DVD Talk
New Windows Vista Install BSOD (can't see it though) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : New Windows Vista Install BSOD (can't see it though)


Blake
06-13-07, 01:41 AM
So I just put together a brand spanking new computer and can't get Vista Ultimate to boot.

Brand new everything - board, quad chip, 8800 GTS, RAM, power supply, etc.

I put in the Vista Ultimate 64-bit DVD, it seems to install perfectly, but when it reboots, it gives me a quick BSOD before restarting.

I tried repairing, but it couldn't find anything wrong.

I did a memory test and it didn't find anything wrong.

I reformatted, reinstalled, same problem.

If I try and boot to safe mode, it stalls at the crcdisk.sys file and restarts, so I'm thinking that's the problem, but a search turns this up which doesn't make sense to me:

Your SATA drivers are not properly decorated. That's the same error
people are getting with Win x64 and Microsoft has a specific KB about
the 07B error being specifically improperly undecorated or undecorated
drivers.

For the curious:
eVGA nForce 680i SLI mobo (122-CK-NF68)
Intel Q6600 Quad Core
4GB Corsair RAM
620 Watt Corsair Power Supply
Antec P182 Case
Raptor 150GB
Samsung DVD Writer
eVGA 8800 GTS 640MB

Edited to add: 64 Bit Edition of Windows Vista Ultimate OEM DVD.

X
06-13-07, 10:59 AM
I had the same type of problem with a Win2003 OS when I had initially set up the hard drive in a non-RAID config and wanted to convert to RAID. Fast BSOD and a reboot when it couldn't find the RAID drivers installed in the OS.

Are you providing the correct drivers when the OS asks for them? I don't remember how Vista does this but past OSs wanted F6 hit at the beginning of the install.

Blake
06-14-07, 12:08 PM
Well, I'm not going with any RAID setups, so I didn't provide any drivers for the initial install. I put in a support ticket with eVGA last night at 9:53pm and they answered it at 10:10pm with this:

Please remove 2gigs of memory and take note of the information included below. BSOD while installing Vista with 4GB of ram, here are the steps to correct it: Install Vista with 2GB of ram Install this hotfix: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777/en-us After installation, put the entire 4GB of memory back in. Thank You, EVGA Tech Support
So I'm going to try that tonight. Install everything with just 2 gigs and hope that works. Last night I went into the BIOS and made sure everything was disabled I wasn't using - RAID, etc. I then tried unplugging the USB mouse and keyboard to make sure those weren't causing the problem. Also flashed the BIOS with the latest and none of it worked. Hopefully going to 2 gigs will.

If all else fails, at least I know eVGA support is going to be there to help me out. After all, $250 for the mobo and $450 for the graphics card from eVGA - they better help me :)

Blake
06-15-07, 04:30 PM
Well that worked, oddly enough. You'd think if an OS could support 4gigs, you could install it with 4gigs of RAM and not have to install with 2, apply a hotfix and then use all 4....

Dr Mabuse
06-15-07, 05:35 PM
Well that worked, oddly enough. You'd think if an OS could support 4gigs, you could install it with 4gigs of RAM and not have to install with 2, apply a hotfix and then use all 4....

well... actually i wouldn't think that... this sounds like what i would have expected...

microsoft is slowly becoming known, even in the public sector, what has been known in the technical sector for a long time...

they have never actually coded an OS... they acquired DOS... stole a windowing GUI from Jobs... bought defrag and scandisk... bought everything else... they haven't really built or 'innovated' any technology at microsoft... they acquire it or steal it and build on it...

they have been building an ever more complicated windowing system on top of DOS for years... hint: when you no longer need to defrag your hard drive? it's no longer DOS...

nor is windows a true 64 bit OS in any form... i've been running true 64 bit OS's for years... microsoft has yet to have one...

Vista is a joke... only it's not all that funny because the joke is on the public at large and businesses...

just wait until the malware authors get a good handle on the 'innovative' search features in Vista... people only think malware/spyware is a problem now...

al_bundy
06-15-07, 05:42 PM
Well that worked, oddly enough. You'd think if an OS could support 4gigs, you could install it with 4gigs of RAM and not have to install with 2, apply a hotfix and then use all 4....

probably a problem with the hardware

read the article and it's a bug with the motherboard's storage driver and windows. nothing to do with 4GB being too much

X
06-15-07, 05:53 PM
hint: when you no longer need to defrag your hard drive? it's no longer DOS... I'd really like to hear an explanation of this.

