Microsoft is redesigning the Windows BSoD

[Zero999]

It certainly would cause user data loss.  No BSoD permits applications to safely save their state and terminate before restarting the kernel.  It is always "instant kernel halt".  This is why almost every software product that works on a lot of data has an autosave function, though these are not perfect.

I'm sorry for not being clear: I meant data loss in the sense of corruption.  I agree that unsaved data will be lost.  There's no reliable way of letting the user 'File, Save" after a BSOD.

I think that autosave is primarily there to protect against failure to manually save before closing, and also against crashes of the app itself.  Nevertheless, it is useful against BSODs.

I know what you meant: the operating system halted the machine to prevent it from doing more damage, i.e. overwriting more data.

[Halcyon]

Windows has crashed

Except it hasn't crashed. It has halted - a by-design behaviour to protect against user data loss or corruption.  A real crash would look more like a lock-up where the computer appears frozen, or possibly some rubbish flashing on the screen, or some other random or unwanted behaviour.

And then there are negative connotations that come with this kind of language from a marketing perspective. No one wants Windows to always be "crashing".

[Infraviolet]

"modern Windows is indeed pretty stable, probably at least as stable as Linux is on the same hardware"
Stable, really, an operating system which forces updates on you when you don't want them? Linux might not always run perfectly, but atleast when it does work then it will only later stop working if you make the active choice to install a particular update (or you do something silly in the terminal).

[SteveThackery]

Stable, really, an operating system which forces updates on you when you don't want them?

What have forced updates got to do with it?  Yes, they might well be inconvenient, but they have nothing to do with the subject of this discussion.

Back on topic: for the past small number of years my Linux installations have been less stable than my Windows machines, but my lack of expertise in Linux might be part of that. Although really ineptitude shouldn't be accepted as a cause of kernel halts.

[5U4GB]

And then there are negative connotations that come with this kind of language from a marketing perspective. No one wants Windows to always be "crashing".

OK, we'll just have to say "Windows has experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly".

Seriously though, this is an actual problem, Microsoft oldtimers like Raymond Chen have covered this a number of times, most crashes aren't due to Windows but third-party drivers, mostly graphics drivers, so saying "Windows crashed" is blaming the wrong party.

[SteveThackery]

....do saying "Windows crashed" is blaming the wrong party.

And, as I say, it isn't a crash, it's a controlled kernel halt and restart.

[Zero999]

Windows has crashed

Except it hasn't crashed. It has halted - a by-design behaviour to protect against user data loss or corruption.  A real crash would look more like a lock-up where the computer appears frozen, or possibly some rubbish flashing on the screen, or some other random or unwanted behaviour.

And then there are negative connotations that come with this kind of language from a marketing perspective. No one wants Windows to always be "crashing".

The current patronising messages have negative connotations. It only serves to frustrate the user. It wouldn't be hard to display a message stating which driver has resulted in the error. It doesn't have to be overly technical either.

[metertech58761]

Funny thing is, on macOS, it shows non-Mac devices it sees on the network as a monitor displaying the classic Win98-era BSOD. Will they have to change that as well?

[5U4GB]

The current patronising messages have negative connotations. It only serves to frustrate the user. It wouldn't be hard to display a message stating which driver has resulted in the error. It doesn't have to be overly technical either.

Raymond Chen (see my previous post) has covered this as well, it's often not the driver itself that crashes but the driver causing problems for other drivers that then crash.  In particular publicly stating it was Driver X when the actual cause was the memory corruption created by Driver Y that made X crash is inviting a lawsuit.

[Analog Kid]

Funny thing is, on macOS, it shows non-Mac devices it sees on the network as a monitor displaying the classic Win98-era BSOD.

That's exactly the kind of smug snark I'd expect from Apple (particularly Apple tech-bois and gurls).

[Halcyon]

Funny thing is, on macOS, it shows non-Mac devices it sees on the network as a monitor displaying the classic Win98-era BSOD.

That's exactly the kind of smug snark I'd expect from Apple (particularly Apple tech-bois and gurls).

Cheeky. I love it.

[steve30]

Way better than the current "ASCII frowny face". I find Microsoft has really dumbed down the language in Windows, you get ridicilous messages like "Oops, something went wrong..." yeah, real helpful.

When you were in the police force did you ever end up arresting a Windows 98 machine for performing illegal operations?

 

[Kean]

Funny thing is, on macOS, it shows non-Mac devices it sees on the network as a monitor displaying the classic Win98-era BSOD. Will they have to change that as well?

Haha, so it does.  I've never noticed that before, and as someone who uses a mix of Windows, MacOS, and Linux environments daily it is actually kind of hilarious.

Attached is what you see if you are looking at a PC in Finder under network in gallery view.  It isn't obvious when the icon is smaller.

