Talk:Blue screen of death/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  What qualifies as a Blue Screen of Death? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Gates' infamous BSoD 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  about:mozilla 

message: 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  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  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)
replies: text: 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. ( is treated as  by most browsers.) I'll try another trick. 
-- Jordi·✆ 12:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HTML is horrible, but at least it looks okay now. 
-- Jordi·✆ 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot better now. Thanks. And smart thinking with the nowiki tags. -- Daverocks 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New MediaWiki version error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proper capitalization 

message: Is it really necessary to have full-width screenshots for all these?! Trollderella 23:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the images or the text imitations? --tyomitch 09:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You can screenshot the imitations and upload them as images ;-) --tyomitch 12:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: (copied from #Some sense of it)
====No merges at all====
# Mateusc 00:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Excellent. Just post the link here when it's up and running! :) --InShaneee 03:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any progress this far? I'm itching to merge the RSoD into here. --tyomitch 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: # Support for the reasons I outlined in my comments in the RfC. Kit 07:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge all of the articles listed above into this one

message: # Mateusc 00:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No merges at all

message: Please explain what you're proposing if you sign here.
# 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Excellent. Just post the link here when it's up and running! :) --InShaneee 03:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any progress this far? I'm itching to merge the RSoD into here. --tyomitch 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: * 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: My reasoning:
# 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.
# 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".
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title: Some sense of it

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed resolution for merge debate 

message: If you support the entirety of this proposal, sign here.
# Support. Kit 02:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: If you support only part of this proposal, sign here and explain what parts you object to.
#Wikipeida 14:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditional support

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colored screens of death merge 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Do we still need the text recreations? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2001 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-creations moved 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 02:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My consolidation plan 

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

text: "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)
thread_title:  What is 0E? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Messages displayed on the Windows NT BSoD 

message: 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)
replies: text: I doubt they would have faked this; they got more than enough bad press from it. --Saforrest 13:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates' infamous BSoD (again) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About Gates' BSoD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linux Screensaver 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Windows 1.0 "bluescreen" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Windows CE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Windows 9x screenshot just has a text link instead of image 

message: Isn't the official name of it the "blue screen error"? 67.188.172.165 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Shouldn't we primarily be calling it that, then?  Isn't it more encyclopedic to use the technical name than a colloquial one? Djcartwright 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Screen Error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Green screen of death 

message: 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)
replies: text: Exactly.  Red Screens of Death in Windows 98 were ACPI-specific errors. Snickerdo 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red screen 

message: Do we really need "References to the Blue Screen of Death" to rival the article in length? – Mipadi 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The more examples the better - I like lots and lots of references. Add richness to the article.  Bdelisle 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to the Blue Screen of Death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  image at top 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Salon.com as a source for this article 

message: Sup girls, this is the blue screen of death that appears in Half Life 2 in the teleporter room. In the retail version of the game the text was hella blurry and couldnt be read, in the cinematic version its a lot sharper. 
:Dead Parrot Sketch. Awesome. oTHErONE (Contribs) 02:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like waffles 

message: Does anybody here know a solution for my frequently crash breakdown???                   (PAGE_FAULT_IN_NON_PAGED_AREA) --Walter Humala 
|wanna Talk? 01:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Install Linux. SteveBaker 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah and keep yourself free from M$ Evil Empire! :P --Ciao 90 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  H.E.L.P. P.L.Z. 

message: I wonder why there is no option to return to Windows or restart the computer using Ctrl+Alt+Del in the Windows NT/2000/XP "blue screen". Is there any such options in Vista RTM? Cncccer 17:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return option in NT/2000/XP 

message: Is there any connection between the name of The Blue Screen of Death and Poe's The Masque of the Red Death? --The NeveR SLeePiNG 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wager not. Otherwise, we'd also question whether there's a connection between BSOD and "xxxx of DOOM". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Masque of the Red Death 

message: Removed from the article:
*In the NES version of Metal Gear, the last boss is a depicted as a giant computer screen showing a blue screen of death.
Um... it's a big computer with a giant screen that happens to be blue. No writing on it, either, as far as I can remember. Also, the NES game came out in 1988, which is a tiny bit earlier than Windows 95. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BSOD has existed in versions of Windows prior to 95, though you are correct that 1988 would be a bit too early.  Mind you, am I the only one who fondly remembers hitting CTRL+ALT+DEL from a DOS program in Windows 3.1 and being given the option to kill the task by hitting Enter?  The Windows 3.0/3.1 screen looked identical to the 9x screen. Snickerdo 08:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal Gear 

message: On the 31st, I saw a Black screen of death on the nintendo Wii It wasn't serious, but the wii system made weird noises when I botted it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.46.20 (talk) 06:33, February 1, 2007
Same thing happen to my Sega Gens(but it was blue),o_o when I was playing Rolo to the Rescue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.150 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii Black Screen of Death