Talk:Blue Screen of Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

WikiProject Featured articles in other languages has identified Blue Screen of Death as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian language Wikipedia.

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: Noguchi, Yuki (January 6, 2005). "Notes on Gates.". The Washington Post.

[edit] What qualifies as a Blue Screen of Death?

The consumer versions of Windows have their own blue screen, but I've never seen the true Blue Screen of Death -- at least to my usage of the term. You get messages like 'The system is waiting for a program to complete, esc to continue or ctrl-alt-delete to reboot'. Generally the three fingered salute is the only effective way out, but one can gamely try the alternatives. Windows 3.1, if I recall correctly, would even do this for things like a floppy disk being ejected while a file was being accessed from the floppy. --Belltower

Windows 98SE BSoD's on some occasions when reading off of removable media, ie cdrom and floppy, and the media is removed in the process, not very ammusing. --Creaktop

Nice way to confuse elementary school kids...believe me, I've had experience with friends :P Ilyanep 20:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As a reluctant Windows user (used to be a Mac user), I have seen what I always thought was called the blue screen of death far too many times--it's a common feature of all Windows systems, I thought. I've changed the article to reflect this. What I didn't know is that there are some people who restrict the usage only to the screen that occurs on Windows NT. Here's an example where programmers' usage and common usage might diverge, and where the article might usefully contain information about that divergence. Of course, I could just be confused. --LMS

It is a silly distinction. Even the folks at Microsoft on the Windows 95 team called their version "blue screen of death", though they knew it was somewhat different from the NT version. The public certainly calls all of the Windows blue-screens that. --LDC (Who actually understands the number on the real NT BSoD)

[edit] Screenshots?

Great job on recreating the BSODs! They looked like screenshots until I highlighted em :-) --cprompt

They apparently do! How realistic --Menchi 02:02, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Really Nice!

You can screenshot a real blue screen by running a virtual PC and loading various OS's on them and attempting to blue screen them -Copysan

NT3/4 One seems to spill over into the 98 and Me ones for me. -Copysan

However the text in the article says that 9x/ME used fixedsys font, however the "screenshot" contradicts that. They look really good, I was wondering how there was a screenshot of a BSOD! Richard cocks 04:53, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Note : Today(10-jul-2005), both in IE 6.0 and FireFox 1.0.4 , the "screenshots" in the article have light gray background and black text. But the "screenshot" on this page looks right. xerces8@butn.net --193.77.139.53 14:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's the old "re-creation" of a 9x/Me BSoD that looks rather funky in Internet Explorer. I've swapped it out with a more compatible one. -- Minesweeper

[edit] Windows XP BsOD?

Uhh...hate to burst your bubble but the statement "The following is a re-creation of a Windows NT/2000/XP BSoD: " would be untrue because Windows XP does not have a BSOD, it is a more annoying dialog box which makes the problem even worse. Ilyanep 18:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP, and all versions of NT have a BSOD. It looks different than their 95/98 counterparts. It is officially called a STOP error. Windows XP is stable enough such that many people never even see one. You only get a BSOD in XP if something REALLY goes wrong such that the system cannot proceed. You won't see one just because an application crashed.

--cprompt 20:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've used WinXP for 2 years now, and I've had some bad things happen to my PC, never seen a STOP error. Seen them pretty often in NT/2k & 98. Ilyanep 22:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Trust me. It's there. Friends of mine congratulate each other for the most extreme cases that led to an XP STOP error. Blue screens are acknowledged by Microsoft on the following two pages. [1] [2]

--cprompt 18:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's there, however by default, 2k/XP reboot instead of displaying a BSOD (sytem properties>advanced>startup and recovery>automatically reboot) Richard cocks 04:57, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I can attest to that fact. About two months ago I BSOD'ed on WinXP. I only saw the BSOD for a split second before my computer restarted. After not having seen one for going on 2 years, I was terrified. I seriously just stared at my screen motionless before I could accept the horror of what had just happened :) FilthMaster Flex 02:01, September 2, 2004 (UTC)

If you want proof, open a process manager other than CTRL+ALT+DEL (Task Manager) and end the process of csrss.exe. It will produce a STOP error because it has a flag bit set in its executable as a critical process. anabus_maximus

You're confusing a STOP error with a General Protection Fault or other application error. A STOP error is a serious problem with the Windows kernel itself. Metasquares 19:01, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh...seems that right after you told me about the errors, I see them more. I've gotten at least 3 stop errors since January. Ilyanep (Talk) 15:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment from BSoD article: The Blue Screen of Death is extinct in the new Windows XP Professional OS

Why? What does it do instead? Never ever crash? Silently hang? Put up an advert for Windows XP: TNG? -- The Anome

A Google search for XP pro BSOD presents plenty of evidence that the BSoD is alive and well in XP Pro.

Yet, nobody ever sees it. I've only seen the stupid annoying dialog boxes (see below) Ilyanep 20:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've seen it, quite frequently (at home I use XP Pro because of the few extra security features. It's also better for gaming, and it was only £5 extra on offer when I bought my PC). They're called STOP errors, which is a new name for the same thing. But still, a BSoD pops up. However, this time all the RAM is dumped straight to the disk so you don't lose any work (yay!). So there has been some improvement. Poorsod 10:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I used a partition manage4r and it screwed up my partition table. Windows was still there, but it BSoD'd whenever I booted it up...:-(Freedom to share 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Typical Microsoft doublespeak... In Windows 3.0 program crashes were accompanied by screens that called them UAEs (Unrecoverable Application Errors). They happened frequently and were widely condemned. Microsoft claimed that you would never see them in Windows 3.1. Well, you didn't—they changed the terminology to GPF (General Protection Fault). Dpbsmith 03:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can report a very specific instance of BSoD on WinXP SP2. I installed a D-Link GWL-G630 802.11g 54Mbps Wireless PCMCIA Cardbus. I missed the instructions and plugged the card before installing the shipped drivers. I did not have cable connection for two weeks and I was stealing connection from some other open-access Linksys Wireless router down the hall (It's an apartment). It was a very low signal strength - I could find a sweet spot in the room where I would get a medium signal strength, but after staying with it a while, whenever I moved the laptop a little so that it would move out of the middle strenght point, it would go BSoD. Basic system specs are Thinkpad T21 P3 800/256. SP2 with all security patches installed. Saw the BSoD five times over some 40 hours of use. (Two weeks of computer use). Then the cable guy arrived. --Yonghokim 5 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)

