Problem Installing SP1 - Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

[Golden]

Jon, at this point it sounds like the only thing to try

 

[IcecoldUK]

OK, as a last ditch attempt I just rerun the in-place upgrade, which to my surprise completed successfully seeing as I have attempted it at least 3 times previously all of which failed and reverted my original settings.

Anyway, I have run SURT and SFC, no other applications have been ran. I had to rerun SFC several times due to windows resource protection - is this normal?

If someone wouldn't mine taking a look at the attached logs and letting me know what you think it would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Jon

 

[NoelDP]

I don't ever recall seeing anything above around the POQ 300 mark - here's the end of your CBS/SFC log....

POQ 488 ends.
2013-09-26 18:45:50, Info                  CSI    00000d12 [SR] Verify complete
2013-09-26 18:45:50, Info                  CSI    00000d13 [SR] Repairing 1 components
2013-09-26 18:45:50, Info                  CSI    00000d14 [SR] Beginning Verify and Repair transaction
2013-09-26 18:45:51, Info                  CSI    00000d15 Repair results created:
POQ 489 starts:
 
POQ 489 ends.
2013-09-26 18:45:51, Info                  CSI    00000d16 [SR] Repair complete
2013-09-26 18:45:51, Info                  CSI    00000d17 [SR] Committing transaction
2013-09-26 18:45:51, Info                  CSI    00000d18 Creating NT transaction (seq 2), objectname [6]"(null)"
2013-09-26 18:45:51, Info                  CSI    00000d19 Created NT transaction (seq 2) result 0x00000000, handle @0x159c
2013-09-26 18:45:51, Info                  CSI    [EMAIL="00000d1a@2013/9/26:17:45:51.076"]00000d1a@2013/9/26:17:45:51.076[/EMAIL] CSI perf trace:
CSIPERF:TXCOMMIT;7
2013-09-26 18:45:51, Info                  CSI    00000d1b [SR] Verify and Repair Transaction completed. All files and registry keys listed in this transaction  have been successfully repaired

Please run another SFC SCANNOW, and post the new log - It should be fascinating!

 

[IcecoldUK]

What are POQ's if you don't mind me asking? I presume they are not good? Sorry, but i'm still new to all of this...

New CBS logs attached.

Jon

 

[NoelDP]

That finished on a much more reasonable note

POQ 144 ends.
2013-09-26 20:43:30, Info                  CSI    000003a1 [SR] Verify complete
2013-09-26 20:43:30, Info                  CSI    000003a2 [SR] Verifying 94 (0x000000000000005e) components
2013-09-26 20:43:30, Info                  CSI    000003a3 [SR] Beginning Verify and Repair transaction
2013-09-26 20:43:32, Info                  CSI    000003a4 Repair results created:
POQ 145 starts:
 
POQ 145 ends.
2013-09-26 20:43:32, Info                  CSI    000003a5 [SR] Verify complete
2013-09-26 20:43:32, Info                  CSI    000003a6 [SR] Repairing 0 components
2013-09-26 20:43:32, Info                  CSI    000003a7 [SR] Beginning Verify and Repair transaction
2013-09-26 20:43:32, Info                  CSI    000003a8 Repair results created:
POQ 146 starts:
 
POQ 146 ends.
2013-09-26 20:43:32, Info                  CSI    000003a9 [SR] Repair complete

I think the POQ can roughly be translated as 'Packet of Queries' - SFC checks files in batches of 100 and works on them before proceeding to the next batch. Each batch is given a consecutive POQ number, but I have no idea how it works out the ordering.

It seems that the first run had immense amount of pending transactions to complete, and that the second had very little to do - hence the drop in final POQ from 489 to 146.


Although there's nothing in the standard SFC extract, there is one error in the detailed log that may need attention...

POQ 27 ends.
2013-09-26 20:34:05, Info                  CSI    000000d5 [SR] Verify complete
2013-09-26 20:34:05, Info                  CSI    000000d6 [SR] Verifying 100 (0x0000000000000064) components
2013-09-26 20:34:05, Info                  CSI    000000d7 [SR] Beginning Verify and Repair transaction
2013-09-26 20:34:11, Error                 CSI    [EMAIL="000000d8@2013/9/26:19:34:11.433"]000000d8@2013/9/26:19:34:11.433[/EMAIL] (F) d:\w7rtm\base\xml\udom_microdom.cpp(3734): Error c000003e [Error,Facility=(system),Code=62 (0x003e)] originated in function MicrodomImplementation::CDomLayoutCache::AdvanceCachedPointer expression: (ulElementType == (0x2)) || (ulElementType == (0x3)) || (ulElementType == (0x5)) || (ulElementType == (0x1)) || (ulElementType == (0x6)) || (ulElementType == (0x7)) || (ulElementType == (0x4))
[gle=0x80004005]
2013-09-26 20:37:16, Info                  CSI    000000d9 [SR] Verifying 100 (0x0000000000000064) components
2013-09-26 20:37:16, Info                  CSI    000000da [SR] Beginning Verify and Repair transaction
2013-09-26 20:37:17, Info                  CSI    000000db Repair results created:
POQ 28 starts:
 
POQ 28 ends.

