MS or eBay?

I'm just gonna have to get me a "real" install cd one of these days. Those "recovery" partitions just don't seem to cut it.

Yap that's it! I'm afraid there is no other way. Should be not such a big problem to get a normal Win XP CD.

Why buy one? You have bought one with your comp haven't you? Either ask a friend or neighbor or contact HP and ask them how to get Win XP running.

MS or eBay?

I'm just gonna have to get me a "real" install cd one of these days. Those "recovery" partitions just don't seem to cut it.

Yap that's it! I'm afraid there is no other way. Should be not such a big problem to get a normal Win XP CD.

Why buy one? You have bought one with your comp haven't you? Either ask a friend or neighbor or contact HP and ask them how to get Win XP running.

Just download it of the web, google Windows XP Home and rapidshare, megaupload, ot bittorrents or ask at my teams forum if your having no luck.

You already own the license to it so you'll be installing it legitamatly (hence downloading it is not illegal for licensed software).

There is also an option on HP website from that link I gave to your computer in some other thread to get a copy sent to you, though you maybe able to downlaod it from them if you prefer. Just depends what they are like.

---

Team mauisun.org

This is the SAME thing that was happening with the X2.

TaskManager shows 95-99% when Rosetta'ing.

Compaq was re-set "as best as possible" to original condition (prior to X2 install), and has the same problem the X2 was having.

In spite of 99% cpu, was advancing 1 sec in "cpu time" for every 4-5 secs in "real time".

This did NOT happen before X2 install attempt.

The only differences I can think of which I could not undue are: (1)the BIOS upgrade from ver 3.11 to ver 3.13; (2) re-set the HAL ACPI for uniprocessor.

No, this time, no cpu to "idle task".

If you look at Task Manager while trying to run a crunching program (rosetta, super pi, prime95, etc.) does it say the crunching program is getting 99% of the CPU? Is anything else getting a substantial ammount of CPU? Is the idle task getting any CPU?

Apparently, I have a "dumbed down" Compaq version. I think the idea was to somehow obtain a "real" version. On the "System Recovery Partition".

MS or eBay?

I'm just gonna have to get me a "real" install cd one of these days. Those "recovery" partitions just don't seem to cut it.

Yap that's it! I'm afraid there is no other way. Should be not such a big problem to get a normal Win XP CD.

Why buy one? You have bought one with your comp haven't you? Either ask a friend or neighbor or contact HP and ask them how to get Win XP running.

I'll try. Again, afraid if I get from HP/Compaq, it will be the "dumbed down", not "real" version.

There is also an option on HP website from that link I gave to your computer in some other thread to get a copy sent to you, though you maybe able to downlaod it from them if you prefer. Just depends what they are like.

If you have a dumbed down version or not, it should have the correct HAL in Windows (assuming you are at all able to re-install the OS from the recovery partition, which I thought was the entire purpose of having that partition...)

Have you tried to downgrade your BIOS back to the original version?

I don't really see how the time measurement can be different from one version of HAL to another, although the SMP HAL will probably use APIC timer - but on the other hand, if I were doing the OS, I would use APIC timer even when in single processor mode if there is an APIC there (which there is in any multiprocessor capable generation of processor, so K7 and on will have that, as well as most of the Intel processors that have been available for the last 5 or so years. Not sure if K6 has APIC support or not...)

I still don't get it, how time could be measured differently. Is the real-time clock also running "wrong"? If you open a command prompt, type in "time" and hit enter when it asks for a new time, and measure 10 or something seconds, and check "time" again... If it's moving 10 seconds, then I don't see how the CPU-time per process should be different...

--
Mats

---

Agreed, but unless ACPI Multi was the default on the single-core-Sempron because the mobo is capable of dual-core-X2, then for some reason, despite over half-a-dozen reinstalls of the o/s, the HAL hasn't changed.

If you have a dumbed down version or not, it should have the correct HAL in Windows (assuming you are at all able to re-install the OS from the recovery partition, which I thought was the entire purpose of having that partition...)

Mobo is not supported by Asus, and HP only has the "updated" ver. 3.13, or at least that was all I was able to located. I agree, if I could somehow get ver. 3.11 re-installed, a lot of questions would probably be answered. Maybe this is what Compaq will do if/when the pc gets sent back

Have you tried to downgrade your BIOS back to the original version?

Agreed.

I don't really see how the time measurement can be different from one version of HAL to another

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this point. By "cpu time" I meant what is displayed by BOINC manager, under the "Tasks" tab, for Rosetta.

I understand that give overhead etc., it will never be an exact one to one ratio, but it shouldn't be that 5 "real time" seconds elapse in order for 1 "Boinc/cpu time" second to elapse.

This is what was happening with X2, and now is happening when original Sempron was put back. Wasn't this was before X2 install attempted. AFAIK, the only two things I couldn't "rollback" were the BIOS update and the HAL ACPI.

