vista 64 bit corrupt registry

  • Thread starter Thread starter RZOA
  • Start date Start date
R

RZOA

Hi,

6 months ago I bought vista home premium 64 bit. So I installed it without a
problem and then proceeded to install the drivers for my hardware and also
installed some software. Some installations displayed a message "this is not
certified by windows" and I clicked "continue anyways". About 3 days later I
turn on the computer and I get the BSOD with a message that my registry is
corrupt. System restore or safe mode didn’t help and the only solution was to
reinstall. This scenario happened 4 times in a row. the 4th time, I installed
windows at night, went to sleep, turned it back on next morning and I got the
BSOD, that’s when I gave up on it and returned to XP 32 bit. I honestly don’t
know what is actually causing this, the unsigned drivers or maybe some bad
windows update. I can’t remember which installation displayed the unsigned
warnings.

1.I do want to have vista now. I did read that the 64 bit specifically wants
signed drivers while the 32 bit version doesn’t mention that. Does this mean
if I get the 32 bit version I won’t face these problems again? Is this a
known problem with vista 64? Do you know what is causing it?

2.In the past 6 months, did things improve and now vista 64 bit is more
reliable?

3.Is vista 32 bit more like my current XP 32 bit, very stable and immune to
problems?

My system is as follows:

Asus P5K motherboard
Q6600 Intel quad core
4 GB ram 667 MHz
Nvidia 7800gtx
2 SATA drives,
700watt power supply

Thanks a lot.
 
Vista x64 has not been unstable in general although you may have a
de-stablilized system. A lot of things can cause an unstable system.

Drivers for Vista x86 do not have to be signed but they do have to be for
Vista.

Both Vista x86 and x64 are more stable than XP.

The driver availablility for Vista x64 has improved over the past year.

The lack of driver signing would not corrupt the registry. An unsigned
driver simply would not install on x64.

If the system is operable I suggest that you do an in-place upgrade. This
is the equivalent of XP's repair install. You perform an in-place upgrade
by inserting the dvd and when the splash screen appears click on Install
Now. Be sure to choose the Upgrade option and not Custom. You will need to
bring your system back up to date with Windows Update but you will not have
to reinstall apps or files. Naturally, you want to make a back up before
any such operation just as a precaution.

"RZOA" <RZOA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:49234FDC-07AC-4E1A-9842-22CF5120B3A8@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> 6 months ago I bought vista home premium 64 bit. So I installed it without
> a
> problem and then proceeded to install the drivers for my hardware and also
> installed some software. Some installations displayed a message "this is
> not
> certified by windows" and I clicked "continue anyways". About 3 days later
> I
> turn on the computer and I get the BSOD with a message that my registry is
> corrupt. System restore or safe mode didn’t help and the only solution was
> to
> reinstall. This scenario happened 4 times in a row. the 4th time, I
> installed
> windows at night, went to sleep, turned it back on next morning and I got
> the
> BSOD, that’s when I gave up on it and returned to XP 32 bit. I honestly
> don’t
> know what is actually causing this, the unsigned drivers or maybe some bad
> windows update. I can’t remember which installation displayed the unsigned
> warnings.
>
> 1.I do want to have vista now. I did read that the 64 bit specifically
> wants
> signed drivers while the 32 bit version doesn’t mention that. Does this
> mean
> if I get the 32 bit version I won’t face these problems again? Is this a
> known problem with vista 64? Do you know what is causing it?
>
> 2.In the past 6 months, did things improve and now vista 64 bit is more
> reliable?
>
> 3.Is vista 32 bit more like my current XP 32 bit, very stable and immune
> to
> problems?
>
> My system is as follows:
>
> Asus P5K motherboard
> Q6600 Intel quad core
> 4 GB ram 667 MHz
> Nvidia 7800gtx
> 2 SATA drives,
> 700watt power supply
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
 
1.) Vista 64bit requires signed drivers. That hasn't and won't change.
Installing things that give you that message by saying continue anyway is a
bad idea, and almost certainly led to your problems. Vista 32 bit doesn't
require signed drivers. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing
is subject to some discussion. ) Personally, I don't run 32-bit windows
any more.

