Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's BSOD Is Getting More Descriptive With QR Codes (cio.com)
itwbennett writes: Reddit user javelinnl posted a picture last week showing a new dreaded Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) featuring a QR code and a link that may appear in a future version of Windows 10. "Right now, the code and the link take users to a webpage that discusses generic fixes for errors that might cause a crash," writes Blair Frank from CIO. "In the future, though, Microsoft could provide a QR code that leads to more specific information about what caused the computer freeze up." As of this writing, Microsoft had not responded to Frank's request for comment, but when he forced a Blue Screen of Death on his Surface Pro 3, he was unable to get a QR code to appear, though a link to the help page did. The QR code shown in the image simply points to a generic resource page for "troubleshooting blue screen errors."
Here is my summary:
1 - "Right now, it's hard to tell what causes the QR code to appear during a crash"
2 - "What's not clear is how the feature will end up getting implemented for general consumers."
3 - "Microsoft hasn't yet responded to a request for comment."
It hurts.
Windows is designed for people who know where to click for word, solitaire and facebook.
What you call human readable is not readable for them.
What makes this great is that your client/coworker/family member can take a picture of the code and send it to you. That's far more doable than having them try to remember what the error message said. "Oh, it said skynet falls or something". Apps like Google goggles will search the picture for the QR and you have usable information.
Even my 70 year old mother can do that.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
I think what Microsoft really needs to incorporate, is the transformational power of Emojis to liven up each BSOD into a masterpiece.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What makes this great is that your client/coworker/family member can take a picture of the code and send it to you. That's far more doable than having them try to remember what the error message said. "Oh, it said skynet falls or something". Apps like Google goggles will search the picture for the QR and you have usable information.
What if your client/coworker/family member directly take a picture of the error message? Why going through this QR crap?
Slippery slope prediction:
PC hits BSOD
PC automatically submits a bug report and uploads full crash dump as an attachment
PC displays QR code pointing to the bug report
User posts QR code to forum
Black hat reads forum looking for QR codes, visits each bug report, downloads all the crash dumps, and mines for sensitive data in the crash dumps.
Microsoft's official response: If you're worried about your privacy, then you can go to Some > Obscure > Menu and click "Do not automatically submit full crash dumps."
Windows Phone sales set to double, as Windows Phone users now need a phone to take a picture of the QR code when their phone crashes.
I mean, I remember when they actually used to include bonafide technical information on the screen, like faulting module in addition to the usual stop code. I know they had to remove it to make room for the :( emoticon and all, but maybe one day you can again find out what's wrong with your Windows PC via QR code. Maybe. One day. Microsoft cannot comment any further at this time.
In the future, though, Microsoft could provide a QR code that leads to more specific information about what caused the computer freeze up.
Microsoft has not been able to provide useful error messages for the last 30 years, why should it be any different with QR codes?
Because it is hip and there is an ap for that. Think of the hipsters and apper apps or something like that.
In all seriousness though. I have had people take pics of the errors before and describe what they were doing when it happened. That was key in finding a problem back in2000 or 2001 when ms office had a memory leak involved with copying links to the clipboard to use in documents. Turned out the problem was already solved with sp3 due out a week or so later. I have used the same principles several times since then and with phones now having cameras it is even easier. I'm not sure why they need to go this route unless they think different is improvement.
That was my reaction as well, if it's like the Windows Update help stuff then it's going to be just another way of telling users "Something went wrong. We have no idea what it is, or at least we have lots of data to help diagnose it but we aren't going to give you any of it. Here's a link to a Bing search that will return 200 hits for other people who have run into this problem and couldn't solve it either. Error 800420EE". Totally, utterly useless.
Didn't have a BSOD for such a long time... don't really remember when was the last one, but it seems that was just before I started using Linux.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Here's the last time MS over-did BSOD's
Table-ized A.I.
Having used W10 since its release on multiple computers, I've never seen a BSOD. I've had the odd freeze requiring a 5-second power button reset but not a single BSOD. I thought MS had done away with them.
Even my 70 year old mother can do that.
My 70 year mother was taught to read when she was young. And she still masters that skill.
because their is a lot of support for reading and recognising QR so the person you send the error too doesn't need to manually type it all in maybe.
