Talk:Red Screen of Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Older comments 2 VFD debate 3 Merge to BSoD 4 Xbox underinformation 5 Spelling mistake 5.1 Conclusion 6 Inline text example 7 Stale link

[edit] Older comments

Shouldn't Microsoft concentrate it's efforts on eradicating these errors rather than making the system that deals with them unnecessarily complicated? I'd very much like it if neither blue nor red screens of death were required, and that Microsoft gets their act straight.

---Shane Hodgson

Dear whoever you are, know that every OS on this planet has a BSoD-like kernel panic screen. Yep, even OpenBSD, Linux, MacOS <8 (the bomb), OS/2 or even QNX. Some exceptions are stuff that just doesn't work anymore if the kernel is in non-stable state (VxWorks I think does that in release mode).

Thanks for your interest in bashing and trolling. Be my guest. Poltras 10:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer for a screen of death to appear on the screen rather than the system going nuts and erasing hard drives or overclocking processors. Let's just say the system was told to divide by 0. It would be better to see a screen rather than an absolute breakdown, maybe reboot or worse. The screen can also appear when the computer is overclocked. I prefer a screen to a burnt out processor, don't you? There are unfixable errors. We have kernel panicks in Unix-based systems and BSoDs and RSoDs in DOS and Windows NT-based systems. It should not be criticized. Freedom to share 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Shane, if you are concerned about buggy Microsoft software that crashes constantly, not to mention all its many many other problems, I recommend switching to Linux. I don't know what your level of expertise is, but it's got to the point now where many Linux distributions can be installed easily enough by the home user and you could have yourself up and running and free from Microsoft in no time. There's also enough quality free software these days to do everything you need and a whole load of things you'd never even thought of. As Poltras says, every operating system has an equivalent - no complex computer system is truly uncrashable, but some are certainly a lot better than others, and for those of us who've left Microsoft's junk behind, we feel sympathy for those still stuck with Windows. XP used to crash on me frequently, or it would get messed up and I'd have to reboot, or I'd find spyware on it or something because of Internet Explorer's hopeless security flaws. Linux for me was a breath of fresh air. 86.136.4.66 06:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Then again. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

<POV>For me, Linux is slow and crashes incessantly. XP never does. Linux advocates yell and scream for you to switch, and then when you do, you'll get a big 'ol elitist RTFM when you can't figure anything out. Linux is great, but only for certain people in certain situations. Someday, maybe, it will be ready for the masses, but not if the typical user can help it.</POV> — Omegatron 02:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say that Linux is better for those who actually want to learn something from using their PC, and not have everything automated for them without seeing all the processes that are going on, for example, during rebooting.Freedom to share 10:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, Linux still doesn't have a good component object model. Go figure. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VFD debate

This article has been kept after this VFD debate. Several suggestions to merge, but that discussion is for this page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone to support merging this article into BSoD? (I don't know which is the correct way to initiate merger discussion, so let it just start now.) --tyomitch 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I support it. The only reason this is even notable (why would Wikipedia want an article about an error message?) is by it's association with the BSoD, which is now a cultural icon. --InShaneee 00:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the merger as well. Earlier today I duplicated the contents of this article, and of Xbox 360 screen of death, at Blue screen of death. I don't know about the Xbox 360 entry, but between this talk page and the vfd debate, there seems to be a consensus to merge RSoD. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm against the merge because the existence of many other similar articles.

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

Sorry, but looks like you are bothered with the creation of the article Xbox 360 screen of death and proves of this is that they had not moved a straw about other articles (yellow, black and green). --Mateusc 00:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

YSoD, GSoD, & B(lack)SoD do not concern Microsoft products, BSoD does. Also, the existence of the other SoD articles is not necessarily an argument not to merge, the RSoD articles and Xbox360SoD articles are too small to be individual entries, if not included with BSoD, they'll be little more than stubs. Further, the information from RSoD & Xbox360SoD will be preserved, simply at a more convenient location. --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote merge this one, but not the others. The BSoD and the RSoD are to do with versions of Windows but the X360 and the Y/G/BlSod are unrelated products. The X360SoD is a sticking point because it is a Microsoft product, but I think it should remain separate due to the logistics of merging a console article with a PC article and keeping a consistent standard. Poorsod 10:15, 12 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 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There were also 6 votes for Merge, and there's no statute of limitations on this thing. And you do NOT send an article to AfD that you don't want nominated. It says in the discussion, this needs to reach consensus here. --InShaneee 06:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to BSoD

Shouldn't a decision on this wait until Vista is released, so we will know whether the RSoD is part of the released product? Gazpacho 04:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft already made a press release about the RSoD, so it's pretty safe to assume it'll be there. --InShaneee 06:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, I've seen a press release about the RSoD being removed from Vista, so IMO it has historical significance only. --tyomitch 09:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, alright. Never caught that one before, thanks. In that case, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It should probably just be merged into BSoD as "The Blue Screen That Was and Never Will Be". --InShaneee 17:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The RSoD is notable regardless of its inclusion in the finished product as its appearance in the development builds stirred up a lot of media attention ([1] [2]). If it's not in Vista, then this article is doomed to stubdom and bereft of context. Alternately, if it is included, then it could be spun off into its own article or simply treated as the next incarnation of the BSoD--anetode¹ ² ³ 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no argument about the notability of RSoD; it had already been discussed on VfD, and the RSoD has been declared notable enough — so it's not the subject here. The subject is, does this red flavor of BSoD deserve a separate article? --tyomitch 18:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and may I quote the reply I got from Michael Kaplan, the guy who started all this fuss about RSoD:

Since it has been removed from the product anyway, there is nothing further to write
about other than to perhaps point out that it was removed.

