Boot.ini default load options

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize (More info?)

No, it doesn't matter what order they're listed in. The

default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS

is what determines what get's loaded.

You could create BOOT_1.INI and BOOT_2.INI. Each would contain a different Default value. Then use a BAT file to replace BOOT.INI when you need to reboot remotely, copying the approprite INI file in place of BOOT.INI.
--
Doug Knox, MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart Display\Security
Win 95/98/Me/XP Tweaks and Fixes
http://www.dougknox.com
--------------------------------
Per user Group Policy Restrictions for XP Home and XP Pro
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_securityconsole.htm
--------------------------------
Please reply only to the newsgroup so all may benefit.
Unsolicited e-mail is not answered.

"Claude" <claudew@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:1115836746.502129.141900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I use boot.ini to choose between uniprocessor and multiprocessor hals
> using the /hal and /kernel switches. I have a hyperthreading Pentium 4
> processor but some software won't work with the multiprocessor hal. I
> have the uniprocessor hal and kernel named unihal.dll and unikrnl.exe
> and I use /hal=unihal.dll and /kernel=unikrnl.exe load options for one
> of the menu choices.
>
> My problem is, when using GoToMyPC.com to remotely access my PC, how do
> I change the default load options if I need to reboot?
>
> The /default switch in boot.ini only allows you to set the path (I
> think - Am I correct?). Since both choices have the same path with
> different load options, which one will XP choose if it has to use the
> default. Does the order they are listed in matter?
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize (More info?)

OK, I'll try that. But I'm still curious. Both menu choices point to
the same directory (multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS),
differing only in the load options that follow. Can I include load
options in the default= line and if not, what options (if any) will XP
use when it is forced to use the default?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize (More info?)

Hi Claude,

As far as I'm aware, you can't include the load options in the Default= line. As far as which line it would use, I would assume the first of the two choices, if they're identical. It doesn't have a way to differentiate between them.

--
Doug Knox, MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart Display\Security
Win 95/98/Me/XP Tweaks and Fixes
http://www.dougknox.com
--------------------------------
Per user Group Policy Restrictions for XP Home and XP Pro
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_securityconsole.htm
--------------------------------
Please reply only to the newsgroup so all may benefit.
Unsolicited e-mail is not answered.

"Claude" <claudew@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:1115884135.502068.83040@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> OK, I'll try that. But I'm still curious. Both menu choices point to
> the same directory (multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS),
> differing only in the load options that follow. Can I include load
> options in the default= line and if not, what options (if any) will XP
> use when it is forced to use the default?
>

Thanks a million for this thread!

I upgraded my motherboard to a dualcore athlon64 cpu and both cores showed up fine in windows xp device manager, but in task manager there was only one core and other tools such as cpu-z reported only one core.

Then according to boot.ini suggestions here I added the following to the end of the last line of my c:\boot.ini file:

/kernel=ntkrnlmp.exe /hal=halmacpi.dll

and now both task manager and cpu-z shows two cores! Everything works great! Windows also "found some new hardware" in the process.

Some side notes:

I noticed that upon adding the above parameters to boot.ini, the c:\windows\system32\ntoskrnl.exe and c:\windows\system32\hal.dll were overwritten with the files requested in boot.ini. So I went ahead and tried removing the parameters, and surely enough it still kept reporting two cores. So it seems when using those parameters it just basically takes them permanently into use. This also makes me confident that windows will keep "supporting my new setup" in the future.

Some other forum suggested fiddling in registry with HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\CurrentType but changing that (to values like "Multiprocessor Free"), even in safe mode, had no effect, the value just changed back to normal after reboot. Also some other forum suggested installing various packages and adjusting PerfEnablePackageIdle registry settings, but they didn't help either.

I also tried installing AMD processor driver, AMD dual core optimizer and what not, without help. Nevertheless I'm sure they are great to have anyway  

So, thanks again to this thread! You beat the microsoft support help which suggested repairing/reinstalling the operating system  

The HAL*.DLL variants for /hal parameter are listed here.
The NT*.EXE variants for /kernel parameter are listed here.