Except that the QR code does not actually contain the actual text of the error message but is just a generic URL describing how to solve blue screens in general (rather than this one specifically). Utterly useless.
Much as I hate the "THIS! A thousand times THIS!" posts, I think it's very appropriate here.
Every bit as useful as a "There was an error, OK?" dialog box with a single "Whatever" button.
I think they should also patent the idea.
Devil's Advocate: This is a proof-of-concept without the backend being finished just yet.
That said, a lot of error messages should make an experienced helper go, "Oh, just close out of that program, wait ten seconds, start it back up." anyway. A QR code will force him to go to Microsoft's knowledge base (does that show ads?) only to facepalm at realizing which error it is. Again.
At the very least this will make the knowledge base see a sudden surge in use, and department leads just love that for their quarterly reports.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
There is absolutely nothing stopping them embedding the error code in the URL of the QR code.
And you really expect those kinds of people to know what to do not only with a QR code but also the error message on the web site, which could be the exact same error message given directly on the BSOD?
Give me a fucking break. MS is only doing this because it gives them another lame excuse to harvest data. All of this shit could and should be done locally.
A BSOD means the OS faced an error so critical, there can be no recovery. To keep data corruption from happening, the system must immediately halt. So what it does is dumps what information it can to the screen, and if possible a dump file, and then halts.
You generally see them with hardware errors (not all hardware errors manifest as BSODs but some do) but also with serious driver errors and some other things. They are rare, but they happen, and the codes they give can help you figure out what went wrong.
I run the BSOD screen saver on Linux boxes, particularly at work, where any of the MS ones provoke "interest". I'm hoping that there will be an update soon, to add one that has these QR codes. The QR code should point to the OpenBSD home page, I think, since that's what the home computers mostly run.
I foresee malware that fakes a BSOD in order to send your phone via QR-code to a website that then hacks the phone. Genius!
It seems MS is losing what little expertise it had in the security-space fast. This demented idea is a good example.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For a very long time, the Amiga+(at least)Genlock, if not Amiga+Video Toaster was the only inexpensive computer that could handle NTSC/PAL overlays in real time, so cable startups used them for program guides.
I rarely saw a GURU Meditation, generally when debugging a driver I was writing, but I love that the BSOD screen saver includes them.
At least there was real useful data in them.
Yes, most BSODs are actually pretty much useless for tracking down a problem. For anything less than completely obvious errors you have to load the mini dump(s) into a debugger and look at the stack trace and/or underlying error (message/exception) data structures.
Like, I don't know, say, a system log that would store messages from drivers and system components like dmesg?
How about a memory dump before crashing that can be inspected later?
What makes you think that Windows does not store messages and does not create a dump (hint: it does. Stop errors are logged in the system log, and default is to create a dump file upon a stop error. Space is even reserved for the dump file on the system drive to guarantee that a dump can be created even if disk is full).
But hey, why don't you make your own assumptions and go by them to diss on something that you obviously don't know anything about?
When you restart your computer, Windows will recognize the dump file and will offer you to upload it to Microsoft. In case of device driver crashes (the most common cause along with hw fails) Microsoft will even notify the vendor if they have registered for crash information.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
But why isn't there an error code?
What have you ever gotten out of an error code? All you do with that is go to a website type in a number and get a "something went wrong somewhere" response. The only decent data you get from a BSOD is afterwards when recovering and digging through the dump file.
More reasons to shift things to Linux
Look I like a good MS bash as much as the next guy, but are you insane? The kernel panic on Linux just shits numbers onto the screen which are nearly always indecipherable. Personally I don't understand why they don't just draw a ASCII art picture of Linus giving me the finger on the screen. It would be just as useful.
Like, I don't know, say, a system log that would store messages from drivers and system components like dmesg?
You mean like the windows event log which captures the cause of the BSOD and stores it for looking at later?
How about a memory dump before crashing that can be inspected later?
You mean the file c:\windows\minidump.dmp that is created when a BSOD?
Whatever happened to human readable error messages even?
Sure, care to name an example of an OS that provides a human readable error message for a complex issue that was able to cause the kernel itself to croak?