A few days ago, my laptop, which runs Win XP Professional, got a pretty nasty bump while I was riding home on the bus. When I got home and tried to start it. It booted into a BSoD with an "UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_DRIVE" error. I think that should be plenty of proof that screen exists in XP. 151.204.81.21 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have XP and I get bluescreens like five times a day. Something is obviously extremely wrong, but I don't know what. Adam Bishop 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A common cause of the crashes is a driver failure. I cannot wait until in WinVista they move all drivers into userspace. Freedom to share 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Describing 0xEF and FFFFFF

Any point in describing HTML and 0x... colors for white and blue? I'm sure people know what white and blue is. Ilyanep 22:36, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

0xEF describes the exact hue. It's why the re-creation of the BSoD's has the same color as the real ones.

--cprompt 19:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gates' infamous BSoD

Remember the time that Bill Gates was demonstrating a new release of Windows for the press (I think it was 95) on an enormous projection screen, and got the BSoD? I think that this event should be referenced (and ideally supported with the photo I have seen) in this article. Matt gies 03:36, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

here's a link to the story Matt gies 03:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heh. Reminds me of when Gates was showing off the first Xbox at E3, and someone had hacked into it so that it just showed a huge arrow pointing to him saying "SATAN". Gates reaps what he sows. XD CrossEyed7 00:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellany

[edit] The message displayed on the blue screen was "Kernel Stack Error".

I am using DELL PE 1600 Series where i have some softwares installed on that, i am getting the above error when i First time this had occurred when we connected the DLT tape to the system. After the system gave the Blue screen we disconnected the DLT.

when i try to connect again it has given blue dump again. The message displayed on the blue screen was "Kernel Stack Error".

Regards, Kiran Kumar Email: server.support@mphasis.com

Content from Blue screen of death. I don't think it adds anything new, but feel free to integrate it with the main article:

The 'Blue Screen of Death' (BSOD) is a text-only screen with white text displayed on a blue background: it is the response of the Microsoft Windows operating system to a major internal operating system inconsistency, the equivalent of a 'kernel panic' in UNIX-compatible systems.

The BSOD has been used as a symbol of the perceived lower reliability of the Windows operating environment compared to UNIX-compatible systems such as Linux.

I'm reverting user:The Anome's insertion of subtitles "Operating system crash" and "Application crash", because they are misleading: in Win9x/Me, BSoD's originate in the deepest parts of the operating system -- device drivers or the ring-0 part of the kernel. Terminating the current application is an (often vain) attempt to restore the system to a valid context, so that execution can continue. -- Tim Starling 13:41 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] about:mozilla

Microsoft has also included a reference to the BSoD as an easter egg in the Internet Explorer browser. Typing "about:mozilla" in the address bar will result in a blank blue page being displayed. The command is the standard way to bring up The Book of Mozilla, another easter egg on the Netscape family of browsers.

Can someone confirm this easter egg? I tried it in Windows XP SP2 and I don't see the blank blue page. I'm assuming this might just relate to a specific version of IE, if so could someone add the specific version to the article. AlistairMcMillan 18:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I can confirm the existence of this easter egg in IE version 6.0.2800.1106. 62.255.32.9 22:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It does not happen on Internet Explorer for Macintosh - not surprisingly, since it was made by a different team. (tested version: 5.2.1)

I tried this, but it doesn't seem to work for me, im using IE version 6.0.2900.2180 on XP Home. I tried both about:mozilla and about: mozilla, just to see if it works. Can anyone confirm this? Firestorm 23:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I can confirm it in IE 6.0.2800.1106 SP1 on windows 2000 professional SP4. Perhaps it is left out after win2k?
• I have IE 6.0.2900.2180 on Windows XP Professional, and it doesn't work for me. It just says "Action canceled". - Evil saltine 10:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• I tried it just now and it worked. --169.139.185.1 12:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• I also tried it, here is a screenshot. Energysword 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear in IE 6.0.2900.2180, but I could see it after typing the address seen in that screenshot: res://mshtml.dll/about.moz aditsu 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• It works on IE 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.040919-1003 on XPpro 5.1 sp1 --Mattopaedia 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New MediaWiki version error

Ah... the new MediaWiki seems mess up the originally intended BSOD recreation on the article. Any proposals on what to do? -- WB June 29, 2005 07:12 (UTC)

• It looked okay until the last edit.. I don't know why it was changed. - Evil saltine 5 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)

No, WB is right. It has not been looking right for a while; since the upgrade to MediaWiki v1.5. It looks like the last edit changed it; but it didn't. It has been not right for a while now; it's because with MediaWiki v1.5 came more disabling of HTML you're not supposed to use like the stylesheets used in the <pre> tags. The removing of these arguments (arguments as in HTML use; in this case the stylesheets) didn't make a difference because MediaWiki v1.5 disabled it anyway. However the <pre> tags by themselves seem to still work. But someone should somehow get it looking right again properly, or maybe remove it? I don't know, we need more suggestions. -- Daverocks 5 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

What's the reason for it ignoring the <pre> style? What other way is there to change the formatting, other than not using that tag at all? - Evil saltine 6 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

Anárion redid the mockups very well, using <div> tags instead of <pre>, which seem to work well. However, the Windows 95/98/Me BSoD recreation still looks messed up and as if it was done with <pre> tags to me. Despite this appearance, it is done with <div> and doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it. After examining and experimenting with the CSS and HTML (using the "Show preview" button of course), I still couldn't get it looking right. It's strange because it should have worked perfectly in the first place according to the markup. -- Daverocks 10:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I can only get the Win9x mockup to look right if I don't centre the 'Windows' line: apparently MediaWiki removes (partial?) styling on block level tags inside other block level tags. And to centre something with CSS it has to be block level. (<center> is treated as <div align="center" style="text-align: center"> by most browsers.) I'll try another trick.