2.) Vista 64-bit has been completely reliable for me and for many others
here. I have been running it for 18 months with no issues. Of course, I did
my homework and chose components and applications that I knew would work
well and had good drivers.

3.) Vista 32-bit is not more stable that Vista 64-bit. Or any other Windows
operating system. Is it more stable than XP? Personally, I think Vista can
be more stable, IF you have the hardware to support it. Certainly the
hardware requirements for Vista are much higher than for XP - at least
double in virtually all areas, and often 3 or 4x in some areas.

FWIW, neither Vista 32-bit nor XP 32-bit will see all 4 GB of your RAM. The
exact amount that will be available will depend on the total address space
claimed by the hardware on your system, but generally on the order of 1 GB
will be unavailable.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"RZOA" <RZOA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:49234FDC-07AC-4E1A-9842-22CF5120B3A8@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> 6 months ago I bought vista home premium 64 bit. So I installed it without
> a
> problem and then proceeded to install the drivers for my hardware and also
> installed some software. Some installations displayed a message "this is
> not
> certified by windows" and I clicked "continue anyways". About 3 days later
> I
> turn on the computer and I get the BSOD with a message that my registry is
> corrupt. System restore or safe mode didn’t help and the only solution was
> to
> reinstall. This scenario happened 4 times in a row. the 4th time, I
> installed
> windows at night, went to sleep, turned it back on next morning and I got
> the
> BSOD, that’s when I gave up on it and returned to XP 32 bit. I honestly
> don’t
> know what is actually causing this, the unsigned drivers or maybe some bad
> windows update. I can’t remember which installation displayed the unsigned
> warnings.
>
> 1.I do want to have vista now. I did read that the 64 bit specifically
> wants
> signed drivers while the 32 bit version doesn’t mention that. Does this
> mean
> if I get the 32 bit version I won’t face these problems again? Is this a
> known problem with vista 64? Do you know what is causing it?
>
> 2.In the past 6 months, did things improve and now vista 64 bit is more
> reliable?
>
> 3.Is vista 32 bit more like my current XP 32 bit, very stable and immune
> to
> problems?
>
> My system is as follows:
>
> Asus P5K motherboard
> Q6600 Intel quad core
> 4 GB ram 667 MHz
> Nvidia 7800gtx
> 2 SATA drives,
> 700watt power supply
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
 
RZOA:
A BSOD isn't normal on any system including Vista x64. The driver
signing normally won't cause a BSOD, it just doesn't install the driver. To
help find the cause for the BSOD hit F8 during start-up and turn off the
automatic reboot, write down the error codes to find the culprit. Have a
great day.

--
Dennis Pack
XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64
Office Professional Plus 2007
"RZOA" <RZOA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:49234FDC-07AC-4E1A-9842-22CF5120B3A8@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> 6 months ago I bought vista home premium 64 bit. So I installed it without
> a
> problem and then proceeded to install the drivers for my hardware and also
> installed some software. Some installations displayed a message "this is
> not
> certified by windows" and I clicked "continue anyways". About 3 days later
> I
> turn on the computer and I get the BSOD with a message that my registry is
> corrupt. System restore or safe mode didn’t help and the only solution was
> to
> reinstall. This scenario happened 4 times in a row. the 4th time, I
> installed
> windows at night, went to sleep, turned it back on next morning and I got
> the
> BSOD, that’s when I gave up on it and returned to XP 32 bit. I honestly
> don’t
> know what is actually causing this, the unsigned drivers or maybe some bad
> windows update. I can’t remember which installation displayed the unsigned
> warnings.
>
> 1.I do want to have vista now. I did read that the 64 bit specifically
> wants
> signed drivers while the 32 bit version doesn’t mention that. Does this
> mean
> if I get the 32 bit version I won’t face these problems again? Is this a
> known problem with vista 64? Do you know what is causing it?
>
> 2.In the past 6 months, did things improve and now vista 64 bit is more
> reliable?
>
> 3.Is vista 32 bit more like my current XP 32 bit, very stable and immune
> to
> problems?
>
> My system is as follows:
>
> Asus P5K motherboard
> Q6600 Intel quad core
> 4 GB ram 667 MHz
> Nvidia 7800gtx
> 2 SATA drives,
> 700watt power supply
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
 
Thanks for your quick answer. Appreciate your time.