Dr Mabuse
06-15-07, 09:14 PM
I'd really like to hear an explanation of this.

well... that's kinda technical... if you mean all the way down to actual addressing of pointer chains and sector allocation and whatnot... see the last line of this post... beyond that i'll summarize...

DOS is still the OS... meaning it is what is writing to and operating the disk and managing the disk in in coordination with memory... and DOS has always just vomited to the disk... and inherent in it's operation is fragmentation that grows worse and worse in a systemic way over time... this is why memory management is still a joke on micorsoft, the disk is being fragmented to a crippling state, and windows self corrupts... only thing needed for those symptoms is time... they are a guaranteed effect of running windows over time...

the 'microsoft geniuses'... having never written an OS at all... do not know how to address and manage the hard drive in any other way than DOS did when Bill acquired it from IBM... it's never changed because they simply lack the talent and ability to truly 'innovate' the core requirements of an OS... namely to Operate a System... they just bloat more code for icons and and shortcuts and auto-fill and etc. and etc... now they p[lay smoke and mirrors as 'moving away from DOS' by no longer using the term... utilizing 'command line'...

all other ACTUAL OS's do not fragment a drive when they read and write in normal operation the way microsoft does... even 'hobby' OS's like Linux address and manage the disk in a sophisticated way that inherently avoids and corrects fragmentation as a part of normal operation... much less things like FreeBSD... or the finest OS man has created Sun Microsystem's Solaris...

the max fragmentation expected on actual OS's is around 3% or less and usually is below 2%... and it will be that in 3 years... 5 years... with raid 5 and the like with mirroring and hot spares it will be that way after individual hard drives fail...

barring, of course, a problem on the OS that causes failures...

if you want to get more technical than this PM me...

al_bundy
06-15-07, 09:29 PM
google says you are wrong and a few sites even explain why in technical terms

we have an app on solaris that does the equivelant of a MS BSOD on an almost daily basis. i called Sun one time for support on Veritas Netbackup and the guy on the phone was an idiot. i was doing SQL backups and he kept blabbering on about file backups.

Wintel sucks so much that even Sun is now basing their hardware on a lot of tech that Wintel uses. Linux is a joke as well.

X
06-15-07, 09:34 PM
well... that's kinda technical... if you mean all the way down to actual addressing of pointer chains and sector allocation and whatnot... see the last line of this post... beyond that i'll summarize...I think I can handle the technical details. I'm curious why you think only systems "on top of DOS" fragment files.

My understanding is that Unix-based and other OS systems also suffer from disk fragmentation, just to a lesser extent than Windows. That's why there are defragmentation utilities for Unix systems. As you fill the drives and delete and create new files all systems will suffer from fragmentation.

al_bundy
06-15-07, 09:38 PM
UNIX uses a swap partition which helps cut down on fragmentation, and Windows has a paging file on the c drive which can fragment.

Dr Mabuse
06-15-07, 10:42 PM
well.. this is why i didn't really want to go to far with this... i actually was going to post "let's talk in PM" frankly... i decided to cover the stuff topically...

i've run into this before several times... i simply mentioned it in passing because inevitably when i go into this i get varying degrees of knowledge making strong statements and kind of turns into some degree of a flame fest...

most things lie in perspective and relative comparisons...

as to Sun Solaris... i am a Sun Certified System Administrator and a Sun Certified Network Administrator, which is the highest OS certification Sun offers... i know what i'm talking about on that OS...

the swap partition does not relate to the lack of disk fragmentation...

a statement like 'all OS's suffer from fragmentation' in regards to the difference in microsoft DOS(fat or ntfs) and UFS for instance... is something like comparing the ford pinto to a volvo and saying all cars have safety problems... it's just not applicable... a night and day difference is there... and i'm not trying to be a smart aleck... i'm just being honest...

it's a matter of relative ideas and knowledge on the subject matter...

what i posted was the truth... it may be a new idea to some of you... but what i posted about Windows being a bloated windowing system laid over DOS is simply true... but believe me... a multi billion dollar monopoly has a lot of power in the marketplace and you can find sites that will disagree with that too...

similar to these ridiculous claims that so often circulate that Windows is more secure than Linux/Unix based on the number of exploits found and how many are resolved... crap like that... you have to REALLY know your stuff to see through that propaganda too...

after years of operation it is common to have less than 2-3% fragmentation on a Solaris box... on a FreeBSD box... HPUX... CraySolaris... AIX... Tru64... etc...

after years of operation with no add-on defragment software or OS defragment software being run any windows box will be in an extremely different situation... not just different, a night and day difference...

i'll drop this now... as i'm the 'new kid' here and i really like this forum...

don't want to offend anyone this soon...

