How to change from a multi-processor HAL to a single-processor HAL

[Silence Seeker]

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.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;234558

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

Thanks,
Sam

 

[Leonard Severt [MSFT]]

(e-mail address removed) (Silence Seeker) wrote in

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.aspx?scid=kb;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

 

[Vance Green]

Not necessary.

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

 

[nut cracker]

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

 

[Silence Seeker]

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

 

[Leonard Severt [MSFT]]

(e-mail address removed) (Silence Seeker) wrote in

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

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