-- Jordi·✆ 12:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

HTML is horrible, but at least it looks okay now.

-- Jordi·✆ 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. Thanks. And smart thinking with the nowiki tags. -- Daverocks 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gray Color

Anyone know what the web color for the gray box that appears at the top of the BSoD in 95/98/Me in which Windows is written? I'm assuming it is a web color and that the color is consistent in the different operating systems. Theshibboleth 8 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)

The article html gives the color as #AAA or #0A0A0A. - Evil saltine 9 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)

[edit] Proper capitalization

The title of this article is incorrect in that the term "Blue Screen of Death" is a name and so must be properly capitalized. The title, "Blue screen of death, should be changed to "Blue Screen of Death", and the article moved to that page. --Mb1000 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

I know this is not the right place to ask for help regarding my BSoD but I am just trying my luck if someone among you, folks, may help. There are plenty of technical troubleshooting on the web (including on Microsoft website) on how to fix it but my case is a bit different.

It all started when I first upgraded from Windows ME to XP. After rebooting the system, I got the BSoD and never could recover it. The problem is that I can't access the BIOS in order to boot from a CD and try to install Linux instead and therefore get rid of Windows problems. The BIOS is protected by a password that I don't have! Maybe clearing the CMOS jumpers or reset the BIOS by removing the CMOS battery for a while would work?

If not, would I need a Operating Disk System from the manufacturer to boot from? Or maybe, the best idea is to sue Microsoft?

My email is Szvest@gmail.com in case you feel sorry for my case ;). Cheers in advance. Svest 20:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windows ME BSOD

The Windows ME version of the BSOD is not entirely identical to the Windows 9x BSOD. The ME BSOD usually follows this format:

Windows

An error has occurred. To continue:

Press Enter to return to Windows, or Press CTRL+ALT+DEL to restart your computer. If you do this, you will lose any unsaved information in all open applications.

(if applicable)File Name: <component 1> + <component 2> Error : <error code> : <address> : <address>

Press any key to continue

I believe this should be addressed on this page in some form - the current version is misleading in that it represents the ME BSOD the same way as the 9x BSOD.

[edit] Screenshots

Is it really necessary to have full-width screenshots for all these?! Trollderella 23:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean the images or the text imitations? --tyomitch 09:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that we have the actual images, I don't think we need the text versions anymore, though we don't have all the types in image form. - Evil saltine 23:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You can screenshot the imitations and upload them as images ;-) --tyomitch 12:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war?

Looks like someone just starts a edit war before discuss. --Mateusc 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Red screen of death, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Red_screen_of_death, & Talk:Xbox 360 screen of death. There already seems to be a consensus regarding the RSoD. I don't think that anyone involved wishes to start an edit war. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What consensus? The page survived in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Red_screen_of_death, the Talk:Red screen of death is emptiness of opnions and the article is untouched by months since vfd [3]. In Talk:Xbox 360 screen of death are 2 guys with POV arguments incapable to say about the category and other numerable similar articles:

• Yellow screen of death
• Green screen of death
• Black screen of death
• Red screen of death

--Mateusc 00:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Red_screen_of_death#VFD debate: there is not an "emptiness of opinions" regarding the merge. As for the Xbox 360 SoD, lets discuss that at Talk:Xbox 360 screen of death. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The page survived on vfd. No {merged} tag was placed in the article, only today you invoked with this. I advise that you nominates the article for VDF/merge again. Your attitude is based on Xbox 360 screen of death and the creation of the article and not in the RSoD article existence. --Mateusc 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The VFD was closed with: "The result of the debate was keep or merge, but not delete. Discussion of whether to keep or merge is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)" (6 votes to merge, 6 votes to keep) The talk page contains three users who support a merger. Also, there is no formalized vote process for mergers, lets discuss this at the relevant talk pages. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

6 votes to keep and nothing made in last month. Very suspicious. Please, if you think will be merged, nominate article again. Doesn't have consensus, only a guy disturbed with Xbox 360 screen of death article. --Mateusc 01:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominate for what? Deletion? The articles already have merger discussions in the talk pages. I'm not sure I understand your argument here. --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

They had been 6 votes to keep. I think that by cause of this and article to be untouchable for months, another nomination must be made. If merge wins, I agree and all okay. What I disagree is you to take impulsive acts without consensus that you says exist. --Mateusc 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works, examine Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages vs. Wikipedia:Deletion process. Nowhere does it state that an article must remain "untouchable for months". BTW, your acts have been equally impulsive (not to mention a little bizarre). --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's observe. What you need understand is the things in the Wikipedia cannot be made by impulse. I'm wait until 8 members opposes the voting of keep counting with my opnion and the 6 others had voted. --Mateusc 01:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, that's not how this works. This is the discussion now. 'Keep' and 'Merge' are currently both on equal footing as a result of the AfD. This (and the subpages) are now the place to discuss this. There is no numerical requirement for how many users support/oppose either motion, nor do you get the final say in this. There is no 'statute of limitations' on merges. So let's all keep this civil and see what consensus comes out to be. --InShaneee 01:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the article should keep without merge and in the VFD another 6 members had said the same. I'm not alone. Particularly I think that merge goes generate a great confused article and deprived of focus/characteristics. --Mateusc 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Mat, if you go back and look carefully, 6 people also voted Merge. This wasn't a one sided debate. That's why it's here. --InShaneee 06:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup, and can you see another user arrived here with no merge opnion. Definitively has no consensus, or you continue seeing it? --Mateusc 09:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You're one person. If neccisary, we can reach consensus without your wishes. Either way, the past votes are COMPLETELY IRRELIVANT. This is a new disscussion here. --InShaneee 17:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Whats is irrelevant FOR YOU is relevant for the community! And no, you can't. You and nobody have authority to pass over the opnions of other members. --Mateusc 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

