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

Discussion in 'Windows XP Setup' started by Guest, Mar 15, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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
     
    Guest, Mar 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Adam Leinss Guest

    =?Utf-8?B?VC4gVHlyb25l?= <T. > wrote
    in news::

    > 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/WindowsServer/en/Library/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
     
    Adam Leinss, Mar 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: PIC vs. APIC, hardware independent images, and Driver Roll Bac

    "Adam Leinss" wrote:

    > =?Utf-8?B?VC4gVHlyb25l?= <T. > wrote
    > in news::
    >
    > > 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/WindowsServer/en/Library/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
     
    Guest, Mar 16, 2006
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mrtee

    Re: Roll back of XP upgrade?

    mrtee, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Windows XP Setup
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    288
    mrtee
    Aug 20, 2003
  2. dino467

    APIC enabled stops XP install

    dino467, Aug 29, 2004, in forum: Windows XP Setup
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    281
    Guest
    Aug 30, 2004
  3. Tim

    Removing SP2 roll-back and archive

    Tim, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Windows XP Setup
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    207
    Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)
    Sep 8, 2004
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,626
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    May 27, 2005
  5. Guest

    Hardware independent image - driver issue?

    Guest, Sep 26, 2006, in forum: Windows XP Setup
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    202
    Guest
    Sep 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page