Numanoid
06-15-07, 11:12 PM
Do you have a special ellipses key on your PC?

Dr Mabuse
06-15-07, 11:19 PM
Do you have a special ellipses key on your PC?

yes... Alt+0133... i mapped it... ;)

it's a habit that is unconscious to type them...

i get hell about it on every forum i'm on...

also my lack of capitalization...

you didn't mention that at least...

fumanstan
06-16-07, 11:15 AM
It's like raven turned technical...

al_bundy
06-16-07, 01:30 PM
well.. this is why i didn't really want to go to far with this... i actually was going to post "let's talk in PM" frankly... i decided to cover the stuff topically...

i've run into this before several times... i simply mentioned it in passing because inevitably when i go into this i get varying degrees of knowledge making strong statements and kind of turns into some degree of a flame fest...

most things lie in perspective and relative comparisons...

as to Sun Solaris... i am a Sun Certified System Administrator and a Sun Certified Network Administrator, which is the highest OS certification Sun offers... i know what i'm talking about on that OS...

the swap partition does not relate to the lack of disk fragmentation...

a statement like 'all OS's suffer from fragmentation' in regards to the difference in microsoft DOS(fat or ntfs) and UFS for instance... is something like comparing the ford pinto to a volvo and saying all cars have safety problems... it's just not applicable... a night and day difference is there... and i'm not trying to be a smart aleck... i'm just being honest...

it's a matter of relative ideas and knowledge on the subject matter...

what i posted was the truth... it may be a new idea to some of you... but what i posted about Windows being a bloated windowing system laid over DOS is simply true... but believe me... a multi billion dollar monopoly has a lot of power in the marketplace and you can find sites that will disagree with that too...

similar to these ridiculous claims that so often circulate that Windows is more secure than Linux/Unix based on the number of exploits found and how many are resolved... crap like that... you have to REALLY know your stuff to see through that propaganda too...

after years of operation it is common to have less than 2-3% fragmentation on a Solaris box... on a FreeBSD box... HPUX... CraySolaris... AIX... Tru64... etc...

after years of operation with no add-on defragment software or OS defragment software being run any windows box will be in an extremely different situation... not just different, a night and day difference...

i'll drop this now... as i'm the 'new kid' here and i really like this forum...

don't want to offend anyone this soon...


thank you for the entertainment. i hope you are linux certified as well because Solaris is going the way of the dodo bird

Dr Mabuse
06-16-07, 03:14 PM
thank you for the entertainment. i hope you are linux certified as well because Solaris is going the way of the dodo bird

well that in itself is an entertaining observation... the intel chip in your PC is made with Solaris...

but you seem sure of yourself so...

al_bundy
06-16-07, 08:54 PM
and that amazing I/O tech that Sun servers used to have back in the day has been replaced by PCI Express. seems sun is even reselling Windows now

Solaris is stable and rock solid to be used in things like CPU manufacturing. But Windows is stable enough now to be used in a lot of things that Solaris used to run. where i work we have Windows servers that stay up almost as long as Solaris. A lot of our Windows apps have better uptime than some Solaris apps

DivxGuy
06-17-07, 12:54 AM
they have never actually coded an OS... they acquired DOS... stole a windowing GUI from Jobs... And you think the DOS they acquired in 1980 bore any resemblance to the last (6.X) version?

As for the GUI, Gates admits that Microsoft "stole" the idea. From the same place that Apple stole it from: Xerox.

al_bundy
06-17-07, 08:08 AM
just like Sun stole Unix from Bell Labs

DivxGuy
06-17-07, 12:14 PM
nor is windows a true 64 bit OS in any form... i've been running true 64 bit OS's for years... microsoft has yet to have one...A quick Google search brings up no support for your assertion. What leads you to believe that Vista x64 is not a 64-bit OS?

Edit: I installed Vista x64 clean on a 4gb machine without incident (Asus A8N-VM CSM). I did have BSOD trouble with another (2gb) machine, which I traced to use of an older DVD-ROM drive.

Blake
06-18-07, 04:04 PM
probably a problem with the hardware

read the article and it's a bug with the motherboard's storage driver and windows. nothing to do with 4GB being too much
Hmmm...didn't expect so many replies :)

I also didn't read all the technical details of the hotfix, but interesting to note it's the hardware - not the software.

Running like a charm now except for one lock-up while playing Warcraft which I believe was due to the graphics card overheating, and nothing to do with Windows.