I am having a prob burning music to cd. I get this error on wmp. OXC00D11C9. I had some puter trouble a few weeks ago and had to do a windows fix on it and I may have some missing files . Not sure. I also tried burning through my Nero and it gives me" burn process ended." I tried Nero first, no luck so tried wmp and still no luck. U think I need to re-install wmp over the one I have? Or am I maybe missing some codec? Thanks for any help in advance.
> I am having a prob burning music to cd. I get this error on wmp. > OXC00D11C9. I had some puter trouble a few weeks ago and had to do a > windows fix on it and I may have some missing files . Not sure. I also > tried burning through my Nero and it gives me" burn process ended." I > tried Nero first, no luck so tried wmp and still no luck. U think I > need to re-install wmp over the one I have? Or am I maybe missing some > codec? Thanks for any help in advance.
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:52:43 -0800, "Jerry" <ChiefZekeNoS...@MSN.com> wrote:
>A Google search on the error code provides a multitude of answers.
Be that as it may, with 2**32 (> 4billion) possible error codes, it would be nice if Microsoft had a set of 2**32 + 1 webpages (one for the index!) with descriptions of what went wrong, and possible ways to fix it.
For a start, this newsgroup wouldn't be permanently cluttered with "What does 0XC00xxxxx mean?" questions.
And I could look up the answers and tell people "you need to do x,y,z" and have them think I'm very clever.
Systems to cope with things like this were popular in the 1980's - Knowledge Based Systems". We had one on our mainframe, and as the entire support organisation, I used to extend the KBS every time someone asked a new question. In the end, I could have been replaced by a parrot trained to say "Have you looked in the KBS?". Fortunately, KBS waned, and I'm still employed (and the parrot is in a cage outside my front door). See http://www.swiftys.org.uk/LJS.html
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:56:03 +0000, Swifty <steve.j.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:52:43 -0800, "Jerry" <ChiefZekeNoS...@MSN.com> >wrote:
>>A Google search on the error code provides a multitude of answers.
>Be that as it may, with 2**32 (> 4billion) possible error codes, it >would be nice if Microsoft had a set of 2**32 + 1 webpages (one for >the index!) with descriptions of what went wrong, and possible ways to >fix it.
Exactly, but I might not have found them by myself. All it would need would be for the error message itself to contain that URL. I can see the problems with doing that, though.
I'm intrigued by the path from error to resolution. At the time the error is detected, the code knows exactly what condition it has encountered. It then turns it into an error message that often doesn't identify the exact problem (on the basis that 99% of users wouldn't understand the details). So the user ends up with a code, which they have to look up, sometimes failing.
This process is quite expensive. Most of the programs that I write have far more error detection and reporting code that actual "works". But that's because I make lots of mistakes, and when I get a trouble report, I want it to tell me the exact line in the exact program where it encountered an exact condition. This allows me to keep my average bug fix time below 30 minutes from initial detection to production fix. :-)
>Exactly, but I might not have found them by myself. All it would need >would be for the error message itself to contain that URL. I can see >the problems with doing that, though.
When the user clicks the Web Help link, they are taken to the page specific for the error message.The URL includes any preceding error code which led to the error they're shown. So, both are logged.
>I'm intrigued by the path from error to resolution. At the time the >error is detected, the code knows exactly what condition it has >encountered. It then turns it into an error message that often doesn't >identify the exact problem (on the basis that 99% of users wouldn't >understand the details). So the user ends up with a code, which they >have to look up, sometimes failing.
>This process is quite expensive. Most of the programs that I write >have far more error detection and reporting code that actual "works". >But that's because I make lots of mistakes, and when I get a trouble >report, I want it to tell me the exact line in the exact program where >it encountered an exact condition. This allows me to keep my average >bug fix time below 30 minutes from initial detection to production >fix. :-)
|
