Talk:Fatal system error

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Microsoft consitently calls this a bug check and not a Bugcheck in its most recent ddk and windbg documentation. I suggest the title be changed.

This article is poorly written, contains numerous inaccuracies and mostly duplicates information in Blue Screen of Death. I propose this article be deleted and replaced with a reference to that article. -- Zeusifer

If a merge happens, I'd rather see it go the other way. Bug check is the proper term -- "Blue Screen of Death" is slang. -- Mikeblas 09:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that bug check is technically the proper term, but it is not in common use except among a few professionals such as driver developers or MS employees (and even there, "bluescreen" and "bug check" are often used interchangeably). Also, the Blue Screen of Death article talks about pop culture references and similar-looking bluescreens in other operating systems which are not technically bug checks and would not be appropriate to put in this article. -- Zeusifer

I guess I can agree (like aspirin is under aspirin and not acetylsalicylic acid). OTOH, What if Vista keeps the "red screen of death"? Then, the resulting integrated topic won't be timeless. -- Mikeblas 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "bug check" is also used for a similar situation under OpenVMS. --Joe Sewell (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence?

When it reaches a point "where it cannot operate safely."? Can someone rewrite this to explain a little better as to how it knows something is unsafe? The OS is not an intelligence that can make a judgement call!

Also, what actually IS meant with unsafe? Loss of data likely? Computer suddenly starts smoking? Windows calculator starts claiming PI is equal to 3? Would be great if someone who understands this better than I could take my comments and clear that up. Ingolfson 08:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel Panics are rarely intentional

This article makes it sound like drivers deliberately crash the operating system with functions such as KBUgCHeck, when in reality that rarely if ever happens - system crashes are usually due to errors in the driver code (segfault-like, and of course others). 173.57.168.60 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 3.x/9x

In Windows 3.x and Windows 9x you can "press any key to continue" if a BSOD occurs. More often then not the system runs normal after this, but it can also crash or display a BSOD gain short afterwards. --MrBurns (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

There is a duplicate article at Crash (computing). This article describes the logical process and names specific routines. The Crash article describes the appearance to the user.

Should we propose a merge or somehow differentiate? Should we put it to a vote? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Kernel error' or 'kernel panic'

@Guy Harris: I think a 'kernel panic' is what a fatal system error on Unix and *NIX systems goes by. So the kernel panic article is supposed to be a specialised article about the fatal system errors on *NIX and Unix? While this is the general article on fatal system errors across operating systems?

I'll try to see if 'kernel error' and 'kernel panic' are synonymous for fatal errors on *NIX or not, in the former case I think it's right for my edit to be reinstated here. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, or is this more so about Windows after all, now that I look at it, rather than being a general article? I came from kernel panic, didn't read too closely beyond the lead, and presumed this was supposed to be a general article on fatal operating system errors. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article whose first paragraph suggests that it's a general article, but that then proceeds to talk only about Windows, with OpenVMS mentioned in passing.

Kernel panic is an article that, in its first sentence, speaks generically of operating systems, and then proceeds to take mostly about UN\*Xes, mentioning stop errors and blue screens of death as a Windows equivalent.

Stop error redirects to blue screen of death § Windows NT, as blue screen of death discusses blue screens of death in various OSes named "Windows", including but not limited to the NT family.

Yes, this is a bit of a mess. Guy Harris (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot crash (computing) § Operating system crashes - the general concept of a "crash" also applies to individual application crashes, so it has a section about complete OS crashes. Guy Harris (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]