On the one hand I slightly agree with you, on the other I would say screaming and shouting, is not how you submit a bug-report.
That is how to get ignored by the Devs.
Also Malware is not generally designed to BSOD during install, or it would not be very useful to the author.
But without reporting any of the useful info on the BSOD you get, no-one can say what files may need updating or removing.
Vista. Does that still function? It must feel like weaving treacle if you don't reinstall every few months.
Vista usage is actually minimal. It is the least used Windows OShttp://wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_o ... ng_systems
No one should be running Vista. It was a "mistake" of an OS, that requires more resources than any other.
Translate the name "Vista". It means "a nice view" or "looks nice".
At no point did MS think to name it the latin for "Works well".
It is the "red-headed step-child" of the computing world.
It was purely an attempt at competing with OSX, and so flawed it should have been put-down at birth.
Do yourself a favour and install XP or 7. You will then have a fast PC again, with loads of spare RAM.
Your issue sounds related to the problem I found when installing it on XP, as it bombs about the same point.
I am now happily using a previous debug version of 2.7 that does not crash.
I used "Dependency Walker" utility that is included with the support tools on a Windows disc.
This showed me that, at some point Shareaza was accessing a file that is part of DirectX 10 and above.
Shareaza crashes when triggering DLLs that are not distributed with Shareaza.
The DirectX layer can talk to hardware and therefore BSOD.
The issue we both will have, is because of the amount of extra crap installed in our systems.
There will be some wonky DLLs in any of our given PCs, and they will all be at different versions.
Once you open any program or DLL in "Dependency Walker" you will see how the problem is more likely to happen than not.
My XP spent a while faking Windows 7 (very nice
), so I had to patch Windows/DirectX to allow DX10.
I know my PC has extra files it should not, but I still required a newer version of a DLL for it to work properly, as the DLL i have is missing a function.
To disable the DX10 access on my PC, I renamed a bridge DLL that should not be on XP.
Access 1 single function in any given OS library, and you will see a cascade effect, where that 1 DLL requires a function in another DLL, so you load that DLL, then the functions in that DLL require the functions in another, and so on.
Before you know it you have loaded several megs of librarys, just to use 1 function.
Often some DLLs are not backward or forward compatible. That is why they are often stored in the program folder, rather than being placed in "system32"
There are several Microsoft DLLs that misbehave, so should never be put in the system folders.
The missing or broken function may never have been called by the original program, but can easily be the thing that bombs it.
If programmers do not write fall-back routines, then dead-ends are common.
Shareaza is a monster of a programming nightmare, as it requires dealing with many external things that are beyond the control of the developers (who are after-all, just amateur guys doing something they enjoy).
Try the debug build I am using on XP viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1577
Even CoDecs have the potential to crash a program or your PC, as many will try to access hardware decoding and functions.