>Hi George,
>
>>Given the current cost of the technology, I don't see this as unreasonable. I do understand how you feel. I wouldn't try using Win2K on my home machine, which happens to meet the minimum requirements.
>
>Your absolutely right--RAM alone is not a significant issue. However, I'm still also concerned about other issues, such as hardware compatibility and processors.
>
>Obviously if Microsoft is demoing (W2k) at DevCon then it must be more stable than NT 4.0. This in itself is something that I consider very encouraging. I look forward to the day that I can develop a desktop application and not have to worry about a C5 or Dr. Watson error. For me this is the best news that I have heard in a long time. If I can get an OS that is “really” stable, I won’t give a rats a** about spending a little money upgrading hardware or processors. I hope this is not a dream<s>
>
Hi Paul,

Personally, I see both the platform and what was demoed as significant. Of course, I'm indulging in some WAGs. Two things to think about:

1. Win2K is a 64 bit platform. I'm sure that VC++ that's in the next version of VS will probably produce 64 bit DLLs and executables. Does this say anything about VFP?

2. VC++ (and I think VB also, but I haven't really worked with it) supported Intellisense in VS, but VFP didn't. Now that VFP is going to have, does it say anything about about its interface with Win2K?

Just a couple of things to think about< g >.