Oh yeah, if Microsoft was so worried about other companies tinkering with its kernel then why didn't it introduce routines that would ensure that a reboot would actually occur on a boot load error? (Upon error, a reload would then omit the faulty code as well as tell users there was a problem with the update.)<p>I'd suggest that there is no reason a BSOD—Blue Screen of Death—should ever occur on a system that was already working as the OS should be constructed in such a way that it can undo a faulty patch. As you'd know, there is already such a thing as Volume Shadow Copy, VSS, in MS Windows. Microsoft could have adopted this and similar techniques to ensure that the system either stayed up or rebooted.<p>Yes, I can hear Microsoft's retort now that doing that would make Windows more vulnerable to viruses, infiltration, etc.<p>To that I'd say utter bullshit, the real problem—as it has always been with Microsoft—is that it doesn't properly finish or bootstrap its code against errors before it releases it to the public. Microsoft is thus doing cheapskate engineering as it's much more profitable.<p>Hopefully, eventually regulators will require hardening of such software together with guarantees against such faults—guarantees that if not honored would result in enforceable financial penalties.<p>Only loss of income/profit is likely to fix this problem.<p>EU, for everyone's sake quickly debunk that deliberately misleading PR crap from Microsoft before it takes hold.