An authority that you presumed to have when reverting this article. Again, what was your point in doing that? Except for insulting me and InShanee by portraying us as "fanboys" that go against the will of the community, you haven't really offered a cogent reply to the arguments offered in support of the merger. --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not authoritarian, I'm simply a user as you keep the rights of all users here. --Mateusc 23:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you realize the hypocrisy of your "man of the people" rhetoric, especially after you accuse others of autocracy because they do not agree with you. It is becoming increasingly difficult to have a reasonable conversation with you. --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're attacking-me a bit. I'm not accusing anyone, who are making this is you. What's increasly difficult - in fact - is crazy fast merge that you and your friend Inshane try to make here with authoritarian comments. --Mateusc 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was solely responsible for the actual merge edits, but I do agree with InShaneee's take on the situation. The RSoD merger was carried out several weeks after it was suggested, there was no crazy fastness. Now I am not trying to attack you here, rather referring to your comments at Talk:Red screen of death & Talk:Xbox 360 screen of death. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No merging as they are different in color. --minghong 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mateusc 03:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

minghong, why does that matter at all? If I setup my Windows to use pink background for is BSoDs, will they no longer be BSoDs? --tyomitch 10:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse-me, but [4] [5] [6] [7] was reported heavily in the media. Isn't a simple concept "and if a pink screen appears". --Mateusc 10:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See that in each of these places, they present RSoD as "a new cousin to BSoD" and not someting entirely innovative. Why does it deserve separate article? Once again, it's not about deletion of the content, just moving it from a doomed stub into a big article. --tyomitch 18:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that it would get more exposure as a part of the BSoD article, and people would be better able to appreciate it's purpose here. --InShaneee 20:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The minghong argument is perfect, simply and compatible with the Wikipedia articles system. --Mateusc 23:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foo Screen of Death merge

It has been proposed that articles on various other screens of death be merged into this article. These other articles include:

• Xbox 360 screen of death
• Yellow screen of death
• Green screen of death
• Black screen of death
• Red screen of death

Mateusc brought this dispute to my attention, with the worry that a decision was going to be rushed on this topic. I agree; let's not merge the articles over his/her objections, quite yet.

Would anyone care to summarize the arguments for and objections to merging these articles, preferably without directly addressing the opposition? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note: I will be formatting comments here for clarity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(quoted from above): Just to summarize the argument, the possible reasons for a merger are simply and eloquently outlined at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Why merge a page? --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• If an article is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with an article on a broader topic.

I believe it applies to RSoD --tyomitch 10:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's laid out right there, plain and simple. --InShaneee 17:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree and looks like 7 other people also. --Mateusc 23:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

(Note: apparently these 7 people include the users who posted a "keep" vote in the vfd discussion.) --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you disconsidering the User:Minghong.

Mateusc, why do you disagree, and who are these people? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the 5 similar articles exists, because Category:Screens of death, because 6 members voted Keep in VFD Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Red_screen_of_death I think the articles should Keep. Curiously, this discussion was started when I created the Xbox 360 screen of death and two mergist guys decided merge articles untoucheables by months. --Mateusc 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A link to the X360SoD was added to the main Xbox 360 article, someone commented on it at Talk:Xbox_360#Remove and merge xbox screen of death link. This was indeed how I happened upon these SoD stubs. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the XB360SoD while on RC Patrol and thought the name sounded funny. I am NOT a mergist, and I'll ask you (again) to stop making accusations. --InShaneee 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree also with User:Minghong by the simply fact of color is different. The nature of error is different; The articles can be heavily expanded; And this is encyclopedia, not a tech-magazine. --Mateusc 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to cite the other reasons listed at WP:MM as I think they also apply.

• There are two or more articles on exactly the same subject.

The articles concern SoD error notices in Microsoft operating systems.

• There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

Again, the BSoD article provides context for the RSoD & Xbox360SoD stubs.

• If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

Why do SoDs matter anyway? Well, in Windows operating systems, they gather a large amount of media attention, and are often referenced in IT circles. See BSoD#Blue_screens_in_the_IT_industry, BSoD#Well-known_references_to_the_blue_screen_of_death, & BSoD#External_links. This information is useful for explaining why we even have information on the RSoD, as it will not even appear in Microsoft Vista. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Minghong. Merge RSoD with BSoD, and X360SoD will uncarachterize the article! The errors are different. Save the RSoD/X360SoD and let's expand and work in the articles! merge will only quote a fact like in a newspaper and leveling strong the subject! --Mateusc 00:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Those screens of death are on different topic: e.g. YSoD is about application-level errors (I wrote that article, so maybe I'm biased), while others are about kernel panics under different (variants of) operating systems. --minghong 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that an argument against merging just YSoD, or against merging all of them? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

All of them. As I said before, they are in different colors, if we merge them, why not merging all the colors into a huge article? We don't know how huge these stubs will be. Probably safer to keep them where they are. --minghong 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