I understand from your post that I shouldn’t think about buying a 32 bit
version since whatever caused the problem in 64 bit doesn’t mean it won’t
happen in 32 bit. This is not 64 bit specific?

You said that it is not possible to install unsigned drivers in vista 64,
but I did, I did press “continue anywaysâ€, it gives you the option.

I really can’t do the upgrade installation you mentioned because I really
want to keep XP as a dual boot in a seperate hard drive since many of my work
programs are still unstable in vista.
 
Without knowing what caused the registry corruption there is no way to link
that with the bitness of the OS. A three-day delay in the corruption
showing up following an installation of something makes it pretty remote
that there is a direct relationship there. If you can still read the Event
Log/System you might find an error event but the connection may not be easy
to establish beyond the time. In what specific way was the registry
corrupted?

Doing an in-place upgrade has no bearing on any other system installed on
the computer. I have done an in-place upgrade of Vista on a computer that
also had both the x86 and x64 versions of XP in a multiboot configuration.
The upgrade is started from the Vista Home Premium desktop, not by booting
with the dvd.

"RZOA" <RZOA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E25B16B8-A2B0-4E07-A64A-DCAC8F332E59@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your quick answer. Appreciate your time.
>
> I understand from your post that I shouldn’t think about buying a 32 bit
> version since whatever caused the problem in 64 bit doesn’t mean it won’t
> happen in 32 bit. This is not 64 bit specific?
>
> You said that it is not possible to install unsigned drivers in vista 64,
> but I did, I did press “continue anywaysâ€, it gives you the option.
>
> I really can’t do the upgrade installation you mentioned because I really
> want to keep XP as a dual boot in a seperate hard drive since many of my
> work
> programs are still unstable in vista.
>
 
Thanks for all your responces.

Mr.Barnhorst asked “In what specific way was the registry corrupted?†I
really can’t remember what the BSOD was displaying since this was 6 months. I
have kept vista in my drawer since.


I have two more question signed drivers are required for the hardware
components only? So say for example I am using Utorrent. And say for example
Utorrent is a 32 bit program. I know that vista 64 supports 32 bit
applications. But, say utorrent offers an update, does this update have to be
specifically for 64 bit OS like the hardware components must be? In other
words, to prevent any more registry problems, I should worry about the
hardware components not the software.

Also, signed driver doesn’t mean that the driver was written for 64 bit
only it means that the driver has also been reviewed by Microsoft? So even
if a company does release a 64bit driver, it is still unsigned until it is
reviewed.
 
No, signed drivers are required period. As an example, a recent game, 1701
A.D., uses a copy-protection driver. Sunflowers provides both 32bit and
64bit copy-protectin drivers but they are not signed drivers (they didn't
write the copy-protection drivers themselves). The 64bit driver will
install on XP Pro x64 but not on Vista x64. The difference is that XP Pro
x64 requires 64bit drivers (but does not require signage) while Vista x64
requires 64bit signed drivers.

As to the message that "this is not certified by windows" that you report
you saw, that would apply to software but not to a driver. An unsigned
driver simply won't install and the program will fail to work anytime the
driver is called.