I still don't get it, how time could be measured differently. Is the real-time clock also running "wrong"? If you open a command prompt, type in "time" and hit enter when it asks for a new time, and measure 10 or something seconds, and check "time" again... If it's moving 10 seconds, then I don't see how the CPU-time per process should be different

Agreed, but unless ACPI Multi was the default on the single-core-Sempron because the mobo is capable of dual-core-X2, then for some reason, despite over half-a-dozen reinstalls of the o/s, the HAL hasn't changed.

Is that a "complete" re-install, where you format the hard-drive, or just a re-install of the OS on top of the current installation? Windows does funny things, where it looks at the currently installed stuff when you "re-install". If you start from a clean disk, it will probably choose a the single-processor HAL. [I take it you had to actually change it when you installed the dual core processor, yes?]

If you have a dumbed down version or not, it should have the correct HAL in Windows (assuming you are at all able to re-install the OS from the recovery partition, which I thought was the entire purpose of having that partition...)

Mobo is not supported by Asus, and HP only has the "updated" ver. 3.13, or at least that was all I was able to located. I agree, if I could somehow get ver. 3.11 re-installed, a lot of questions would probably be answered. Maybe this is what Compaq will do if/when the pc gets sent back

I guess you just upgraded the BIOS without copying the original to a floppy, right?

Have you tried to downgrade your BIOS back to the original version?

Agreed.

I don't really see how the time measurement can be different from one version of HAL to another

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on this point. By "cpu time" I meant what is displayed by BOINC manager, under the "Tasks" tab, for Rosetta.

I understand that give overhead etc., it will never be an exact one to one ratio, but it shouldn't be that 5 "real time" seconds elapse in order for 1 "Boinc/cpu time" second to elapse.

There is a slight "overhead" in that you probably only get 99% of the CPU time to Rosetta, and the remaining 1% or so is overhead. But assuming you're getting close to 100% on Rosetta.

This is what was happening with X2, and now is happening when original Sempron was put back. Wasn't this was before X2 install attempted. AFAIK, the only two things I couldn't "rollback" were the BIOS update and the HAL ACPI.

I still don't get it, how time could be measured differently. Is the real-time clock also running "wrong"? If you open a command prompt, type in "time" and hit enter when it asks for a new time, and measure 10 or something seconds, and check "time" again... If it's moving 10 seconds, then I don't see how the CPU-time per process should be different

Can you check the above "real time" measurement?

--
Mats

---

5 out of the 6 reinstalls were "complete"; when those didn't appear to work properly, I did attempt 1 reinstall "on top".

Is that a "complete" re-install, where you format the hard-drive, or just a re-install of the OS on top of the current installation? Windows does funny things, where it looks at the currently installed stuff when you "re-install". If you start from a clean disk, it will probably choose a the single-processor HAL. [I take it you had to actually change it when you installed the dual core processor, yes?]

Yes, I guess you learn something new every day. Don't know how this is accomplished, but if through BIOS itself, Compaq BIOS is limited and dumbed-down.

I guess you just upgraded the BIOS without copying the original to a floppy, right?

1 min "real time" equals 1 min "system time" equals 11 sec "Boinc cpu time".

Can you check the above "real time" measurement?

I'm wondering how the system seems to remember that you had a dual-core in it. Did you clear the CMOS after you reinstalled the Sempron?

Set BIOS to default settings.

I'm wondering how the system seems to remember that you had a dual-core in it. Did you clear the CMOS after you reinstalled the Sempron?

Set BIOS to default settings.

That's not always enough. Clearing the CMOS guarantees that the BIOS has to reset everything to a consistent state.

I'm wondering how the system seems to remember that you had a dual-core in it. Did you clear the CMOS after you reinstalled the Sempron?

I think you are suggesting that Windows XP should detect that the CPU is now a single processor and then install and use the proper HAL.

I'll repeat: that function (reinstalling a different HAL) is deliberately disabled in XP. The only way to change the HAL is by manually installing the proper fileset or by wiping the disk and doing a full install. WinXP will never change the currently installed HAL no matter what CPU is detected and no matter what the BIOS says.

The Compaq BIOS may well be dumbed down and may be partly what has led to the current problem. While the motherboard may have been originally intended to support a multiprocessor, Compaq may have deliberately disabled that feature on the board supplied with that particular computer package in order to save costs.

Any XP install CD can be used to install XP. All that changes is the XP key and the key is not recorded on the disk. You can borrow any XP install CD and use it with your genuine XP key. You can use a 'burned' CD copy as well as an original CD. You do not violate your license by using a different XP install CD no matter the source. The Compaq support people may gripe that you're not using the recovery method supplied with your computer - let them gripe!

I'm wondering how the system seems to remember that you had a dual-core in it. Did you clear the CMOS after you reinstalled the Sempron?

I think you are suggesting that Windows XP should detect that the CPU is now a single processor and then install and use the proper HAL.

I'll repeat: that function (reinstalling a different HAL) is deliberately disabled in XP. The only way to change the HAL is by manually installing the proper fileset or by wiping the disk and doing a full install. WinXP will never change the currently installed HAL no matter what CPU is detected and no matter what the BIOS says.