We know that the Red screen of death stub has very little opportunity for expansion, for one (see Talk:Red screen of death). There only seems to be one SoD screen for the Xbox 360, and if the console has some major stablitity problems, those would be better documented at Xbox 360 --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I am arguing to merge Red screen of death & Xbox 360 screen of death only. I agree that the others are too different. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Same here. That's all I got into this about, and I'm not really sure how the other "oD"'s got dragged in. --InShaneee 00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn someone wanted to merge those here. If nobody speaks up, I'll remove them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with User:Anetode and User:InShaneee here, and only propose the merger of RSoD (and maybe XboxSoD). The other SoDs are not just "different colors" as User:Minghong says, they are different subjects. --tyomitch 08:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Here's my view of the argument: First of all, Wikipedia is not the place to be posting error reports. That's for the tech forums. The reason these articles deserve to be here at ALL is because of their inherent relation to the Blue Screen of Death (BSoD). The BSoD has become a cultural icon, having been seen by millions of users worldwide for almost a decade (the article goes in-depth about this, so I won't repeat what's already said). The reason we even have the names we do for these articles is because of their inherent similarity to the BSoD. On their own, there is very little to say about any of there. They're just bugs. Few people have actually seen the XB360SoD as of yet (and, since the system is still in development, it might stay that way), and NO ONE will ever see the RSoD (due to it's recent removal from Windows Vista pre-release). Therefore, we've got the textbook description of the perpetual stub here. Couple this with an ideal (and intuitive, for my money) place to merge to, and it seems cut and dry to me. I'd also like to state, however, that I make these remarks about the XB360SoD, the RSoD, and the B(lack)SoD, as these are the first two are the only ones that were being debated in the first place. Frankly, I question the validity of the YSoD and GSod articles at all, but that's another debate entirely. --InShaneee 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact I strongly disagree with you: "Wikipedia is not" - Looks like you are Censor here, above the right and the wrong. --Mateusc 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? Censor WHAT? I'm for keeping all of the information in both articles in question, just in a different place! And for the record, there ARE limits on what can and can't be on Wikipedia. --InShaneee 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry. But really when you talk "Wikipedia is not" "Not how this works" Wikipedia doesn't want articles looks like you tries to impose your argument in detriment of others as owner of the absolute truth. Sorry afterall If I'm injust accusing you. --Mateusc 00:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've just been stating the facts of wikipedia policy, both official and generally agreed on. I'll cite my sources if I need to, but I'd really rather not, since this whole thing is just silly. --InShaneee 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I came here from the RFC. I agree that the other SoDs should be merged with BSoD for the reason InShanee outlined: the BSoD is a cultural icon and can easily be expanded to an interesting, encyclopedic article. However, I do not feel that the others have the same detail and they belong best as a subcategory of BSoD's article, with a redirect of course. Kit 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RfC

Since the above discussion seems to have devolved into a confused flamewar, I'm placing my response to the RfC in a separate section.

• Red screen of death should certainly be merged in. The only major difference between an RSOD and a BSOD is the color.
• Black screen of death: The Windows section should certainly be merged in, as it's a Windows error mode.

However it's not an error message, as the other SoDs; it's just a blank black screen. I think it belong more in Microsoft Windows or Windows 3.x, but not the BSoD article. Not each Windows crash is a BSoD. --tyomitch 09:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Green screen of death could be merged in, as it's a low-level system error indicator. It's not for Windows, though.
• Black screen of death: The OS/2 section could be merged in, for the same reasons as above.

And both of them — into BSoD? Oh gosh, we're gonna have all sorts of crashes in one place? I mean, they belong to BSoD article no more than Kernel panic or Bomb (symbol). --tyomitch 09:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Xbox 360 screen of death: Should probably not be merged in. It's a low-level system error on a Windows computer, but the appearance of the screen on demo units in stores was a significant event in and of itself.
• Yellow screen of death: Should not be merged in here. It's an application-level error message, and as such, is probably too minor to warrant a Wikipedia article -- if anything, it should be merged into Mozilla Firefox.

--Carnildo 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in an agreement with this, except that I think the Xbox 360 screen should be merged at Xbox 360. There's no point for this article to be on its own and theres truly nothing of note at the current article that can't be summed up in a mere sentence or two at Xbox 360. K1Bond007 02:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the yellow screen is also used in .NET (for web), so you can't simply merge it into Firefox (as it can also appear in Mozilla, SeaMonkey, Thunderbird, etc. --minghong 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(it does say, 'if anything'. And frankly, I think we're mostly in agreement that we're only discussing the RSoD and the XB360SoD, anyway.) --InShaneee 03:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently YSoD doesn't cover its appearance in .NET at all :-/ --tyomitch 09:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Well, I think it might be a good idea to do a straw poll. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just make sure to note the people who've stoppe by above without hitting up the straw poll. --InShaneee 02:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge all of the articles listed above into this one

1. Support for the reasons I outlined in my comments in the RfC. Kit 07:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Steven 16:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge just RSoD and X360SoD into this one

1. per suggestions at WP:MM#Why merge a page? --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, for above reasons and for all reasons stated above. --InShaneee 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Consider this a vote in agreement with InShaneee, K1Bond007, et al., and in opposition to those who argue that the articles should exist separately. —Kbolino 03:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied from #Some sense of it)

[edit] No merges at all

1. Mateusc 00:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Gateman1997 00:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I think this is fine the way it is now. However I would suggest adding a "See also" section to each article pointing to the others.
3. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I see no need for a merge.
4. minghong 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
5. RSoD so far is not displayed as a kernel / OS error like the BSoD. As I understand a Windows Manager's response, it is a missing boot file error (and potentially fixable). The Xbox 360SoD makes sense being with an xbox or console article on errors, if one exists. Fuzzyslob 06:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
6. We do not know enough about the RSoD to decide on the articles. Longhorn (I like this name) or rather Vista was NOT released yet, therefore we should wait. We also do not know whether Vista will have the BSoD as well as the RSoD. If it will crash a lot (like Windows usually does), it may need two different kinds of error screens to indicate it.Freedom to share 16:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

Please explain what you're proposing if you sign here.