Stop reinventing the goddamn wheel, it's not gonna work if it's square.
The wheel hasn't changed. Only the shape of the check engine light is changing, and quite frankly that was always useless and broken.
or at least we have lots of data to help diagnose it but we aren't going to give you any of it
All the data is right there in c:\windows\minidump.dmp. But you never bothered wondering why your computer dumps memory contents during a BSOD right?
Are you kidding? It will literally tell you the type of error in that error code. So what do I get out of it? typically I know whether I have to start doing ram tests or if there is a corrupted driver. One of the two things tends to be the cause of a BSOD. And the error code tells you which one it is...
Look you want to play with a smartphone app... go nuts. All I'm asking for is an error code somewhere on the screen. It doesn't have to be blinking or in giant letters or anything. Just somewhere. To literally require that I take a picture of the screen to see the error code... come on. Don't be that guy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Speaking of 'harvesting data', it would be interesting to see what sorts of URLs end up showing up.
There are always privacy implications if you want to provide genuinely useful input on why a system crashed, since a crash dump can be very informative indeed about what the user was doing when the crash occurred; that's not some sinister MS-thing, just how it works. However, as the wonder full people in audience analytics 'user engagement tracking' and whatnot have spent years exploiting; it's really, really, easy to get additional data on who is following links by programmatically generating unique ones that redirect to the destination, rather than just linking directly.
If the QR code is just "https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/123456" then it makes me want the damn kids to get off my lawn; but it's otherwise harmless. If it eventually ends up at that domain; but starts out as an email marketing standard referrer-slurry URL that redirects you through one or more unnecessary tracking steps before eventually landing you at the URL you were supposed to reach in the first place, that's slimy above and beyond the call of duty.
There is an error code. The QR code is just a time saving convenience and not required. You want to go Linux? Good luck with that. Nothing is convenient in Linux.
This could be a nice attack vector - malicious agent causes BSOD on a Windows PC with QR code which the user points their iDevice/Droid device at and that in turn directs them to a drive-by-download with the real intended payload, or even just click fraud.
Way to not read or understand anything.
The error code actually tells me something. I can use my eyeball and get information. Forcing me to use a smart phone does not actually save me time. It wastes my time by forcing me to go through an additional step.
Its also a potential security problem. And it creates an additional point of failure. Lets say you're in a place that doesn't have internet access? Then that QR code is fucking worthless where as an error code works regardless. And I don't have to associate my smartphone with my computer in MS's datamining blitz.
Jesus. You people are so desperate to get raped its disgusting.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually, while the post you're replying too is dumb, there is one really simple reason not to change the BSOD.
Reliability.
Lets go over the scenario and we'll see WHY the BSOD screen is SUPPOSED TO BE EXTREMELY SIMPLE.
A BSOD occurs when the kernel has detected a major failure or corruption within itself. At the point when its determined to BSOD, the system IS UNSTABLE AND UNSAFE. The system is deciding THE ABSOLUTE SAFEST THING TO DO IS STOP DOING ANYTHING, because THE SYSTEM IS UNSTABLE AND IN AN UNKNOWN STATE.
At this stage POTENTIALLY ANY INSTRUCTION CAN BE FATAL because you are no longer sure about anything in RAM, any data structures such as page mappings or anything else. (Sure there are some bug check BSODs that are relatively safe, but those don't happen in release/unchecked builds.)
You do as ABSOLUTELY LITTLE AS POSSIBLE in the BSOD phase of runtime. The mini dump is written to a pre-allocated location of disk ... THE SWAP FILE, that the OS put into a protected region of ram so it couldn't be corrupted in the event of a problem. It doesn't allocate more space, it doesn't move space, it just writes to known good locations. If it tried to read the disk directory, it may be corrupt and read it incorrectly, then write to the wrong portion of your disk and destroy the data structure.
On the next boot, when the system is in a stable state, THEN that mini dump (or full dump if thats the case) is written to an actual file on the file system that you can access, but its in swap until the OS boots, sees it in swap, and writes it to a standard file.
Now some dip shit from marketing wants to put a 100% worthless QR code on the screen. Thats something that has to be calculated. That means intentionally doing more computations on an unstable system and ignoring all conventional wisdom. The QR code provides no benefit and adds risk.
