XP Pro clone dying after a day or two with hal.dll error

[RickC]

I ran out of space on my original 120gig main drive and acquired a new 500gig
Maxtor. I cloned the 120 over to the new 500. It booted clean initally, but
after a few days showed a hal.dll error. I have since tried many of the
suggested hal.dll error solution and have gone to the lengths of reformatting
the 500, reinstalling the system from and Acronis backup image, re-cloning
from the source drive. Each time it boots initially but at some point within
the first few days, I get the hal.dll error again. The source and new
drives are clean physically and for viruses. The fact that, at least for a
short period after cloning or recovering the Acronis backup image, I can both
warm boot and cold boot without getting the hal.dll error is making me think
XP is doing something. Is it possible that when the system does an
automatic check for Windows updates it is getting dinged because it doesn't
match the "verified" profile at Microsoft (or which the verification routine
stored on the system when it ran) (i.e., it isn't a Segate drive so it
thinks it is an illegal copy)?

I alerady have a second internal hard drive and two
externals to handle my files and backups, so not getting this up and running
is a non starter. I've reinstalled the old drive and pulled enough files to
keep me limping along, but I need to get it resolved.

Any insight on what is going on or how to fix it will
be appreciated.
Thanks

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I ran out of space on my original 120gig main drive and acquired a
new 500gig Maxtor. I cloned the 120 over to the new 500. It
booted clean initally, but after a few days showed a hal.dll error.
I have since tried many of the suggested hal.dll error solution and
have gone to the lengths of reformatting the 500, reinstalling the
system from and Acronis backup image, re-cloning from the source
drive. Each time it boots initially but at some point within the
first few days, I get the hal.dll error again. The source and new
drives are clean physically and for viruses. The fact that, at
least for a short period after cloning or recovering the Acronis
backup image, I can both warm boot and cold boot without getting
the hal.dll error is making me think XP is doing something. Is it
possible that when the system does an automatic check for Windows
updates it is getting dinged because it doesn't match the
"verified" profile at Microsoft (or which the verification routine
stored on the system when it ran) (i.e., it isn't a Segate drive
so it thinks it is an illegal copy)?

I alerady have a second internal hard drive and two
externals to handle my files and backups, so not getting this up
and running is a non starter. I've reinstalled the old drive and
pulled enough files to keep me limping along, but I need to get it
resolved.

Any insight on what is going on or how to fix it will
be appreciated.

Any reason you have decided to post anew instead of sticking with your
original and identical thread?
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...4f1c4d04635/a5c54d74b0666e8c#a5c54d74b0666e8c

 

[DL]

didnt you post this yesterday

 

[Anteaus]

Since the change crosses the 128GB barrier, it may be that you have
experienced the dreaded 'address wrap-around' damage.

If the BIOS or OS cannot handle 48-bit LBA addresses, then what happens is
that the disk will work until you fill it past the 128GB mark, at which point
the address-counter will 'roll around' back to zero and start over-writing
the first few sectors of the disk. Since these sectors contian the most
important information of all, the result is a nuke-out.

A very useful site on this:

http://www.48bitlba.com

There are other possible reasons (like simply a duff new disk, or bad cable)
but this is a prime suspect.

 

[RickC]

Shenan, I didn't see the Setup and Deployment thread until after I had
posted the first one on basics. I thought this thread might get more reviews
by those who had faced the problem before.

 

[RickC]

Thanks, Would I be running into thie addressing probelm even if I had a 400
gig drive already on the system (my second internal)? It works perfectly.

 

[Anteaus]

Unlikely. Unless of course the 400 has never been filled past the 128GB mark,
in which case you won't have encountered the problem.