"RZOA" <RZOA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4D479646-6DC0-4288-92F9-6E026799D8EA@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for all your responces.
>
> Mr.Barnhorst asked “In what specific way was the registry corrupted?†I
> really can’t remember what the BSOD was displaying since this was 6
> months. I
> have kept vista in my drawer since.
>
>
> I have two more question signed drivers are required for the hardware
> components only? So say for example I am using Utorrent. And say for
> example
> Utorrent is a 32 bit program. I know that vista 64 supports 32 bit
> applications. But, say utorrent offers an update, does this update have to
> be
> specifically for 64 bit OS like the hardware components must be? In other
> words, to prevent any more registry problems, I should worry about the
> hardware components not the software.
>
> Also, signed driver doesn’t mean that the driver was written for 64 bit
> only it means that the driver has also been reviewed by Microsoft? So
> even
> if a company does release a 64bit driver, it is still unsigned until it is
> reviewed.
>
 
I think the message he is referring to (often see with beta drivers) is that
they aren't WHQL and you are asked if you want to proceed to install it
anyway.

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C6C74B3E-5806-4E4B-B025-C7F46EDB684B@microsoft.com...
> No, signed drivers are required period. As an example, a recent game,
> 1701 A.D., uses a copy-protection driver. Sunflowers provides both 32bit
> and 64bit copy-protectin drivers but they are not signed drivers (they
> didn't write the copy-protection drivers themselves). The 64bit driver
> will install on XP Pro x64 but not on Vista x64. The difference is that
> XP Pro x64 requires 64bit drivers (but does not require signage) while
> Vista x64 requires 64bit signed drivers.
>
> As to the message that "this is not certified by windows" that you report
> you saw, that would apply to software but not to a driver. An unsigned
> driver simply won't install and the program will fail to work anytime the
> driver is called.
>
> "RZOA" <RZOA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4D479646-6DC0-4288-92F9-6E026799D8EA@microsoft.com...
>> Thanks for all your responces.
>>
>> Mr.Barnhorst asked “In what specific way was the registry corrupted?†I
>> really can’t remember what the BSOD was displaying since this was 6
>> months. I
>> have kept vista in my drawer since.
>>
>>
>> I have two more question signed drivers are required for the hardware
>> components only? So say for example I am using Utorrent. And say for
>> example
>> Utorrent is a 32 bit program. I know that vista 64 supports 32 bit
>> applications. But, say utorrent offers an update, does this update have
>> to be
>> specifically for 64 bit OS like the hardware components must be? In other
>> words, to prevent any more registry problems, I should worry about the
>> hardware components not the software.
>>
>> Also, signed driver doesn’t mean that the driver was written for 64 bit
>> only it means that the driver has also been reviewed by Microsoft? So
>> even
>> if a company does release a 64bit driver, it is still unsigned until it
>> is
>> reviewed.
>>
>
 
It has probably been too long for him to remember exactly what he saw and
under what cirucumstances.

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:OKVOKmyeIHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I think the message he is referring to (often see with beta drivers) is
>that they aren't WHQL and you are asked if you want to proceed to install
>it anyway.
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C6C74B3E-5806-4E4B-B025-C7F46EDB684B@microsoft.com...
>> No, signed drivers are required period. As an example, a recent game,
>> 1701 A.D., uses a copy-protection driver. Sunflowers provides both 32bit
>> and 64bit copy-protectin drivers but they are not signed drivers (they
>> didn't write the copy-protection drivers themselves). The 64bit driver
>> will install on XP Pro x64 but not on Vista x64. The difference is that
>> XP Pro x64 requires 64bit drivers (but does not require signage) while
>> Vista x64 requires 64bit signed drivers.
>>
>> As to the message that "this is not certified by windows" that you report
>> you saw, that would apply to software but not to a driver. An unsigned
>> driver simply won't install and the program will fail to work anytime the
>> driver is called.
>>
>> "RZOA" <RZOA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4D479646-6DC0-4288-92F9-6E026799D8EA@microsoft.com...
>>> Thanks for all your responces.
>>>
>>> Mr.Barnhorst asked “In what specific way was the registry corrupted?†I
>>> really can’t remember what the BSOD was displaying since this was 6
>>> months. I
>>> have kept vista in my drawer since.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have two more question signed drivers are required for the hardware
>>> components only? So say for example I am using Utorrent. And say for
>>> example
>>> Utorrent is a 32 bit program. I know that vista 64 supports 32 bit
>>> applications. But, say utorrent offers an update, does this update have
>>> to be
>>> specifically for 64 bit OS like the hardware components must be? In
>>> other
>>> words, to prevent any more registry problems, I should worry about the
>>> hardware components not the software.
>>>
>>> Also, signed driver doesn’t mean that the driver was written for 64 bit
>>> only it means that the driver has also been reviewed by Microsoft? So
>>> even
>>> if a company does release a 64bit driver, it is still unsigned until it
>>> is
>>> reviewed.
>>>
>>
>
 
