cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SIM 7.5 install failing

Handrake
Occasional Visitor

SIM 7.5 install failing

I've been trying to build a new SIM 7.5 server on a vm guest (windows 2012r2). After several attempts this I've found the current problem to be reproducable. When I try to run the install it fails with the error "Access violation at address 00403498. Read of address FFFFFFF9." (screen shot attached). I've tried to install from the base level full dvd set and from the SIM_7.5_Z7550-96190-windows update, both with the same result.

 

The history is that the first attempt failed and left SIM partially installed (effectively at the point of the screen snapshot - taken during a later install attempt). Running the uninstall to clean up would only remove SMH, VCRM, and WMI mapper while claiming that SIM was not installed. A reinstall attempt would complain that SIM was already installed. I manually cleaned up directories and registry entries after an uninstall without affecting the error.

 

Now install attempts only install SMH and WMImapper before hanging on SIM. Both google searches and HP support searches haven't helped but maybe I've missed something. Has anyone seen anything like this or have any good documentation pointer for me?

 

thanks in advance.... 

4 REPLIES
Andrew_Haak
Honored Contributor

Re: SIM 7.5 install failing

Hello,

 

Did you download the installer from here ?

 

http://h20564.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-c04770834

 

Kind regards,

Andrew
Handrake
Occasional Visitor

Re: SIM 7.5 install failing

Andrew,

 

Yes, I have verified the md5sum again, that is the update that I have tried to install on a clean (?) server. Other thoughts?

 

thanks, Handy

Andrew_Haak
Honored Contributor

Re: SIM 7.5 install failing

You did run the installer as an admin right?

Kind regards,

Andrew
Handrake
Occasional Visitor

Re: SIM 7.5 install failing

Andrew, 

 

Sorry to say, but I did run as administrator. I wish I had such a simple mistake that was quickly correctable.

 

thanks, Handy