Its a stupid fucking idea probably done by some young engineer to naive to understand why he shouldn't be playing in that code. Or worse still, probably some jackass in the phone group decided that crashes should have a QR code so they could sell phones with QR readers to admins.
Across the board, its a stupid fucking change with way bigger risk than benefits.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Are you saying that system crash is not a serious bug?
There were actually a bunch of them published somewhere once. This is the only one I remember (slightly updated):
Windows 10 has crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears you scream.
It happens too often with Microsoft software for it to be a serious bug. After all, there was enough time to create a QR code for it, then the fault was ALREADY known...
Serious bugs get fixed.
Yup, harvesting data is what it's all about. I'm sure the "website" you'll be redirected to will be about as useless and generic as they are today: Your computer just crashed with code 0x000c84a - you need to reboot your machine. But thanks for giving us your cell phone info!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What have you ever gotten out of an error code?
A search term that can be used in Google?
Error messages like "File or directory not found" are pretty useless, but "Error 15723" is unique when combined with the program name, sometimes even unique enough that you find the information without the program name.
There is absolutely nothing stopping them embedding the error code in the URL of the QR code.
They could, but they don't.
All the data is right there in c:\windows\minidump.dmp
... at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard. As I said in my original post, "we have all the data but we're not going to give it to you", all you need to do to get it is walk your mother through running the command-line dumpchk.exe and interpreting the results over the phone for you. It's so simple, anyone can do it!
Not a dick, just generally not very computer literate. OS's blue screen, kernel panic etc to protect the system from bad hardware, bad drivers etc. A system that didn't have such a mechanism is an OS to avoid. General consumer hardware is often at best average quality manufactured for price rather than quality. The most common failures are things like dodgy memory or the most common one of SHIT graphics drivers from NVidia or AMD.
Q: "Help! Windows 7 just crashed and it gave me this QR code, now what?"
A: "That is your Microsoft Support link. It takes you to the Microsoft Store and allows you to purchase Windows 10. Thanks for giving us your cellphone info and good day."
Nothing posted to
If you've seen a lot of BSOD... and I have... you get very familiar with the error codes.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you need to transcribe the actual error details, accuracy matters.
Most humans are terrible at transcribing what they read directly to text (especially if it's full of numbers and symbols).
In the case of Haiku (the operating system), the QR Code in the kernel debugger includes more information about the error (not just the error name), so it makes it easier to transcribe what the user sees on the screen to text which can be used to file a bug report.
https://www.haiku-os.org/blog/...
For those people, Chromebook is probably a better choice.
Great, so if you know what you're doing you can pour through some obscure file in a directory that we tell users never to look in. Why not provide something remotely helpful?
Like ok, maybe you can't do much analysis on the BSOD itself because the system has crashed, but then maybe it could launch an application by default, on the following boot, that would analyze the dump against known issues and provide some guess as to what went wrong. That's just off the top of my head, but I certainly feel like it would be helpful if the next time you booted after the BSOD, it could say, "This looks like the crash was caused by [whatever].sys, which seems to be related to your [whichever piece of hardware] driver. You may want to try updating that driver." Theoretically, MS could even collect this information across systems and say, "Lots of other people with the same version of the driver have experienced similar crashes, but the problem appears to be fixed in there new driver, which can be downloaded here:" and then link to it.
That level of analysis is possible, even if not incredibly easy. If Microsoft wants to collect telemetry so badly, they could at least do stuff like this, which would actually help people.
Now some dip shit from marketing wants to put a 100% worthless QR code on the screen. Thats something that has to be calculated. That means intentionally doing more computations on an unstable system and ignoring all conventional wisdom. The QR code provides no benefit and adds risk.
Why do you think it's a marketing idea?
There is absolutely no reason the QR code could not be calculated without additional risk. If the space has been set aside, the kernel thread has it's own "safe" space for the stack (which it must have since also creating a dump in the swap file requires at least some call instructions). You can absolutely work out in advance how much has to be set aside for the QR code and -computation. Just like with the minidump.
