsoft.com/Window...16a9be2c-156d-
> 45d7-8329-b9b23097b3b61033.mspx.
>
> Curiously, some Microsoft employees have praised people for making an
> "universal image" for all hardware using "unsupported Microsoft
> methods", others have condemened it. At the end of the day when I
> have 8 different types of hardware and I can use one image or
> several, I choose one. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of
> the few or the one", as Dr. Spock would say.
>
> P.S. I have yet, after asking why using an ACPI HAL on a Uniprocessor
> is bad, gotten a response as to why it is bad or unsupported (other
> then Microsoft simply stating "not supported").
>
> Adam
> --
> Visit my PC Tech blog at www.leinss.com/blog
>


Hi Adam;

Thanks for the reply. I have seen the "Evaluating Hardware Differences"
article and I suppose you're right, using one image is better than multiple
even if it crosses the MS line of supportability. The image works, and at
the end process, the target PC will be using the right HAL. The reason why I
went with the PIC HAL on my master build machine is because the original
image using the APIC HAL would not boot on an IBM R51 laptop. Now the image
boots on everything, but then I realized that multiprocessor PCs only showed
one processor in Task Manager, and then it dawned on me that the APIC
machines were not playing the happy logon tune, either. Now with the process
of copying over the HALAACPI.DLL, multiprocessor PCs now show both, and the
PC audio is working again. I guess I've just been spinning my wheels trying
to have a facade of "supportability" by doing a driver roll back, when in
essence, that is really what I have the image doing.

Thanks for the comment!

Cheers;
T
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roll up Roll up captain zed General Discussion 19 30th Apr 2009 05:42 PM
How to fix size of frame independent of rsolution of sreen or bowser independent. gujarsachin2001@gmail.com Microsoft Dot NET 1 26th Feb 2007 12:55 AM
Hardware independent image - driver issue? =?Utf-8?B?Y2JzcG9jaw==?= Windows XP Setup 2 29th Sep 2006 02:27 PM
When i click on a pic in ie and choose save pic, the option is always untitled.bmp! peter Windows XP General 3 5th May 2005 02:38 PM
Need help re pic in pic cam Debbie Windows XP General 4 15th Aug 2004 05:59 AM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:18 AM.