Wait A Minute,
WHAT testing process?
The really funny part is when the MS shills claim that's not a flaw it's a feature.
Sure, it's a feature that your PC run out of memory. Didn't MS ever think to put limits on how much memory it's using? Seems like one of the first critical design parameters when they decided to *fix* the formerly working chkdsk.
Seems like Vista had a similarly incredible flaw where you couldn't even copy a few thousand small files without it taking days. Seems like Home Server wouldn't let you use one of the only real reasons to that can't be so easily bolted onto vanilla XP, the virtualized filesystem.
Wasn't there a statement that MS hadn't reproduced the problem on their 40 PCs? They have a mere 40 PCs, and yet none with the Intel chipset they try to blame? Oh wait, it's not even likely that it's isolated to one chipset, just one manufacturer's chipset that happens to be the most popular world-wide manufacturer of PC chipsets?
MS you really are lost. The average PC owner is not exposed to your PR damage control, they are not impressed when something is fundamentally broken right out of the box regardless of where the finger of blame is pointed. If this were an obscure bug or you were a poor startup, 2 guys working out of their garage I could see it. Someone is bound to write something like blah blah blah googlezillions of lines of code and every OS has bugs. To that I answer, if you can't bugcheck the new code then leave it alone, but this was not a flaw in programming, it was a design flaw in the way the revised chkdsk works.
Driver or no driver there should never be an unbounded limit on how much memory it can consume.