1. Merge just RSoD, and keep XboxSoD until discussed separately.

I don't know if it belongs more in main BSoD article, Xbox 360, or can go on its own as a "notable enough public event". --tyomitch 09:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree - merge RSoD (poss. rename the article to Windows Screen of Death?) and move X360SoD to Xbox 360, since it's a stub on its own and falls quite clearly into the Xbox 360 overall category. Poorsod 10:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree that RSoD should be merged no matter what--it is very closely related to BSoD & the RSoD information would benefit greatly from the content in the BSoD article. -- Karnesky 23:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to move we change "to here" to "to somewhere", just to get a better idea of one issue (which seems to be the larger one) out of the way before we move onto another. --InShaneee 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Indeed, this is getting confusing now. People seem to be voting on a plethora of different things, making it difficult to establish consensus on ANY of them. --InShaneee 01:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It would help to make separate votes on each of the articles to merge, and come to a consensus on each of them on its own. --tyomitch 09:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we just open the voting up on the individual talk pages, or is there a better way to do this? --InShaneee 17:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. When I resolve some other things going on, I'm going to make a general RFC for this, with the fate of each page decided individually, but in a centralized discussion. I think that's the best of both worlds. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Just post the link here when it's up and running! :) --InShaneee 03:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Any progress this far? I'm itching to merge the RSoD into here. --tyomitch 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Suggestions: Replace the Category:Screens of death with a full entry on this and merge all of the above in it instead of keeping as a category. This would ensure that none is given a higher value and the intro should have an explanation as to how the term came in with different subsections (Blue, Orange, Puce, whatever SOD) --TNLNYC 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• For how much time the pool does happen? I request comment of lot of people involved in the creation of articles and the Category. --Mateusc 00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  Well, it isn't binding, so it'll be around until people stop caring about it, I suppose. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some sense of it

My reasoning:

1. The blue and red screens of death are all Windows-related critical computer errors. They should be in the same article, possibly with a color-neutral name, and redirects from both. An explanation of the difference of the two should be included, with references to Vista/Longhorn betas.
2. Nothing is a "screen of death" unless it causes a critical, usually unrecoverable, error in an operating system. Many of the others relate to non-critical, easily recoverable processing errors in application software. They are simply plays on the buzz-phrase "screen of death".
3. Application software error messages do not warrant their own articles. They should be at most a small section on the page about the program. The blue screen of death is a cultural phenomenon as much as it is a critical error message. It is akin to a kernel panic/guru meditation/sad mac page and IS worthy of an article.
4. Until the Xbox 2 error message becomes a cultural phenomenon, it does not warrant its own article.

These are just my thoughts.—Kbolino 03:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Consider this a vote in agreement with InShaneee, K1Bond007, et al., and in opposition to those who argue that the articles should exist separately.—Kbolino 03:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed resolution for merge debate

Sorry I've been a bit inattentive, but it seems like this has died down a bit. With pretty much every interested party weighing in, here's my suggested resolution to this debate.

I haven't seen any argument that anything but the Blue screen of death is a significant cultural phenomenon in its own right. The closest thing would be the RSoD being anxiously scarfed up by people desparate for Vista news, and the 360SoD likewise, but for Xbox 360 news.

• Red screen of death is merged and redirected to BSoD, as RSoD is a red BSoD. Likewise, as the RSoD is only present in an alpha version of Vista, that article is not likely to expand past its current size.
• Xbox 360 screen of death should be merged and redirected to Xbox 360, with a brief mention and link in this article. Crashing X360s is not (yet) a cultural phenomenon. Please note that we do not (and should not!) have a separate article about the PlayStation 2's disk read errors, and they have been and likely will be covered and discussed much more than the 360SoD has been or will be.
• Green screen of death should definitely be merged to TiVo. It will never expand beyond a stub.
• Black screen of death is a tough case. It's about two different system errors on two separate OSes. As such, I suggest its content about DOS crashes in Windows be merged into BSoD, its content about OS/2 crashes be merged into OS/2, and that Black screen of death should be made into a disambig among Blue screen of death, OS/2, and Xbox 360.
• Yellow screen of death should be redirected to Mozilla. I don't feel its content would contribute significantly to that article, but if someone wanted to merge it properly, I wouldn't object.

What do you think? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

If you support the entirety of this proposal, sign here.

1. Support. Kit 02:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conditional support

If you support only part of this proposal, sign here and explain what parts you object to.

1. Wikipeida 14:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)I think the RSoD should be a separate article. The BSoD occurs while Windows is being run, while the RSoD says that it cannot be run, as there was a bootloader error. I also think that as Windows Vista will come out, more will be kown to the public about the RSoD.
2. RSOD so far seems to be a variation on BSoD; I say merge it. Keep the Black SoD a separate article. X360SoD seems to ahve already been resolved. Merge YSoD into Mozilla and link as "See Also" from BSoD. The others should stay articles. Just my 2 cents. --Ntg 07:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• And BTW, I think that error messages might be a cultural phenomenon in themselves, at least among "geeks"; jeez, there's even a screen saver that just cycles through them. I would like to write more articles for this category, but I'm afraid it's going to get all contentious like this. --Ntg 07:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I think this is a good idea, but according to the Vista article, the RSoD was dropped in the 5112 build of Vista. Of course it is still speculative to know for sure what color the final screen of death will be. Maybe it should be merged with the Vista in a section about beta Longhorn builds. The rest of the points I agree with completely.--Nbody 21:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Object

If you object to the entirety of this proposal, sign here and please explain why.

[edit] Comments

[edit] Windows Vista BSoD

Can anyone confirm the validity of the Vista BSoD? I did a google search, and so far it seems to look exactly like the Windows XP BSoD. --Akhristov 01:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the Vista BSoD for right now and putting it here. When I stumble across an actual Vista BSoD, I'll post this back on the page. — Alex 11:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Same with the image. If anyone confirms this, feel free to post it back in the article. Don't forget the source. — Alex 11:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent damage
to your computer.

   KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED

If this is the first time you've seen this error screen,
restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow
these steps:

STEP 1: Check to make sure any new hardware or software is properly installed.
If this is a new installation, ask your hardware or software manufacturer for
any Windows updates you might need.

STEP 2: If problems continue, disable or remove any newly installed hardware
or software, or try to run Chkdsk after a restart of the computer.

