HAL Missing Corrupt

Pijush

Honorable
Jun 13, 2013
2
0
10,510
My PC showing hal.dll file is corrupt or missing. Please help me in solution. IF I Repair the OS with my XP CD would it be alright? Once I have tried doing this but it asked me for some drivers to insert the driver cd in the CD ROM, I had cancelled each driver and ultimately when it was done, I found those drivers missing and when trying to install drivers from CD it was not supporting properly.
 

Pijush

Honorable
Jun 13, 2013
2
0
10,510
Can't I copy the particular file and paste it to the right location, just as we do in replacing ntldr and NTDETECT.COM files, and if It does not support the drivers after repairing the OS from second screen, what should I do?
 
I haven't actually tried this, but I heard it works. Go into the device manager. Open the "computer" line. It normally says something like "ACPI multiprocessor computer". Right click on that and select "update driver". Be sure the windows CD is in the drive as it will need to load the new HAL.
 


The computer will not boot without hal.dll
 


Duh, me bad. I misread that he had an incorrect HAL, not a missing HAL.
 


It won't boot with an incorrect HAL either :)

The HAL is the platform specific part of the operating system, it's what allows a platform agnostic kernel to be used with various binary compatible hardware. Not so important on PCs since they're all IBM PC compatible, but very necessary on mobile platforms which are ARMv7 based but do not share common underpinnings.
 


I disagree. A few years back, shortly after dual cores were coming out I built an AMD system with a dual core. The device manager listed it as a "single processor" pc and the task manager's performance tab only showed one cpu. I was unable to select a CPU affinity since it thought there was only one cpu. After researching it, it turned out the windows installion misdetected the hardware and installed the wrong HAL. Once I replaced the HAL with the correct HAL, all processors showed up properly and all was good.
 


Ah yes, the famous Windows XP multi-processor bug. The reason that worked is because both of those HALs are IBM PC compatible. Ergo it's not an incorrect HAL, just not an optimal one. If it were replaced with the HAL for an old SGI x86 workstation, or one for an number of embedded x86 platforms, it would not work.
 


I see. Thank you for the clarification and my apologies to the OP for the misinformation and temporarily stealing this thread.