Now, what could be the upside? While the QR code cannot contain the minidump itself, it can absolutely contain register values along with the program pointer and the module/device driver (name, version, vendor etc) it was in when the STOP error occurred. That is enough to provide a really valuable service once the user hits the web page through the QR code. A known problem with a faulty device driver can for example direct the user to a later/fixed driver, to boot in safe mode or otherwise uninstall it. It will also provide valuable information to Microsoft/3rd party vendor as to the number of computers experiencing a specific problem.
That is engineering - as in engineering for failure - not marketing.
Or worse still, probably some jackass in the phone group decided that crashes should have a QR code so they could sell phones with QR readers to admins.
Ok. Is your tinfoil hat a bit tight?
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Linux still causes kernel panics. It's a GOOD thing that your OS stops running when the kernel becomes unstable.
Except they've been doing this for over nine years. It been there since Vista with the automated "Problem Reporting" feature in action center. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Reporting-and-solving-computer-problems
It doesn't always give you steps to solve the crash. But I have seen it tell me a crash was due to a driver which I should update. This was before Windows Update starting handling most driver update duties.
Why crash their PC? Just make it look like it crashed and then you can change the QR code to new targets. Joe Average is just gonna hit reboot afterwards anyhow. Hell, after you've sent 'em through enough pages and borrows a short amount of GPU time for some mining, send 'em to a nice formal-looking page that tells them to reboot but warns them that the problem may happen again and to check back often - and trigger it at random intervals. I bet you can get away with that for months.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Take a picture of the QR code, send it to tech support, they have all the info they need. I don't understand what the negativity is about.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You use the event ID and the error number (gleaned from the event viewer that you opened up from the run dialog) and see what happened just prior to the crash and you search for those if you can't figure it out. There's actually a really need service that will aid with that research - they used to give a copy to the MVPs (third party gift to get us to recommend them) back in the day. I've not participated in the program (or even used Windows) in quite a while so I've forgotten the name.
Truth is, Windows isn't all that bad - if you know what you're doing or actually follow directions. It's even possible to use Windows without *any* resident anti-malware scanning - and to be functional while doing so. However, I'm not gonna recommend that people do that - but it is possible. It's really just a matter of knowing a bit about what you're doing and looking before you leap. If you don't know what the button does, don't click it. That's not an easy thing for some of us - so I recommend researching because someone has *always* pressed the button before you got to it. Well, almost always. If they haven't then it's up to you to be the sacrificial lamb and to push the button - I'm pretty sure that's in the rules, somewhere.
Windows is even stable - if you follow best practices. An example would be that I used to get months of uptime (not kidding) on a Windows ME (!) box that ran both an OpenNap server and an OpenNap hub. It really only got reboots to update - they didn't have "Patch Tuesday" back then, it was more sporadic. It should be noted that that particular PC was actually one that came with ME certified hardware. Hardware was undergoing some major changes at the time and if you didn't have appropriate hardware then ME was a shitty, shitty operating system. It was also actually a fairly cheap system from Acer and was my first exposure to AMD - it was the AMD K6-2 350 and I'd OCed it to about 500 MHz.
As for security? Well... The last time I used Windows, I'd not used even a software firewall nor a resident AV in years. (I do have a hardware firewall at the house.) It was fine. Security is a process and not an application. Practice safe hex and you're generally good to go. Always, always keep backups and plenty of them. Storage is cheap and connectivity is near-ubiquitous, back that stuff up.
'Snot popular to say (and I'm a very content Linux user) but Windows isn't that bad and you can get it fixed quickly and easily when there's a problem. It's even not all that difficult to keep it reasonably secure so long as the operator isn't an idiot. Even a stupid person in the chair can figure out apt-get, dpkg, or make install. By the way, I learned to use a computer because I had to. They didn't do anything useful when I first bumped into them. You had to make them do something useful. I hated 'em, quite passionately hated them, at first. Nah, Windows isn't that bad and I've only one real complaint with Windows 10.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Theoretically, MS could even collect this information across systems and say, "Lots of other people with the same version of the driver have experienced similar crashes, but the problem appears to be fixed in there new driver, which can be downloaded here:" and then link to it.