I have a different take on your problem, because I've seen those exact
symptoms before. I'm going to say you've got some bad hardware somewhere
and I would start with the SATA drive that Vista was installed on. Run
one of those disk error checking programs and see if the disk passes all
tests. Even if it does, I would try installing the OS on the other SATA
drive and see if it's more stable. If that makes no difference, I would
pull 2 GB of RAM out and install Vista again. Then try switching to the
other 2 GB of RAM. I would run the the Vista memory check at boot up. A
bad RAM chip, like a faulty drive causes all kinds of havoc. I would
also make sure that you have the most recent video driver from nVidia
and that your mobo's BIOS is the most recent version.

BTW, you didn't mention whether Vista was seeing all 4 GB of RAM. The OS
uses addresses between 3 and 4GB for hardware devices (Just go into the
Device Manager and look for yourself.) and unless you run your mobo's
CMOS setup and change the BIOS setting that's called "Remap Memory Hole"
or something like that, you won't see all 4GB in Vista x64. This is not
likely the cause of your problem though.

I also have found Vista x64 to be pretty stable.

JB

RZOA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 6 months ago I bought vista home premium 64 bit. So I installed it without a
> problem and then proceeded to install the drivers for my hardware and also
> installed some software. Some installations displayed a message "this is not
> certified by windows" and I clicked "continue anyways". About 3 days later I
> turn on the computer and I get the BSOD with a message that my registry is
> corrupt. System restore or safe mode didn’t help and the only solution was to
> reinstall. This scenario happened 4 times in a row. the 4th time, I installed
> windows at night, went to sleep, turned it back on next morning and I got the
> BSOD, that’s when I gave up on it and returned to XP 32 bit. I honestly don’t
> know what is actually causing this, the unsigned drivers or maybe some bad
> windows update. I can’t remember which installation displayed the unsigned
> warnings.
>
> 1.I do want to have vista now. I did read that the 64 bit specifically wants
> signed drivers while the 32 bit version doesn’t mention that. Does this mean
> if I get the 32 bit version I won’t face these problems again? Is this a
> known problem with vista 64? Do you know what is causing it?
>
> 2.In the past 6 months, did things improve and now vista 64 bit is more
> reliable?
>
> 3.Is vista 32 bit more like my current XP 32 bit, very stable and immune to
> problems?
>
> My system is as follows:
>
> Asus P5K motherboard
> Q6600 Intel quad core
> 4 GB ram 667 MHz
> Nvidia 7800gtx
> 2 SATA drives,
> 700watt power supply
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
 
I think you need to reread the subject line. The OP is using 6GB of ram and
the OS is x64.

