Yeah, and we all know 5308 is the LATEST code - NOT! MS are working on higher build numbers than that internally.

Maybe THOSE builds ARE more stable than the latest warez release...

is it just me, or is deleting winload.exe (i'm purely guessing thats whats been done, as i do'nt have access to vista, and i can't be bothered downloading the latest version everyday of torrent sites, but saying failed to load seems to mean the file has either been deleted or messed up with) pointless, what does it prove? how does this show up as bad for ms, would it be better the os tried to ignore the fact it was missing or corrupt and attempt to try to boot randomly crashing? what else can it do, you know, i heard that if you remove the kernal from a linux installation it won't boot...means its crap really.

Ahh.. I remember the good old windows95/98 days where if you typed in con/con or aux/aux in the run box it would BSOD

Ahh.. I remember the good old windows95/98 days where if you typed in con/con or aux/aux in the run box it would BSOD

Very true indeed, although with Win95 you could type pretty much anything into the run box and it would BSOD

Edited March 16, 200620 yr by ScubaSteve

Ahh.. I remember the good old windows95/98 days where if you typed in con/con or aux/aux in the run box it would BSOD

Very true indeed, although with Win95 you could type pretty much anything into the run box and it would BSOD

its funny cuz its true

Edited March 16, 200620 yr by wolf74481

Ahh.. I remember the good old windows95/98 days where if you typed in con/con or aux/aux in the run box it would BSOD

Very true indeed, although with Win95 you could type pretty much anything into the run box and it would BSOD

its funny cuz its true

Ah yes, the good ol' times Attempting to call any "reserved names" would crash you. It was not until Windows 98 Second Edition that they fixed the problem.

Edited March 17, 200620 yr by AgentGOD