No more BSODs

An area for laughter. We welcome intelligent and clean jokes.

Moderator: Edward

No more BSODs

Postby Fulvio » Tue 28 Jan, 2003 8:50 pm

This is the reply which I received , after asking my tech support fellow at the Medical Center, where I worked. I was asking for some assistance, since I had a number of BSODs, with Windows, of course, and a few other problems, after installing Linux.

1> http://toastytech.com/files/bsod.html

2> In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft President Steve Ballmer
revealed that the Redmond-based company will allow computer resellers and
end-users to customize the appearance of the Blue Screen of Death (BSOD),
the screen that displays when the Windows operating system crashes. The
move comes as the result of numerous focus groups and customer surveys done
by Microsoft. Thousands of Microsoft customers were asked, "What do you
spend the most time doing on your computer?" A surprising number of
respondents said, "Staring at a Blue Screen of Death." At 54 percent, it
was the top answer, beating the second place answer "Downloading XXXScans"
by an easy 12 points. "We immediately recognized this as a great
opportunity for ourselves, our channel partners, and especially our
customers," explained the excited Ballmer to a room full of reporters.
Immense video displays were used to show images of the new customizable
BSOD screen side-by-side with the older static version. Users can select
from a collection of "BSOD Themes," allowing them to instead have a Mauve
Screen of Death or even a Paisley Screen of Death. Graphics and multimedia
content can now be incorporated into the screen, making the BSOD the
perfect conduit for delivering product information and entertainment to
Windows users. The BSOD is by far the most recognized feature of the
Windows operating system, and as a result, Microsoft has historically
insisted on total control over its look and feel. This recent departure
from that policy reflects Microsoft's recognition of the Windows desktop
itself as the "ultimate information portal." By default, the new BSOD will
be configured to show a random selection of Microsoft product information
whenever the system crashes. Microsoft channel partners can negotiate with
Microsoft for the right to customize the BSOD on systems they ship. Major
computer resellers such as Compaq, Gateway, and Dell are already lining up
for premier placement on the new and improved BSOD. Ballmer concluded by
getting a dig in against the Open Source community. "This just goes to show
that Microsoft continues to innovate at a much faster pace than open
source. I have yet to see any evidence that Linux even has a BSOD, let
alone a customizable one."


3> Call me at 559-5377 so I can get more info and try to help you.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)
A minority may be right, and a majority is always wrong
~ Henrik Ibsen
WinXP, SP3, 512 MB, SM2.9.1, FF12, TB12.0.1, IE8.0, Google Chrome18, Ghostwall , Avast 7.x, JRE1.7_04. Testing FF13b3
User avatar
Fulvio
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 11915
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 10:08 am

Postby Antony » Tue 28 Jan, 2003 9:27 pm

interesting...
So, BSOD is "Blue Screen of Death".
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14510
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Fulvio » Tue 28 Jan, 2003 10:04 pm

Antony wrote:interesting...
So, BSOD is "Blue Screen of Death".


Yes, but now I can select to have GSOD, for green, or PSOD, for purple, etc.
The problem is still there, but there is more variety.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)
A minority may be right, and a majority is always wrong
~ Henrik Ibsen
WinXP, SP3, 512 MB, SM2.9.1, FF12, TB12.0.1, IE8.0, Google Chrome18, Ghostwall , Avast 7.x, JRE1.7_04. Testing FF13b3
User avatar
Fulvio
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 11915
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 10:08 am

Postby Mandrake » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 1:12 am

Bah! Use something based on the NT kernel and you wont ever see a crash.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 4:10 am

Mandrake wrote:Bah! Use something based on the NT kernel and you wont ever see a crash.
You sure?
Windows 2000 Pro presented me more blue screens than Win 95/98/98SE (combined).
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14510
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 8:40 am

You must be do something wrong. Running Windows 2000 normally, it is as stable as any other desktop operating system, short of UNIX. Best Uptime on this machine: 2 Weeks, 6 days, 15 Hours. Never crashed.

Windows 9x is a different, story -- Doing a fresh install on another computer, 98 freezes when I tried to install a video driver! (That was 98SE). Of course, 95 OSR2 was more reliable than 98/Me - because of the active desktop.

Quoted from Microsoft:
It's simple. If you want your people to get more done in less time, they need an operating system that was designed, built, and tested to meet the toughest business demands. Windows 2000 Professional® is up to 30 percent faster and, according to NSTL tests, 13 times more reliable than Windows 98. In short, Windows 2000 Professional is the most reliable Windows ever.


Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/pr ... efault.asp
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030128
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Fulvio » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 2:34 pm

So what? It was a joke, at least I think it was. Win 98 never crashed on me, unless I tried to do something which it was not made for. In fact, the one I described allows me to have BSODs, or any SODs, at will. And, that's fun.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
A minority may be right, and a majority is always wrong
~ Henrik Ibsen
WinXP, SP3, 512 MB, SM2.9.1, FF12, TB12.0.1, IE8.0, Google Chrome18, Ghostwall , Avast 7.x, JRE1.7_04. Testing FF13b3
User avatar
Fulvio
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 11915
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 10:08 am

Postby Antony » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 6:25 pm

Mandrake wrote:Quoted from Microsoft:
It's simple. If you want your people to get more done in less time, they need an operating system that was designed, built, and tested to meet the toughest business demands. Windows 2000 Professional® is up to 30 percent faster and, according to NSTL tests, 13 times more reliable than Windows 98. In short, Windows 2000 Professional is the most reliable Windows ever.


Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/pr ... efault.asp

Ha Ha

Windows 2000 crashes all the time, wasted me NZD240 for that copy.

Games does not play well... Plenty of problems with The Sims.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14510
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 7:29 pm

Some people are lucky, with Windows 9x/Me - but in the end you wont last more than 3 or so days before you must reboot. Windows 2000 has full support for DirectX, and all the games I play run perfectly on it. Infact, if the beloved XP is so very reliable, it is due to the fact that it is based on the Windows 2000 Kernel, not the old 9x Kernel.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030128
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 8:14 pm

I agree Windows XP is stable. But Windows 2000 isN'T.
Games don't play well under Windows 2000.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14510
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Edward » Wed 29 Jan, 2003 8:43 pm

I use Win NT 4 (with SP 6A) in work, and I will occasionally get a blue screen, requiring a complete powerdown to clear up.

Generally, when this occurs, it involves a "memory core dump" of some kind. No one seems to know what causes them to happen.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
SillyDog701 Moderator
debian 6 - iceape - iceweasel - icedove - seamonkey
User avatar
Edward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Sun 01 Dec, 2002 7:15 pm

Postby Mandrake » Thu 30 Jan, 2003 4:56 am

Windows 2000 is based on an enchanced version of the Windows NT 4.0 Kernel, which was based on 3.51 which was based on 3.1 etc etc :)

Windows XP Professional (and home I think) is based on an unmodified version of the Windows 2000 Kernel. Meaning, it should be just as stable as Windows 2000 - which is rock solid.

If you get BSOD's in Windows 2000, it would be due to hardware problems, It would run perfectly for me and screw up on you without a reason.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030128
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am


Return to Penguin

Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]