Technical information:

    STOP: 0x0000001E (0x80000003, 0xBFC0304, 0x0000000, 0x0000001)


You can now press Ctrl+Alt+Delete to restart the computer _

The image is a screenshot of a Stop-message in a bulid 5259-VMware-installation. Source - What you think? 1() 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's wait until Vista RTMs. It's just that there are different versions of the BSoD on the internet, so I'm having my doubts. — Alex 01:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also another Windows Vista BSoD which occurs due to a fault shortly before installation commences. I shall upload a screenshot shortly.

[edit] Colored screens of death merge

The blue screen of death is the only widely known screen of death, and the only one likely to be significant as an article by itself. I believe that most users looking up a screen of death, other than the BSOD, would most likely be looking out of curiosity about colored screens of death in general. If that is true, then the best thing to do would be to create a single article "Colored screens of death", and have each existing article redirect to its part in the main article. Few SOD's would make an article by themselves, but all of them together could constitute a decent article. What are you're opinions? --kenb215 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I doubt anyone's likely to go looking for "colored screens of death" since the blue one is the only widely known one. I just merged in "red screen of death", how many others are there? Kerowyn 09:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Catagories it under screens of death and have links at the bottom with a big catagory for microsoft. Do not merge. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] put back ads for BSOD

Also put back *Microsoft Announces Ads for BSOD but as *Microsoft Announces Ads for BSOD (joke). --Adam1213 Talk + 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we still need the text recreations?

Now that this article has actual images of BSoDs, I don't think the text recreations are needed anymore. Presumably, the reason for having them in text in the first place was the difficulty of capturing a screenshot. Thoughts? Evil saltine 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The text recreations are really, really similar to the actual BSoDs. In the case of Windows XP, I don't see any difference at all. We might as well get rid of the screenshots instead, since they take up more bandwidth and are fair-use images. Redquark 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2001

The article says "The blue screen of death in one form or another has been present in all Windows operating systems since Windows version 3.1 until about 2001 with the release of Windows XP." I interpret that as "In 2001, with the release of Windows XP, all BSoD's in the world were completely eradicated and they can not be seen anymore since then", which is totally wrong. I think a rephrase is needed. aditsu 10:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creations moved

I have moved the re-creations to Blue Screen of Death/Re-creations; We don't need the big re-creations on the page anymore (who consumed much space), we have already screenshots. --Off! 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I have a suggestion - renaming to a title that not "attacks" Microsoft Windows - such as "STOP error" or "Windows software errors", with a reference to the blue screen of death. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Screen of Death. Fdp 17:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Further to what has been mentioned in the AfD, it would seem a rename isn't needed. This is certainly the most common name it will be referenced by, I would suggesting leaving it like so. --Scot^t 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. However, what this article truly needs is at least one indication that "BSOD" while a very common term is by no means an official term and therefore is not endorsed by Microsoft. It is in fact somewhat of an "attack" on Microsoft. The fact that this is not clarified give the article a bias. It is by no means neutral. Whomever first coined the term was most certainly unhappy with Windows.

I have no problem with the term myself. but it does need clarification. What I find most amazing is that I even had to write this at this point in time... angrykeyboarder 22:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VFD

This was on VFD and was speedy kept. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV debate

Who put the POV-check on this article? Why? Please explain it below! Freedom to share 19:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I didn't place it on there, it does kind of seem like it isn't very neutral. Would you really see an article called Blue Screen of Death in a real encyclopedia? In any case, it's most referred to as this, and people seeking information on it will probably type in Blue Screen of Death or BSoD. Robot Chicken 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a one-word fix in the intro can cover NPOV worries. Wikipedia Is not Paper, and the article obviously has broad support. Ethan Mitchell 00:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My consolidation plan

Have these articles:

-Microsoft software errors

Xbox 360
BSoD
RSoD
Some Black SoD

-Software errors in applications

TiVo
YSoD
Some Black SoD

This simplifies items. Black Screen of Death article would have:

"The content you are looking for:

< Content 1

Content 2 >"

This is a content junction, which is a basic redirect to 2 pages (with a junction page, like Black Screen of Death)

-Tracker 01:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected Green Screen of Death to TiVo, as the error information is already covered there. Googling up on the X360 Screen of Death, the only sites that reference it are Wikipedia mirrors and commercial sites that rip Wikicontent. The X360SoD info is thus original research being disseminated by Wikipedia (not that the error doesn't exist, but Wikipedia is the only site that calls it an SoD). Good idea on merging the other SoDs, as they will never grow beyond poorly organized stubs. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 02:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is 0E?

One of the really common errors that seems to show up on bluescreens is "A fatal exception 0E has occured." So what is "fatal exception 0E"? I think I also saw a 0D earlier today, at an address that was all 0's. So while we're at it, what's 0D? Linguofreak 01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This Microsoft help page explains the meaning of the error codes. 0E is a page fault and 0D is a general protection fault. Redquark 18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I eventually Googled for it and found it out on my own. Linguofreak 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Windows doesn't cause the errors, they happen in the processor, Windows just reports them..." Har har har... Linguofreak 20:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messages displayed on the Windows NT BSoD

Recently I have created a list of messages displayed on the BSoD, yet it was speedily deleted. I agreed with that as it was not the best article quality (I know, I am ashamed of even putting it there )-:) Yet I seriously think we should compile another one of those as it would bring the BSoD article up to FAC status. Anyone willing to help?Freedom to share 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh yes, and please look at:
  • Extract troubleshooting info from Windows XP BSOD error messages
  • Troubleshooting Windows STOP Messages

Freedom to share 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gates' infamous BSoD (again)

This event could not go unmentioned! So I added it to the article. One thing though... If you look closely at the video, the BSoD seems to float in from the side rather than simply popping onto the screen. Furthermore, when the BSoD appears there are still some icons at the bottom, i.e. the BSoD does not cover the whole screen. I've never seen or heard of the BSoD exhibiting these behaviours. Of course they might be an artifact of the ancient Litepro they were using at the time; although I'm inclined to think the whole event was a gag (known to Gates, or not.) Anybody heard anything? I'm too lazy to go trawling through forums for any opinions or info. --Jquarry 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they would have faked this; they got more than enough bad press from it. --Saforrest 13:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Gates' BSoD

I have removed this bit:

although to be fair Windows 98 was still in a very early development stage at the time.

