>>Maybe I am missing your point. Windows 2000 Professional is NOT a low end OS, and people buying low-end computers aren't interested in it. Fortunately most software designed and run on Win2K Pro will run on Win2K, and vice-versa.
>>
>>What's the mystery? Are you still complaining about gouging?
>
>
>Eric, perhaps I am the one missing a point here. Are you saying that Win2K Pro is not the cheapest version of Win2K? If so, what is the price for the cheapest version?
>
>Going back to my original point, I thought that Win2K, nee' NT 5.0, was supposed to unite all of the Windows OS in one version. There wasn't going to be a successor to Win98 so there would be only one Windows. Has everyone here suddenly agreed that that goal is unobtainable and therefore unneeded?
>
A non-Win2K code-based replacement for Win98, Millenium, has been previously announced, with no firm ship date, but it'll be sometime next year. It will continue to use at least part of the Win9x kernal code.