Before someone declare consensus, I would ask to wait because I request opinion of some members involved - including the user who created the category. --Mateusc 11:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, not how this works. Consensus is the here and now. If somebody contacts them and they decide to jump into the discussion, fine. But there's no mandate stating that we have to wait for them. --InShaneee 17:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Here and now? You are a **** authoritarian and loking finish this fast without propper discuss. Go and you will see what happen. --Mateusc 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't make ad hominem attacks against InShaneee. You were the one who reverted the changes before posting any comments on this talk page. There were two other editors who supported a merger, aside from those from the vfd debate, and there was no noted opposition. Get off your high horse and stop with the threats of an edit war. --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not making attacks, You are accusing me and user User:Minghong make the oppose in Talk:Blue screen of death. --Mateusc 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that the language barrier might make it difficult for us to understand each other, but statements like "You are a **** authoritarian" seem needlessly derogatory. --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge. Too short to deserve its own article, more interesting / more valuable in a direct context to BSoD. I kind of support a move for all other than Black screen of death based on the lengths, but certainly this and Xbox 360 screen of death. Merge it.jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge. Regardless of what happens to the various other *SoD articles, I agree with above that RSoD (in particular) is more valuable in context with the BSoD. -- Karnesky 23:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge. I know I'm just a random user, but this seems like a subarticle of the Blue Screen of Death, which has its own curious import. Since it is still a Microsoft SoD, but is coloured red instead of blue, containing similar data, and possibly not even existant anymore, I think it deserves to be merged to Blue Screen of Death. It is also possibly data to be reproduced in a context-appropriate format at a Microsoft Vista OS article. Of course, we could always just make a List of Coloured Screens of Death? Tavish 08:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge - not quite notable enough apart from bsod, and really only interesting in the context of bsod. Pjrich 08:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the red screen of death described here is different from the other Red Screen of Death which is a more severe version of the blue screen of death which I've personally seen occur on systems (specifically win 98) which display a blue screen of death in less serious situations than whatever computational cataclysms which produce the red screen of death. Im not a computer savvy guy, hope someone out there has seen this before too and knows what it reall is.

Since the consensus seems to be merge I'm going to go ahead and do that. Kerowyn 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox underinformation

I would not want an Xbox SoD as there is a considerably small amount of info in it. I love getting SoD's, but not when they say:

"The system is down and you are not smart enough to do anything about it"

I expect more from a SoD, especially a bunch of code I will never get and more info about the error. We should not need technical support, but solve problems ourselves.Freedom to share 16:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling mistake

Why is exectuion mispelled in the screenshot? Is this because of what? -- Thorpe ^talk 23:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

To invite more MS-bashing, such as They also apparently assigned “spelling-challenged” engineers to the project, based on their spelling of the word “Execution” [3]

Joking apart, I don't really know. --tyomitch 09:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I would so laugh if they put that in the final version. -- Thorpe ^talk 12:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Idiots (Microsoft, I mean). Let's just hope that sort of thing doesn't show up in Lon-- uh, Vista's final release. (Can someone here please tell me how my text got so small?) 21655 17:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. My Windows XP BSoD was misspelled too. A spelling mistake in two versions in a row. Can't the guys at Microsoft Corporation spell? There would never be such a mistake in open source stuff such as Linux. Freedom to share 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It was not a spelling error, but capitalisation. But it's still bad... Freedom to share 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In a row? I'm surprised they didn't already start a "Debate on MS's spelling" talk article yet. Or did they? If yes, then gimme the URL. PS: I'm the 21655 who said "idiots" two comments ago. Don't believe me? Check my signature. --RageSamurai 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how they (Microsoft corp.) first publish an online dictionary (only for Microsoft Office, of course) and then still misspell their simplest-looking part of the system - their BSoD's.Freedom to share 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)OK, now the text is OK size, how was it done? Probably a bug in the Wikipedia php code...

[edit] Conclusion

OK, so now users pay a lot for a proprietrary system and what they get is a spelling error? The problem probably lies in either the bad organisation of Windows or maybe not enough work and rechecking was done on it. Trust me, this page could be extended into a lot of anti-Microsoft suspicions such as they don't check over their code properly, which would mean their programming was done in haste and carelessly. Now, the big question is: Could something like that ever happen in Linux? The answer is no, ok, for all opponents of open source it's nearly no as they say that no-one would do it as they would think it would be done by someone else. Microsoft should be careful of what they publish as this could start a huge case against them. Just imagine what would happen if people would start believing accusations that their code was done carelessly and in haste... Now, what we need is some more "evidence" against them and we could start something. Long live Linux!!! Freedom to share 16:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inline text example

The text example isn't working for me, probably because of the pixel-based width instead of a character-based width. I'm in Firefox in Linux. I'm sure it's possible to do one that works on everyone's screens, but is it even necessary with the image? — Omegatron 02:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, BSoD had both images and text, so I decided to put both here, too. --tyomitch 06:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that one doesn't look right, either. — Omegatron 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can, you'd better go and fix it. It could probably take less of your time than this discussion. --tyomitch 16:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stale link

The link to Joichi Ito's page doesn't work. Should it be removed? Mikeblas 05:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)-->

Now it does... Who fixed it? Freedom to share 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)