Unfortunately, I can't claim any knowledge as to WTH it means!
Guessing here, that the fact that the verification stage appears to have restarted, and completed successfully, means that there was a mis-read recognised by the system, which then re-read the affected data and was happy with it.


The rest of the log looks pretty clear.

 

[IcecoldUK]

So what's the next step? Would it be worth running another SFC and checking the results one final time before I re-install all the windows updates?

Jon

 

[NoelDP]

Anything's possible
It certainly wouldn't hurt anything to do so.

 

[IcecoldUK]

Hi Noel,

Please find the CBS logs attached. Somehow I have a feeling you will find a lot more problems, but fingers crossed.

Once you have checked the logs if you could advise on the next steps that would be great.

Jon

 

[NoelDP]

OUCH!
There's a fair number of manifest problems - Please run a CheckSUR scan and we'll see what that has to say. You'll need to download the latest version (they updated it a week or so ago)

 

[IcecoldUK]

I'm using Win 7 so do you mean CHKDSK rather than CheckSUR? And where would I download the latest version please?

Jon

 

[andrew129260]

I didn't read a lot of this thread, so this is random.
Is it possible the reinstall disk you are using is corrupted? You mentioned reinstalling windows several times so it makes me wonder.

Where did you get/buy windows 7 from?

 

[IcecoldUK]

My original copy of windows 7 was purchased from an online retailer and was used about 2/3 years ago when I first built my system. It is a genuine copy.

How it all started - about 2 months ago I turned on my computer to find my Norton Internet Security constantly crashing, so I uninstalled NIS and everything when tits up (excuse the expression) and I started getting BSOD errors and I was unable you reinstall NIS without it crashing. I suspected either some bad updates had been installed via windows update or I had a virus. I used the computer without any problems that very morning. I decided to do a fresh install as the OS had become a bit tatty with junk over the years. I used my original Win 7. Once Win 7 was installed I appeared to be having issues install SP1 which would not successfully install without errors, so someone here suggested trying downloading and installing the ISO Media Refresh which contains SP1 within the install.

So that's how everything started and that's where I am today. I'm starting to suspect a faulty motherboard as I'm sure the copy of windows is fine and the hard drive and RAM have all checked out as clear.

I just really need some help and suggestions please guys.

Jon

 

[andrew129260]

Problem is faulty motherboard would not cause problems installing service pack 1. Unless the sata controller is going bad which is connected to your motherboard. Which would cause hard disk errors, thus mainly causing errors in installations.

There are situations where check disk will run fine, and other disk utilities will say the drive is fine.
But if it is a bad sata controller or cable, things go bad sporadically, causing all sorts of weird issues.


Under event viewer is there anywhere that errors under source show disk?
Meaning when you go into event viewer, click system. Then click source. This now filters the source of the problems recorded in event viewer. Does any of them mention the disk. You will need to scroll down a lot. Scroll for what feels like an eternity, or until the information sources.

If you find anything in event viewer, there is your problem and could be the reason for a bad install. Service pack 1 takes a long amount of time to install. This is why it would fail more likely then say a install of vnc or something small. Typical installations do not last long.

If you do find the error in event viewer, ether the hard disk is bad or the sata cable is bad, or the controller on the motherboard is bad. It can only be those 3 things.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/226084-event-viewer-open-use-windows-7-a.html

Also, does the system lag at all sometimes? At random?

 

[IcecoldUK]

I'll take a look through the event logs tomorrow and let you know the results.

Thank you for your help and suggestions, it's very much appreciated.

Jon

 

[NoelDP]

Please downloadand save the CheckSUR tool from http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947821

(you'll need tolook in the details for Windows 7, downloading from the Microsoft DownloadCenter)



Run it - The toolcan take anywhere from 5 mins to a couple of hours to run (or 'Install')depending on how much it has to do, and may exit silently - it may appear tofreeze for most of that time, but be patient.

The result islogged in the C:\Windows\Logs\CBS\CheckSUR.log file - and an archive …\checksur.persist.log file



Then zip theCheckSUR.log and upload it to your SkyDrive Public folder so I can take a look- post a link in your reply.

 

[IcecoldUK]

Hi guys,

I ran the CheckSUR and also another SFC, you can download the logs from my dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z4bzf0l1ipo29kb/CBS.zip

I've not had a chance today to look into the system event logs, but i'll start on those tomorrow. In the mean time let know your thoughts.

Jon

 

[NoelDP]

Typical - CheckSUR hasn't spotted the error in the VS80 update
I positively hate it when that happens, as VS updates are a bit of a law unto themselves, as it's pot luck as to whether I'll fine the proper file.

Too late tonight - I'll hunt for it tomorrow.

 

[IcecoldUK]

Would it help you if I ran the test again Noel to see if it picks up the error?

Jon

 

[NoelDP]

Nah - I'll find it one way or the other

 

[IcecoldUK]

OK, I've just taken a look through the event log (see attached) and I could only find 4 errors relating to the hard disk all of which happened on the same day (26th September) and all within the space of just a few seconds.

Could this be the problem? Or would you expect to see multiple errors over a number of days if the disk was failing?

Jon