Has anyone else got the BSOD on 7 Yet?

[KSoD]

Ha, I hear that one. How about color codes instead of the 0x00000000438793 to figure out what went wrong?

Green for memory.
Blue for applications.
Red for drivers.

etc..

If you read my post above it is not that simple. Yeah it maybe a application that caused the BSoD but what if the underlying problem is a Memory Access Violation? So what is it then? Green or Blue? Make it teal? What if it is a Hard Drive access that is caused by a bad driver? Make it purple?

Plain and simple i said it above. It is already the way it should be. Changing colors does nothing but confuse the matter more as the code given tells more information than changing a color will. In fact changing the color could in fact make it worse since it may point to something that isnt even the problem or the problem might be worse than what it says it is. At that point people will be all up in arms that Windows doesnt give this information. So where is this imaginary line that will make everyone happy? It doesnt exist. Either it is to complicated for average users or is it dumbed down to the point it is useless. Either way someone gets hurt by not getting the proper information.

 

[Jayce]

If you read my post above it is not that simple. Yeah it maybe a application that caused the BSoD but what if the underlying problem is a Memory Access Violation? So what is it then? Green or Blue? Make it teal? What if it is a Hard Drive access that is caused by a bad driver? Make it purple?

Plain and simple i said it above. It is already the way it should be. Changing colors does nothing but confuse the matter more as the code given tells more information than changing a color will. In fact changing the color could in fact make it worse since it may point to something that isnt even the problem or the problem might be worse than what it says it is. At that point people will be all up in arms that Windows doesnt give this information. So where is this imaginary line that will make everyone happy? It doesnt exist. Either it is to complicated for average users or is it dumbed down to the point it is useless. Either way someone gets hurt by not getting the proper information.

My point was sarcasm, yet at the same time, it had a serious curve to it.

If you think 0x00000000003478739 codes are easier than the primary colors, then that's your opinion.

The system is intelligent enough to barf out the BSOD code to you. Why not something a little more... I don't know... practical?

 

[S0ULphIRE]

My point was sarcasm, yet at the same time, it had a serious curve to it.

If you think 0x00000000003478739 codes are easier than the primary colors, then that's your opinion.

The system is intelligent enough to barf out the BSOD code to you. Why not something a little more... I don't know... practical?

I get what you're saying, but yeah colours wouldn't work lol, too many errors.
Maybe simpler numbers would be good, but otherwise I reckon it's ok the way it is.

Anyway, I think we can all agree this thread was a little pointless in the first place. It's like asking 'hey, did anyone eat food recently?' Of course some people are going to have had bsods, and for exactly the same reasons as before.

 

[Lexluethar]

I get what you're saying, but yeah colours wouldn't work lol, too many errors.
Maybe simpler numbers would be good, but otherwise I reckon it's ok the way it is.

Anyway, I think we can all agree this thread was a little pointless in the first place. It's like asking 'hey, did anyone eat food recently?' Of course some people are going to have had bsods, and for exactly the same reasons as before.

I did, i had 5 guys the other night for the first time.

 

[Jayce]

I did, i had 5 guys the other night for the first time.

Double bacon cheeseburger with grilled onions, pickles, jalapeno peppers, mustard, ketchup, A1 sauce, frank's hot sauce, cajun fries, regular coke OMG NOM NOM NOM NOMMMM

 

[S0ULphIRE]

AughHHHhhhh! Now my cheese toasties and ice water just look plain and un-nomable

 

[KSoD]

Alright i know that there are something said in jest but lets set the record straight.

First off the Stop Error code is 0X000000ZZ where ZZ is the code that matters. It is not something extremely difficult to comprehend. There are some obscure codes that have 0XC0000ZZZ but there is only 7 codes with that. The majority are the first set i listed. So tell me how knowing 2 alpha numeric characters is complicated? Cause i certainly dont see it. I have the site listed in the stickies.