Except you turned that service off at Thanksgiving because you didn't want Microsoft spying on your mother.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yup. It's not like we can't spare a few Hz and a couple of Kb of RAM to make a pretty QR code - it might even (emphasis on might) turn out to be valuable. I could see this actually being a good thing. It's not like you need a dedicated device to read QR codes. It's not like the vast majority of admins don't have a "special QR code reader" right in 'em - called a camera.
Best of both worlds might be that it'd scan a *local* database and feed you information from that. I'm thinking enterprise use. Then they could keep their data internal and not rely on any third party networks/data sets. I could actually see this having some benefit. The question is, will it? The answer is, probably not. But... It could be useful. It could even be mostly privacy respecting! I kind of doubt that last part but, hey... It could happen.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Perhaps something like this?
https://i.imgur.com/4AOq97x.png
You can leave some of the system reserved and some of the RAM reserved just for this sort of thing. What you can't really do is try to recover. Well, you can try but you can't really trust what's in memory or anything.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Didn't Microsoft buy Sysinternals like 10 years ago?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Nah, Linux error codes aren't really that good. I'm a pretty content Linux user (not a zealot) but there's even a special key combo to save what you can and reboot in the event of a system lock. It's like three buttons and then you press REISUB (or something like that) in sequence. I should probably remember that, actually. ;-)
But no... Cryptic error messages seem to be the default. At least you get the Event Viewer in Windows.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If it's anything like every other event log entry, you scan the QR Code and get a page that says
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I think it should ask me Abort, Retry or Fail, just for old time's sake.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Since the dawn of bsod's they've trapped the last known error - and dropped it on the screen - I believe its after the dmp file is written too.
I don't see why it would be a big deal to translate that error into a qr-code - it might be handy for end users.
Did you miss the part where I said, "If Microsoft wants to collect telemetry so badly, they could at least do stuff like this, which would actually help people"?
You're right, the linux approach of filling the screen with numbers is much better!.
It will literally tell you the type of error in that error code.
You mean like irql_not_less_or_equal or a series of numbers that when you type into google just give you irql_not_less_or_equal? Incidentally an error that comes up if you have a misbehaving driver, a fan failing on a video card, or your antivirus program just had a stroke (just to give 3 examples of problems I've had that have resulted in 100% identical error codes in Windows XP but were only actually determined after reading the dump file).
typically I know whether I have to start doing ram tests or if there is a corrupted driver.
Garbage. Windows is unable to tell the difference between a corrupted driver and a RAM problem. In fact the only way to tell if you have RAM problems from BSODs are the fact that your errors may appear random. That's one of the wonderful things about RAM problems they can quite literally make your system crap out any error code at you depending on what was going on at the time of the error. Likewise it's almost impossible to tell the difference between driver faults and hardware errors. If you have a truly screwed driver the error code may give you the driver name (I had a shoddy written RAID driver from highpoint which threw out highpoint.sys as part of the error code) but typically the problem still drops back to some useless generic error code which doesn't even remotely identify if the problem was your motherboard driver or your crappy USB webcam. Dump files on the other hand give you that information straight away.
Look you want to play with a smartphone app... go nuts. All I'm asking for is an error code somewhere on the screen.
Nope, I'll do neither. I'll hit the reset button and open the dump file which will typically give me the exact details of which process, driver or otherwise caused the issue. I don't take pictures of useless things, not when they have QR code, and not back when they were pointless error codes either.
A search term that can be used in Google?
Error messages like "File or directory not found" are pretty useless, but "Error 15723" is unique when combined with the program name, sometimes even unique enough that you find the information without the program name.
You don't see many blue screens do you. Error 15723 associated with no error code which will link you to the first page in MSDN as "Something somewhere in your computer croaked" followed by 100 posts of people complaining, followed by a few helpful links on how to determine the error through a memory dump file.
Sorry but BSOD error codes have been useful for me once and once only in my life with a single RAID controller and a poorly coded driver. Other than that I've never seen an error code on a BSOD accurately identify the source of a problem.
Not so hip anymore. QR codes are, like, sooooo 2009. And, quite useless in this use case.
