exactly, Microsoft tested windows... not malware. I doubt malware and half of those "fixing" programs go through half the lashings that MS puts Windows through. as hard as it is for many to accept- the Quality control at MS is better then almost any other software company. It's the companies that write their software for Microsoft's operating systems, or applications based off office macros/VBA that are badly tested, not the platform.
Short story is: MS says "hey, programmers, don't do this. It works, but we'll probably remove it in the next version". Some Stubborn continue to to it that way. MS removes support in next version. User upgrades Windows OS. finds program is broken. blames Microsoft.
"Compatibility" Is one of the sore spots for me when it comes to windows. Whatever Microsoft does- it's wrong. People complain that there is too much "backwards compatibility" cruft in windows, so MS removes a good deal of it from Vista. People complain about that. And with something like this- stuff written right into the EXE loader, you can't feasibly make it an option, either. (well you could, but it would probably require another year or so of testing). Remove the shims, and Windows is "a compatibility nightmare" that "refuses to run common applications", but if MS keeps it in, it's a "bloated beast filled with code to keep old applications usable" it's a lose-lose, and MS has been in a lose-lose scenario for some time within many circles. Slashdot doesn't count, they don't even consider that what MS does might be a good idea, and the first thing slashdot readers try to do is get a hold of the gnome/KDE source and implement the exact opposite.