At the time (April 20, 1998), Windows 98 was in a so-called "late beta", and it shipped three months later! There's no possible way one could describe this as an "early development stage" for an OS. --Saforrest 13:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

When the screen of death appears, on windows 95 or later, does it change to DOS mode when the screen of death appears?

No... Not to my knowledge. I've never recieved a command prompt after a bluescreen. Linguofreak 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Screensaver

Has anyone got the Linux operating system? If they have, have a look to see if you have a screensaver called BSOD. This emulates other operating systems' "blue screens of death". It may be interesting to add that to the article if someone can think of what to write! --Stwalkerster 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 1.0 "bluescreen"

This doesn't look like a real BSoD! It should be removed, since it is not a real example. We don't want people to think it's real. It is NOT the bluescreen.

• Is it a screen? Yes. Is it blue? Yes. Does it occur when something went wrong? Yes. I think that that is enough to fit the definition:

"The Blue Screen of Death (sometimes called "bluescreen", "stop error" or just abbreviated as "BSoD") is a popular name for the screen displayed by Microsoft's Windows operating system when it cannot recover from, or is in danger of being unable to recover from, a system error." The only difference consists in the fact that this particular BSoD is not very useful to treat the problem that just occured. Well, unless you can read binary (which I think the output on there is), in which case it might be vital. (But not many people can read it) Freedom to share 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Guys, but this is NOT a blue screen of death. The color does not mean anything in that case. We refer to Blue Screen of Death as a *controlled* way of stopping the system when something non-recoverable goes wrong. It is -in WinNT systems- made to ensure that no more data can get harmed at this point, other than in Win9x where it actually is able to continue but without any guarantee. In both cases system info is displayed in human readable form (i.e. english). The Win1.0 "blue screen" is a coincidence because the boot logo screen was with a blue background, nothing more! The data on the screen is not a controlled output such like a BSoD on NT or 9x systems. Lofote 19:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows CE

"The simplest version of the blue screen occurs in Windows CE, but not in Windows CE for Pocket PC. " I have seen a bsod a few times on both my old PocketPC 3.0 (HP Jornada 548) and my newer PocketPC 2002 (HP Jornada 568). So this info seems to be incorrect. Lofote 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 9x screenshot just has a text link instead of image

When going here, I saw that the BSoD for Win 9x is only in the form of a textual link, no actual blue background or anything. I tried editting the page to try and fix this, but it doesn't seem to work no matter what I throw at it. All others load just fine. Refreshing the page didn't work and trying several variants didn't work. I'm not sure if this is my browser causing this (Firefox 1.5.0.6), or if there's something wrong not on my end. If I click the text-only link, it loads just fine and I can see it that way, but it doesn't appear at all on the main document. Ulillillia 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Screen Error

Isn't the official name of it the "blue screen error"? 67.188.172.165 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no. Where did you hear that name from? The "official" name is just "Stop Error". --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 03:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about Green Screen

If we are going to talk about red then someone needs to write more about the green screen error on windows. I have seen this myself twice in 3 years of work with windows XP machines. It's much less common than blue errors like UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME but someone should substantiate it more. I added in what I know but someone should clean it up.

 Dave
 

Why did someone delete my edit related to the green screen error in windows? If you are going to remove my edit please at least give a reason.

 Dave

[edit] Green screen of death

No trace on Google. (Searched for "Green Screen XP -site:wikipedia.org"). Original had a link to a Photoshopped image as an example. You decide if it should be added on again:

A green screen error also occurs in Windows XP much less frequently than a blue screen error (about 1% as common). This error seems to be a high level kernel panic of some sort. It is fixable with a destructive reinstallation of windows.

BCube|_c|t 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for being formal about it. All I know is that I have seen the green screen kernal panic and so have at least two of my associates who work at a computer technical helpdesk on this college campus. Over two and one half years I have seen two instances of it vs about 100 or 200 blue screen manifestations. Since it is so uncommon perhaps it doesn't even deserve to be put in the article anyways, but someone should really contact Microsoft technical support and i'm certain if you spoke with a high level tech(probably not the front line flunkies) then you would hear something intereting about the error.

  -Dave

[edit] Red screen

The article says in the red screen section that the screen can also be found (but rarely) in versions of Microsoft's Windows 98 operating system. If that screen exist, is it similar to the following screen that have black text and red background? --COstop 22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  In my many, many years of repairing Windows based PC's, I've only encountered the Windows 98 "red screen of death" twice in my life. I can't recall if it's similar to that screen or if it was a red background with white text, but it sure as heck shocked everyone in the room. Both times I encountered it was after replacing an older motherboard with a newer ACPI motherboard. 24.36.153.235 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I recieved a red screen in Windows XP Oct, 19th 2006 1:28am repeatedly after nv4disp.dll became damaged and was causing my video card to enter infinite loops.

driver reinstalled fixed it, but I don't see the red screen mentioned for XP, it is definitely there.70.13.185.196

[edit] References to the Blue Screen of Death

Do we really need "References to the Blue Screen of Death" to rival the article in length? – Mipadi 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is becoming obnoxiously long. A few prominent references make sense, but numerous references to obscure pop culture elements add little to the article, and even detract from it. Let's try to weed out the cruft while keeping the major references. – Mipadi 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is really, really long. There must be 100s more examples of the BSoD, so really the list as it is is arbitrary. Bill Gates getting the BSoD in a presentation is notable, not Startopia. Scepia 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image at top

Honestly, is a pay phone a notable example of BSoD? I think a Windows PC is at least 100x more likely to have the BSoD, so shouldn't we use such a picture? Scepia 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salon.com as a source for this article

This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia.Andries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)