Talk:Red Screen of Death/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

Play Station 2

Some people have mentioned the red cloud on the ps2 BIOS an RSOD, but there's nothing about it here.

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...

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) Don't place it in the article, even a newbie like me who doesn't know formatting etiquette knows that this violates NPOV. 174.113.230.100 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ps2rsod.JPG

Image:Ps2rsod.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Memphis 1400 RSoD.JPG

Image:Memphis 1400 RSoD.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

microsoft's latest os

I don't think we should include that it is Microsoft's latest operating system. It sounds like an ad.Gramy (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The latest as in the most recently late? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This page could be merged into Screens of death since every single screen of death is not as notable as the Bluescreen. --FlagFreak ^TALK 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for reason above, and that each individual "screen of death" article is short enough that they can be merged into an encyclopedic, yet not over-long, article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge them for sure. _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 01:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'll have to agree, all the articles except the Blue and possibly black should be merged into 1. (GT4GTR (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

• Support; really no need for every Screen Of Death to have a separate article. --arny (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Against; I do not support the merger of the two articles in question. The arcticles should be kept seperate considering the RSoD is different then the BSoD. (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.73.183 (talk)

• Support; merging Red Screen of Death, Blue Screen of Death, and Black Screen of Death, so long as the size is reduced without loosing information as required by the Screens of Death premise (types of errors that cause the screen on the affected platforms) or loosing useful technical info.
  Against; Kernel panic being merged, as it is about the fault rather than the reporting of it — would concede that this is an ambiguous distinction.
  --JamesEG (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Against; I do not support the merger of the two articles. Kernel panic and handling kernel panic is a big enough article. Its better to keep it separate and allow it to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasbt (talk • contribs) 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support; merging all screens of death into a single article then splitting off when article size warrants. For example, all Microsoft-Windows-NT-series screens of death can be spun off as a unit, as their is clearly enough material to warrant a stand-alone article. Compare the various "hurricane season" articles, particularly those of the 20th century: There is one article for the season and a separate article for those storms which had enough information available to make a quality article. As a general rule of thumb: If there is less than one screen-full of material on a given screen-of-death, don't spin it off. If there is much more, spin it off and put in a one-paragraph summary along with the {{main}} template to link to the spun-off article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom Million_Moments (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support no need for so many small articles-LelandRB (Chat · contribs) 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support merging of Red Screen of Death, Against merging of Black Screen of Death, due to length issues. Deathwish644 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathwish644 (talk • contribs)

• Support; Would be easy to merge this article because of length. I agree with Deathwish644 as with Black Screen of Death. NeoDoubleGames 18:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The Screens of death article has been nominated for deletion. fraggle (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivial

The following line are too trivial :

" A tool is available to change the color of a Blue Screen of Death (BSoD) to other colors like red, green, etc for Windows 9x in system.ini"

I consider removal. Junkcops (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Gone. Until a user can find the actual program or add some kind of encyclical content to it, there is no place for it. Deathwish644 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathwish644 (talk • contribs)

BIOS error screen

I've heard that some PC BIOSes and VGA BIOSes will show a Red Screen of Death when they have a serious error (such as a failed firmware flash or damaged hardware). Has anyone ever seen or heard of this? (This would probably predate Vista by at least 10-20 years) 68.166.189.84 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No sources, sorry. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Garbage

This whole article is garbage. It needs to be completely rewritten from an objective and professional standpoint. Cid SilverWing 12:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.178.16 (talk)

PlayStation/PlayStation 2 stuff

First off, the PS2 will not show a RSoD if an Xbox game is inserted. Instead it will play the DVD-Video portion of the Xbox game, which I have recorded before. Secondly, the original PlayStation does not use red for the screen of death, instead it uses the man menu's background. (I can screenshot that later.) The PS one, however, displays the square design of the main menu but with a red tint plus the same text that the PlayStation used. I can also screenshot this if needed. Kasm279 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not neccesarily an XBox game (I don't have any of those) but I have had the RSOD on the PS2 countless times in the past. I don't know which PS1 shows it but I know one model of it does (be it the original, Ps One etc). http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PS1_RSoD.png also http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/1JKaQvtT9YQ/mqdefault.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.174.217 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)