"jabloomf1230" <jabloomf@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OQ70X9zeIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a different take on your problem, because I've seen those exact
>symptoms before. I'm going to say you've got some bad hardware somewhere
>and I would start with the SATA drive that Vista was installed on. Run one
>of those disk error checking programs and see if the disk passes all tests.
>Even if it does, I would try installing the OS on the other SATA drive and
>see if it's more stable. If that makes no difference, I would pull 2 GB of
>RAM out and install Vista again. Then try switching to the other 2 GB of
>RAM. I would run the the Vista memory check at boot up. A bad RAM chip,
>like a faulty drive causes all kinds of havoc. I would also make sure that
>you have the most recent video driver from nVidia and that your mobo's BIOS
>is the most recent version.
>
> BTW, you didn't mention whether Vista was seeing all 4 GB of RAM. The OS
> uses addresses between 3 and 4GB for hardware devices (Just go into the
> Device Manager and look for yourself.) and unless you run your mobo's CMOS
> setup and change the BIOS setting that's called "Remap Memory Hole" or
> something like that, you won't see all 4GB in Vista x64. This is not
> likely the cause of your problem though.
>
> I also have found Vista x64 to be pretty stable.
>
> JB
>
> RZOA wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 6 months ago I bought vista home premium 64 bit. So I installed it
>> without a problem and then proceeded to install the drivers for my
>> hardware and also installed some software. Some installations displayed a
>> message "this is not certified by windows" and I clicked "continue
>> anyways". About 3 days later I turn on the computer and I get the BSOD
>> with a message that my registry is corrupt. System restore or safe mode
>> didn’t help and the only solution was to reinstall. This scenario
>> happened 4 times in a row. the 4th time, I installed windows at night,
>> went to sleep, turned it back on next morning and I got the BSOD, that’s
>> when I gave up on it and returned to XP 32 bit. I honestly don’t know
>> what is actually causing this, the unsigned drivers or maybe some bad
>> windows update. I can’t remember which installation displayed the
>> unsigned warnings.
>>
>> 1.I do want to have vista now. I did read that the 64 bit specifically
>> wants signed drivers while the 32 bit version doesn’t mention that. Does
>> this mean if I get the 32 bit version I won’t face these problems again?
>> Is this a known problem with vista 64? Do you know what is causing it?
>>
>> 2.In the past 6 months, did things improve and now vista 64 bit is more
>> reliable?
>>
>> 3.Is vista 32 bit more like my current XP 32 bit, very stable and immune
>> to problems?
>>
>> My system is as follows:
>>
>> Asus P5K motherboard
>> Q6600 Intel quad core
>> 4 GB ram 667 MHz
>> Nvidia 7800gtx
>> 2 SATA drives,
>> 700watt power supply
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
 
"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C6C74B3E-5806-4E4B-B025-C7F46EDB684B@microsoft.com...

> No, signed drivers are required period.

I read somewhere there's a way to trick V64 into allowing unsigned
drivers. False? What are the ramificaitons of doing so?
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL
 
I believe that you can hit F8 when starting the computer and disable driver
signing for the current session from the Advanced Boot Options Menu but the
setting does not survive a restart. I have also been told that even that
was disabled when Vista released so perhaps someone more knowledgeable on
that point can respond. In any case, the purpose is to allow driver
developers to work on their drivers. The option definitely should not be
used by a user as a workaround for software that does not have a signed
driver.

"Chris Cowles" <spam_magnet@remove-me-bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uHa2k40eIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C6C74B3E-5806-4E4B-B025-C7F46EDB684B@microsoft.com...
>
>> No, signed drivers are required period.
>
> I read somewhere there's a way to trick V64 into allowing unsigned
> drivers. False? What are the ramificaitons of doing so?
> --
> Chris Cowles
> Gainesville, FL
>
 
Similar...

I have a similar problem, and a similar mainboard to boot!

Intel E8400
Asus P5K-Premium/Wifi-AP
Nvidia 8800GT
Samsung Spinpoint F1 drive

Vista Home Premium 64 bit on second partition (XP Pro 32 bits on first)

Only for me, this problem already happens when the Vista install says "updating" - I reinstalled without the LAN cable attached to get around that, but first update - bam, registry corrupt, system won't boot. Next install attempt, I will first run the mem check, disable updates, and then install the updates one by one to see which one seems related to this issue.

Haven't run the full mem check yet, but the 32 bit XP Pro works perfectly so far.
 
Back
Top