Did you miss the part where you disabled telemetry without actually waiting to see what was done with it?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There is absolutely no reason the QR code could not be calculated without additional risk. If the space has been set aside, the kernel thread has it's own "safe" space for the stack (which it must have since also creating a dump in the swap file requires at least some call instructions).
I have mod points but I am going to respond instead: While the parent person may have sounded a bit hyperbolic, what he is saying is absolutely true: When the kernel enters the BSOD/crash routine, nothing is guaranteed to be safe. The stuff that was pre-allocated and set aside? Not safe.
How does a CPU "know" where the QR code routines are at? By a jump table full of pointers to locations in RAM. How does the CPU "know" where that jump table is? Ultimately, it is jump tables all the way down until you get to a "hard coded" memory location. How do YOU know that location has not been compromised or corrupted? You don't.
I have seen computers crash so hard that they could not even spit out their error message and the result of trying was to do some nasty things with the floppy disk controller.
Ok. Is your tinfoil hat a bit tight?
I would take a moment and reconsider your position please.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
When the kernel enters the BSOD/crash routine, nothing is guaranteed to be safe. The stuff that was pre-allocated and set aside? Not safe.
Incorrect. Any memory that has been marked as read-only can absolutely be considered safe. Indeed, the STOP condition may have been caused by some process or the kernel attempting to write such memory. So if the OS marks its core memory (code, jump tables etc) as readonly after loading, those jumptables and that code can absolute be assumed to be safe.
How does a CPU "know" where the QR code routines are at? By a jump table full of pointers to locations in RAM
No, initialized pointer to jump table sitting in readonly memory pages.
I have seen computers crash so hard that they could not even spit out their error message and the result of trying was to do some nasty things with the floppy disk controller.
Obviously that can happen. If the graphics card misbehaves, attempts to use the screen could fail miserably. Likewise with disk controllers.
That not the point, though. The point is what *extra* assumptions generating QR codes makes about what components are still safe to use. If QR code generation makes further assumptions, then yes, it could be a problem. But as it stands, the STOP handling code already uses the screen (error message) and disk (dump to pagefile). If coded correctly (engineered for failure) it makes no further assumptions and thus does not increase any risk.
It's like you and GP totally ignore the most basic principles of OS design and common engineering principles. No, I have not seen MS's code and cannot claim that they make no further assumptions about heap, device drivers etc. But cannot the the reverse either. I *assume* that they are more competent than you and GP, however, and make good use of read-only memory.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Erm. I will refrain from my natural reaction right now. You are missing entire classes of error in your thought processes sir.
Unless operating systems are shipping with electrically perfect non-degradable ROMs, it is entirely possible that the software tagged read only memory that you speak of has been modified. An errant DMA controller misbehaving due to an electrical spike for example. Obviously, the RAM itself could have failed. The big one your calculations are missing is the CPU itself could be failing.
No, the original parent poster is exactly correct. BSOD is serious biz. Even the minimal amount that is done is dangerous, but that risk is taken because otherwise you would never have any chance at fixing the issue because you would have no idea of the state of the machine when it died.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
In all fairness, I haven't seen a single OS or app so far that provides useful error messages. An error message has to include - what went wrong in general terms that mean something (e.g. the much dreaded "object reference not set to an instance of an object" error does not even mean anything to developers) - what the code expected and what it got instead - how to fix this problem - how to get more help for especially this issue Generic error handling pages are useless, as are hundreds of lines in logs and memory dumps unless there is a means to submit those and get a fairly instant reply from a person or system with further advice. I work in software development for over 20 years now and it is already insanely difficult to get bugs fixed. Asking product managers to allow developers to work on methods for better error messages is a futile request. Unless there are hard numbers attached to it that will show a better ROI than cramming in more buggy features that make sales...and delayed headaches.
I see a lot of error codes. And I am right nearly every time when I see an error code as to what went wrong.
I know the error codes. You want your bar codes? Have them. I am not trying to take anything from you. Let me have my error code.
At the very least there should be a setting to make the BSOD give an error code or not. Then I can just enable it.
Anyway... I have little patience for people that presume to tell other people on their machines how to structure their own user interface. You're like some fellow presuming to tell me what settings to key into my car seat.
You do what you like... that's "you".
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Strange random crashes can also be a flaky/underpowered PSU.