Hal detecting and changing

[yogger]

Ok, here is my scenario. I have about 6k workstations spread across about 15 different models (mostly Dell, but some HP/Compaq and IBM/Lenovo). We are getting more and more machines with Hyperthreading/Duo Core and would like to be able to take advantage of them. Are images are currently deployed via a bootable dos cd/dvd using ghost 8.2 and am under preasure to keep it universal image.

I need some help figuring out the best way to do this. Our image is about 2.3 gigs so I have space on the DVD to put winpe for now but would prefer something that could run inside XP itself. Are standards are fairly standard so I'm comfortable with a lookup table of machine model X needs this hal and Y needs this one but if anyone has a safer suggestion, I would take it.

What files if any do I need to change besides the hal*.dll and ntkrn*.exe? Are there registry changes to make? I've read through a few message boards but they seem to be incomplete as far as exactly what changes need to be made.

Any help would be appreciated

[stickzilla]

Are you ok with changing your standard image ? Because if so, this all can be fixed extremely easily.

Or are you looking for a way to force a HAL change post imaging of these new machines ?

[yogger]

I am doing a new image as there is new hardware coming soon. I don't care too much about the machines that are out there, but if possible, I may do a post image fix for at least the IT people. Just need to know the best way to do it so the image will remain compatible with the older models that don't support ht/dc.

[stickzilla]

If you are going to build a new image from scratch, that makes it all cake man ! Build the new image on a HT/DC machine, that way by default it is using the halmacpi.dll HAL

When you sysprep it, have this in the sysprep.ini

;SetupMgrTag

[unattended]

UpdateUPHAL="ACPIAPIC_UP,%WINDIR%\Inf\Hal.inf"

This switch will trigger the machine to check if it needs to use a Uniprocessor HAL, when the machine runs through minisetup. If so, it will properly configure the HAL.

I'm not sure how old your "older" machines are....as long as everything is at least an ACPI Uniprocessor / Multiprocessor machine, then its all gravy.

Now if want to find a way to force a HAL change on current machines, here are some instructions that you should be able to read over and pull the meat out of. Extremely simple procedure that I"ve done multiple times on XP workstations that were imaged poorly:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default....35e73b8.xml.asp

[yogger]

Thanks. My machines aren't that old, everything that I am supporting with this image will be P4 of some kind, but not everything has HT or duo core yet. Do I need to copy any extra files over to the image for the uniproc hal/kernel?

[IcemanND]

In my experience if you have your image built on a ACPI Uniprocessor system and deploy it to an ACPI Multiprocessor system in all of my tests it automatically adds the second processor and upgrade the HAL from ACPI Uni to ACPI Multi.

So you may not need to change anything at all if your existing image has the right HAL. If it has ACPI (non uniprocessor) then you have to replace the HAL before booting or use something like the Universal Imaging Utility from Binary Research.

[stickzilla]

When using the line for sysprep.ini, you don't have to do any extra file copying. It will know where to seek out the files.

I've used this on images with SP2, so if you don't use SP2 in your image for whatever reason, that could be somethin to look into

Edited August 16, 2006 by stickzilla

[yogger]

When you sysprep it, have this in the sysprep.ini

;SetupMgrTag

[unattended]

UpdateUPHAL="ACPIAPIC_UP,%WINDIR%\Inf\Hal.inf"

Should the updateUPHAL line be anywhere in particular under [unattended]?

I just did a test, base install of xpsp2 on something with HT, sysprep, load it on another machine, loaded fine, but didn't process the drivers completely. I had put it as the first line under [unattended].

Thank you for your help so far.

nevermind, that sysprep.inf was messed up from an earlier test. Should have double checked my work.

Edited August 16, 2006 by yogger