Published at LXer:

Patch early and patch often is the advice of security professionals when it comes to software updates. Yet sysadmins will be increasingly leery of applying such an approach to Windows systems following Microsoft's latest botch job.

Read More...

So you mean that at some point Windoze was BSOD-free ? Wow, that would be a massive achievement for M$, but I'll believe it when I see it.

As for patching Windoze, yes it tends to cause instability, that's why when I was using it, I never updated it. I mean I tried updating it, but it cause so many problems that it wasn't worth it.

I haven't had an OS/driver/patch related BSOD for years. The only times when I had BSODs were when I had hardware failure (not surprising when the disk with the OS on it dies) or when trying out the limits when overclocking a machine (which IMHO also counts as hardware failure). This using Vista since 2008 and 7 since 2011.

Whenever I have taken care of Windows systems of other people most of the time it was also a hardware problem, very rarely it was a bad driver that someone downloaded for some obscure hardware from some obscure website, or something like a system mishandled by improper use of tools like TuneUp Utilities.

Of course you will never get a BSOD free Windows, the same way as you will never get a Linux kernel that never panics. Bugs happen in any software, regardless who develops it or which development process is used.

xp sp3 was BSOD free
i never had one with sp2 ether

now sp1 and xp NO sp that had many many BSOD

7 ? well i have not loged enough time on that
maybe 2 months total in 3 years

Comparatively, from my experience with both, kernel panics are much more rare, and usually it is my fault. However, I haven't extensively used Windoze Vista and up. I quit with XP, and yes there were BSOD on it. Dunno if it was hardware, and it was very difficult to figure out what caused them. Maybe they managed to cut down on the random BSODs in Vista and 7 ? If so, why did these fail so badly ?

Vista failed so badly because it was (before SP1) a resource hog and generally considered to be slow. After SP1 I had no problems at all with Vista.
For 7, I can't say that failed badly, it is generally in wide use (at least the Steam survey shows it to be used by 60% of gamers, other sources set it at about 25-25% marketshare) and considered to be a good successor for XP.