Umm, I'm confused. You seem to be doing a lot of double talk here... (see below for my comments)

C:\Windows\System32\kernel32.dll -> uncompile that sucker and there you go... the crappy Windows Kernel. If you want to know, from what I've read and all, the Windows kernel fails in performance. I have seen countless number of reports that compair Windows to Linux. As I use Windows and Linux side-by-side (at least until my WINE problem is solved), I notice a performance factor too. Firefox is known for its little "memory leak" thing. On my Windows box, I can easly get my page file OVER 1 GIGABYTE just by running (and ONLY running) Firefox, Dreamweaver, and Adobe Photoshop. Here's something strange too... when I kill Photoshop and Dreamweaver, I *might* be able to get the page file down to exactly 1 gig or 1.02 gigs. As soon as I kill Firefox, it drops to 300 MB.

Even under stress, my Linux box will reboot faster than my Windows box.. it also boots up faster too. XP takes 14 bars, and 3 minutes to load my desktop after login. On Linux, after all the services start up, loging in to KDE is instant. Even on a new Windows machine, it still takes a while. I don't have the time to write a report on the subject, but search it and you'll find it.

Also, the whole "system reboot" thing makes no sense... Novell did a study actually, compairing SuSE Enterprise Server (10 I think) to Windows Server 2003. Network admins had a huge complaint of excessive & unplanned network downtime when installing patches. I did my own "case study" at school... of course, I pulled numbers from the air and what MS had on their website. In my "report", I stated that with NEW servers (not junky $500 ones either), this alone would cost $300,000 ($15000 per server... these are EXCELLENT servers). Now throw on Windows... $335,780. Linux pulled off with: $302,400. My Windows friend thinks my article is complete BS, though he's NEVER used Linux. You can find Novell's report here: http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/better_choice.html

How is MS not bad? All they do is treat their customers like cattle... They look at the customers and all they see is $$$ and not people. This is WHY I switched to Linux. I like having control of MY system... here's what I told my friends:
"I'm sick of it... the viruses, the malware, that stupid ugly multi-colored windoze logo... everything. I want flexibility, not hassles. I want FREEDOM, NOT RESTRICTIONS."

I'm only talking from experience. I've had to re-install Windows, 2 times in less than a year on my Windows box... first time, Windows just "quit" and a BSOD poped up and I had to format and re-install. The second time was due to an anti-virus error. Now, I've had more Windows machines, all of them I've had to re-install Windows on at LEAST 2 times. I don't want to do that. Another reason I'm migrating over to Linux is MS and their BS about everything... "you must validate Windows to get updates"... I wouldn't be surprised if MS wrote half the viruses themselves!!! They obviously hate pirates AND *nix users too. (Somewhere on here is a post about MS detecting the use of WINE on a user's system... if WINE present, then no updates for you.

I can't like a company if all they see their customers as is $$$ (hence why I also hate AOL, not just for being AOL...)

[N]F

Ha! I started out with Color Basic on a Z-80 microprocessor and then went to TRS-DOS when I could actually get one of the new floppy drives. I used Wordstar, Visicalc, etc. When I actually got an MS-DOS machine, I still used either PFS-First Choice or Word Perfect. It was quite a while before I got into MS products. I have never liked Word or Office applications. In college I regularly used NextStep, Solaris, Dos 6.0, Linux, Mac OS 7-9, OS/2 Warp, and Windows. I beta tested Windows 95.

No, MSes problems are not quite as bad as sometimes made out, but they are pretty bad. A Beta is supposed to be feature stable and lacking in critical defects. An Alpha (internal or limited test release) is for the real trips through the looking glass. as a vendor, it is considered bad taste to nuke your customer's computers, even with a Beta. I have Beta tested for a number of companies (back in the day when you had to apply to be a Beta tester and actually got paid, at least in free software, for the effort), and MS was really the worst of them.

Linux's unstable tree, for instance, is usually better, and Betas of OS/2 Warp were nowhere near as rough as the Betas of Win 95. Most of IBMs products tend to be more stable when they go beta (I have worked in their test labs and have seen exactly what criteria they use to pass the software for Alpha or Beta releases).

It is all a matter of having a defined *process*, which MS, by admission, just does not have.

I don't know man...

To me, installing Internet Explorer 7, is like getting back with your girlfriend. That girlfriend that cheated you twice, and got pregnant in an orgy, and says she loves you while grabbing stuff from your wallet everytime you go to the bathroom.

I downloaded IE 7 Beta last week and it wouldn’t launch at all and so I had to get rid of it. Suprisingly it wasn’t hard all ( I have Window XP Pro, so I don’t know if this is the same way for all the windows). Just go into your control panel and open up add/remove programs. You will see the new version of explore on it and just click uninstall. After you are done, you should have your old version automatically without reinstalling it.