Win 7 (64

That's not true, and you're not doing anyone any favors by spreading misinformation like this.

Windows 7, along with Vista and XP before it, are based on the NT kernel, which is totally apart from the DOS line of Windows that ran from Win95, through the 9x series, and ended with Me. Those were always an odd hybrid system, but NT was always a pure 32-bit system. So when Microsoft created the x64 version of XP Pro (and I'm ignoring the versions of NT that ran on 64-bit CPUs like Alpha and UltraSparc) they made it a fully 64-bit OS. It, like Linux, does have a 32-bit emulation layer in the form of duplicate DLLs. Linux has something nearly identical, in the form of 32-bit .so files.

You are correct, in that the current Windows x64 versions are not a "pure" 64-bit, but that is a limitation of the x86-64 instruction set. Certain concessions had to be made to maintain compatibility with the older x86 instruction set. Windows itself is fully 64-bit, the CPU it's running on, is not. This is the same for Linux, Free/Open/NetBSD, or any other x86-64 OS.

You should have at least some idea about what you're speaking on before making comments like this. All you end up doing, is making Linux users everywhere look like a bunch of annoying, smug, jerks who don't even know what they're talking about.

Linux is a great system, and I have used it off and on for many years, but being the pragmatic utilitarian I am, I have to admit there are some things Windows simply does better. I hold out hope that one day this will change in favor of Linux, but it seems most of the development interest is going to server oriented tasks rather than desktop. Still, the KDE project seems to be doing some interesting things lately, and one can always hope the GNOME developers will eventually get off their duffs and do something of interest.

None of that, however, excuses your rather immature behavior. I think it would be good of you to apologize and state that you were in error.

To get to the nuts and bolts of the whole thing, cool, you got it. In another hand, how would you explain it in lame terms?

Anyway, thanks for the info, perhaps you explained better than I did.

I forgot to ask in my previous post (I couldn't find any way to edit it)...
What was meant by "Given what blaster did."

Specifically item 5 at http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html#FAQ

Since its passive, what it does is unlikely to cause many issues. I'd forgo this old thing for the new things and avoid using IE.
Bob

Looking at it from a different perspective... Rather than spend your time with apps that are designed to clean up malware once it gets onto your system, doesn't it seem like a far better idea to just prevent the malware from ever getting onto your system in the first place?

Odds are the program will run fine. A lot of people put way too much stock into the whole 64-bit vs. 32-bit thing. Probably 99.99% of all 32-bit apps will run just the same on Windows x64 (any version) as they did on the 32-bit version. There are some exceptions, but they are pretty far and few between.

That being said, it still seems like the better overall solution is to eliminate the need for programs like SpyBlaster, does it not?. And it's really not that difficult to do with some careful program selections and making a few changes to your computing habits. With really a pretty minimal amount of effort on your part, you can save yourself loads of time with these malware removers.

Ultimately, the choice is yours, but doing simple things like using a browser OTHER than Internet Explorer will in itself do wonders. I was going to post my long set of tips, but I'm in the process of migrating to a new computer, and that seems to have gotten lost along the way. If I remember, I'll come back and post it after I pull it off my other computer.