[Halcyon]

Way better than the current "ASCII frowny face". I find Microsoft has really dumbed down the language in Windows, you get ridicilous messages like "Oops, something went wrong..." yeah, real helpful.

When you were in the police force did you ever end up arresting a Windows 98 machine for performing illegal operations?

 

I'm not that old Steve!

Speaking of Windows crashes, remember the days of Norton CrashGuard etc... I think Quarterdeck made a similar product? They often caught the crash but then ended up making everything else more unstable as a result.

[Hogwild]

Microsoft seems to have a strong urge to change anything that doesn't need changing, and ignore what does.  I'm considering abandoning the platform after decades of being loyal.

The privacy situation and MS update quagmire are pushing me hard in that direction.

[Halcyon]

Microsoft seems to have a strong urge to change anything that doesn't need changing, and ignore what does.  I'm considering abandoning the platform after decades of being loyal.

The privacy situation and MS update quagmire are pushing me hard in that direction.

I faced this exact problem when Windows 7 went EOL. I've never used Windows 8 or later at home for anything other than testing in VM. It's utter garbage. Administering it in a corporate environment is even worse.

I like Linux and used it for several years, but I need a machine that is reliable and ready to go when I need it to be, without silly issues or wondering if the machine will boot after a major update. With Apple's silicon, this just pushed me over the edge to adopt Mac OS as my daily driver and haven't looked back since. The combination of hardware and software is just perfect.

However, don't make the mistake of iOS being as good as Mac OS. iOS (which runs on Apple's mobile devices) still has some progress to make. It's too restrictive. Android is far more advanced in many ways.

[5U4GB]

I faced this exact problem when Windows 7 went EOL.

It didn't go EOL, it entered that happy state where it's safe from further Microsoft f-kery.

[Analog Kid]

I faced this exact problem when Windows 7 went EOL.

It didn't go EOL, it entered that happy state where it's safe from further Microsoft fuckery.

Amen to that. (Last word spelt out by me. Don't be shy!)

I use Windows 7--even paid $$ for a legit copy of it.
I love it. Or at least I hate it less than any Windoze OS I've used. (I still miss XP.)

[Psi]

First of all, let me ask you: when's the last time you saw a BSOD (no matter what the color) on your Windoze computah?
Have you ever? that is, recently?

I've been using my Windows 7 system for a couple of years now. I have had some problems with it; couple times it's gone kind of catatonic, needed to be restarted, but then came up with "Resuming Windows" rather than rebooting, leaving me exactly where I left off.

I have gotten zero BSODs. None.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of Micro$oft. But the more recent OSs are so much more reliable than the old ones that it's not even an issue anymore for me.

yeah, it's super rare, usually bad ram, bad overclock or some hardware issue.
Can't recall a software/driver issue causing me a BSDO in many many years.  Definitely happened back with Win7 a few times and lots before that.

[golden_labels]

BSODs never offered much useful information.

I started using Windows in the 90s and for years following I would swear I could use infomation from BSODs to fix the issue. In retrospection I say it was no more than a mixture of shotgun debugging, magical thinking, and cherry-picking successes. Most often the information was meaningless for practical purposes. Where it could be useful, the practice of barring access to information by software vendors was rendering it useless. The relatively rare positive outcomes? Correlating the crash with other information, though at the time I’d be convinced it wa due to what I saw in the BSOD. Misinterpreting the information, but by sheer luck it connecting me with the solution. The few instances, where it happened to match an error recently seen by other users.

If you believe BSOD helps you, as I did back then, ask yourself: is it so or are you making the same mistakes I made.

Now I see BSOD as nothing more than a way to tell the user “this is the end.” The design should follow the function. So just make it nice, avoid confusion, reduce pointless frustration. The actual technical details should nowadays go to logs and dumps. There they can be retrieved and give much, much richer information than any BSOD could offer. I suppose we all hate the meaningless “something went wrong” messages, followed with generic and useless hints. But observe this is only, because we miss any alternative way to access the details. Which is not the case, when they’re written into logs.

Putting details in BSOD is also questionable from security standpoint. Anybody seeing the screen can access potentially sensitive information.

[Zero999]

I haven't tried it, but it was possible to alter the colour of the BSOD on older versions of Windwoes, by altering the registry.

If MS ware going to change the colour, then it should be brown, because it's a crappy thing to happen and it still begins with a letter B, preserving the BSOD initialism.

[SiliconWizard]

Microsoft seems to have a strong urge to change anything that doesn't need changing, and ignore what does.  I'm considering abandoning the platform after decades of being loyal.

The privacy situation and MS update quagmire are pushing me hard in that direction.

Good decision.

Note that Google (well, "Alphabet") does the same thing. It's a constant now in large corporations making software.