There are 7 codes that do not fall under this pattern. 7 of ALL the Stop Error codes. So can someone please explain to me how this is complicated to understand? Cause i missed the boat on that one. There is another 15 that use a 3 digit alpha numeric combination. There is from code 0 to FF for double digit. Now tell me how can we use 16 colors to get over 70 codes listed AND include all of the sub-code errors that are involved?

I fail to see how this system is impractical. It gives you a 2 or 3 digit code upon which you search on the MSDN Site and from there you look at the very next set of numbers to determine even further what is causing the issue. Colors would only complicate it further.

What you fail to realize is the system is NOT smart enough to know. I ahve already given several examples of this. They system puts out a code, like the one that i already linked to, about a boot manager error. But upon further inspection it showed up as a RAM error. If the system was so smart why did it put out the boot manager error and not the RAM error in the first place? Exactly what i have been saying all along.

It doesnt know! The BCD Error was NOT caused by the RAM but yet it still showed up as a Memory Access Violation. So which part of the error code is right? The part that said boot violation or the part that said RAM Error?

The system is fine. People make it more complicated than it has to be. Case in point this thread. It is a very simple system to use. People see all the stuff on screen and get scared and nervous. When in fact there is only 2 things that matter on that screen. All of which i have already pointed out. Any other information is not necessary to determine what is going on. That is technical data that is not needed by anyone other than the developers.

It is not whether i think it is easier with the codes or not. The fact is that this is the best system to use. It covers all aspects needed to find the cause of the problem.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

good god...Mak exploded

 

[Jayce]

Alright i know that there are something said in jest but lets set the record straight.

First off the Stop Error code is 0X000000ZZ where ZZ is the code that matters. It is not something extremely difficult to comprehend. There are some obscure codes that have 0XC0000ZZZ but there is only 7 codes with that. The majority are the first set i listed. So tell me how knowing 2 alpha numeric characters is complicated? Cause i certainly dont see it. I have the site listed in the stickies.

There are 7 codes that do not fall under this pattern. 7 of ALL the Stop Error codes. So can someone please explain to me how this is complicated to understand? Cause i missed the boat on that one. There is another 15 that use a 3 digit alpha numeric combination. There is from code 0 to FF for double digit. Now tell me how can we use 16 colors to get over 70 codes listed AND include all of the sub-code errors that are involved?

I fail to see how this system is impractical. It gives you a 2 or 3 digit code upon which you search on the MSDN Site and from there you look at the very next set of numbers to determine even further what is causing the issue. Colors would only complicate it further.

What you fail to realize is the system is NOT smart enough to know. I ahve already given several examples of this. They system puts out a code, like the one that i already linked to, about a boot manager error. But upon further inspection it showed up as a RAM error. If the system was so smart why did it put out the boot manager error and not the RAM error in the first place? Exactly what i have been saying all along.

It doesnt know! The BCD Error was NOT caused by the RAM but yet it still showed up as a Memory Access Violation. So which part of the error code is right? The part that said boot violation or the part that said RAM Error?

The system is fine. People make it more complicated than it has to be. Case in point this thread. It is a very simple system to use. People see all the stuff on screen and get scared and nervous. When in fact there is only 2 things that matter on that screen. All of which i have already pointed out. Any other information is not necessary to determine what is going on. That is technical data that is not needed by anyone other than the developers.

It is not whether i think it is easier with the codes or not. The fact is that this is the best system to use. It covers all aspects needed to find the cause of the problem.

And yet, with all of that being said, my point still stands.

Take this into consideration. You have a BSOD error. You don't know what it is. Driver? Ram? Windows? You have no idea. But yet, you still have to google the error. Oh wait, your PC is down. What error is it? What did Mak's sticky say again?

All I'm saying is, if the system is intelligent enough to decode errors, it'd be a little more helpful to barf out - BAM, it's the memory. BAM - it's this driver. etc...

I was kidding about the blatant color coded screens. But I had an underlying point beneath it all.