The Compaq BIOS may well be dumbed down and may be partly what has led to the current problem. While the motherboard may have been originally intended to support a multiprocessor, Compaq may have deliberately disabled that feature on the board supplied with that particular computer package in order to save costs.

Any XP install CD can be used to install XP. All that changes is the XP key and the key is not recorded on the disk. You can borrow any XP install CD and use it with your genuine XP key. You can use a 'burned' CD copy as well as an original CD. You do not violate your license by using a different XP install CD no matter the source. The Compaq support people may gripe that you're not using the recovery method supplied with your computer - let them gripe!

Then how come I can select different HAL's if I do it on my Windows XP computer ?

and in the link I gave some posts up https://boinc.bakerlab.org/forum_thread.php?id=2264#26457 it says WindowsXP can (a limited choice in WinXP as opposed to any in Win2K)
You cannot switch between ACPI and non-ACPI in device manager in WinXP.

---

Team mauisun.org

Then how come I can select different HAL's if I do it on my Windows XP computer ?

and in the link I gave some posts up https://boinc.bakerlab.org/forum_thread.php?id=2264#26457 it says WindowsXP can (a limited choice in WinXP as opposed to any in Win2K)
You cannot switch between ACPI and non-ACPI in device manager in WinXP.

Extracted from the MS post:
4. On Windows XP and later versions, the ACPI Uniprocessor HAL and the MPS Uniprocessor HAL recognize the existence of more than one processor and report the MP ID. Plug and Play detects that the computer devnode's hardware ID list has changed and moves the devnode back through the "found new hardware" detection process. Therefore, when you add a second processor, the MP files (HAL and kernels) are automatically installed, and you do not have to manually update the driver in Device Manager.
___________________________________

This has just not been my experience - XP SP2 will not do what item #4 says that it will. I believe that the article applies to (original release) vanilla XP and that XP SP2 changes this behavior - such that SP2 disables that feature more or less completely. I can testify that when I changed my processor from single to dual, XP SP2 did NOT change the HAL automatically nor was there an option to do so in Device Manager.

References to 'forcing' a particular HAL are only relevant when installing a fresh copy of Windows and possibly relevant when doing a 'repair' install.

There may still exist the ability to change the HAL if you started with a current 'Standard PC' HAL, although I can't verify that.

Then how come I can select different HAL's if I do it on my Windows XP computer ?

and in the link I gave some posts up https://boinc.bakerlab.org/forum_thread.php?id=2264#26457 it says WindowsXP can (a limited choice in WinXP as opposed to any in Win2K)
You cannot switch between ACPI and non-ACPI in device manager in WinXP.

Extracted from the MS post:
4. On Windows XP and later versions, the ACPI Uniprocessor HAL and the MPS Uniprocessor HAL recognize the existence of more than one processor and report the MP ID. Plug and Play detects that the computer devnode's hardware ID list has changed and moves the devnode back through the "found new hardware" detection process. Therefore, when you add a second processor, the MP files (HAL and kernels) are automatically installed, and you do not have to manually update the driver in Device Manager.
___________________________________

This has just not been my experience - XP SP2 will not do what item #4 says that it will. I believe that the article applies to (original release) vanilla XP and that XP SP2 changes this behavior - such that SP2 disables that feature more or less completely. I can testify that when I changed my processor from single to dual, XP SP2 did NOT change the HAL automatically nor was there an option to do so in Device Manager.

References to 'forcing' a particular HAL are only relevant when installing a fresh copy of Windows and possibly relevant when doing a 'repair' install.

There may still exist the ability to change the HAL if you started with a current 'Standard PC' HAL, although I can't verify that.

It a very current KB (Jul 2006) and is in refrence to all WinXP and Win2003.
Also I believe Bad Penguins initail try at running the X2 auto changed. It also auto detect for many other people. You do need WinXP SP2 for dual core's to work properly.



Though we are onto single cores now :-)

Bad Penguin, on the off chance you could try (if not already) putting AMD latest Sempron driver on
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/utilities/amdcpusetup.exe from http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_11686,00.html

Don't forget ATI's drivers.



P.S. I'm not saying you can change your hal, I'm saying that it is possible (and should be possible to) :-)

The the other way is to setup boot.ini to load with a different HAL(used for testing normaly) though often used for this purpose.
A quick search saves me from typing it up (and from making a mistake ;-)
http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/1-vt12269.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0

---

Team mauisun.org

Thanx, I'll try. Otherwise, going back to Compaq.

EDIT --> No dice on the update of Sempron driver. Back to the mfgr it is. Thanx all!

Though we are onto single cores now :-)

Bad Penguin, on the off chance you could try (if not already) putting AMD latest Sempron driver on
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/utilities/amdcpusetup.exe from http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_11686,00.html

Don't forget ATI's drivers.



P.S. I'm not saying you can change your hal, I'm saying that it is possible (and should be possible to) :-)

The the other way is to setup boot.ini to load with a different HAL(used for testing normaly) though often used for this purpose.
A quick search saves me from typing it up (and from making a mistake ;-)
http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/1-vt12269.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0