>>Okay, shall do. All this stuff ran fine in 9x, now I feel like I'm in Kindergarten with NTWS...I suspect doubling the RAM would help a lot, though, the NT machine really seems to be struggling with 64.
>
>We run with both 64 and 128. 64 has never been a big, just less "snappy".
>
>Virtual memory should be physical memory + 11.

Hey, Evan - NT on this 64/300 machine (after 3 installs :) is really pretty good now. I'm one of a few testers in the agency before we all move to NT next year sometime. I'm gradually getting to like it more, after many initial problems with NT, network configuration, and those terrible vfp ISO errors I was raving about for a while. It's been more like alpha-testing than beta so far :)

But it now runs all of my vfp apps just fine, in fact, better than fine - it runs my extremely large mission-critical vfp app *really* smoothly. All apps, except one particular very small, admin-only loading app, but which processes about a GB of raw text data at a time into usable vfp data. NT struggles with this big-time, lots of thrashing, and actually runs slower than Win95 with 32 RAM on a slower machine. So, I'm basically just going to assume that getting a new machine with more RAM (and speed) in a few months will help a lot.

In the meantime, next week I'll try reducing vfp's memory grab as Ed suggests, with another load job. I set the virtual back to 75/150 that came as default for now...I can always do these loads with Win95 if necessary, but I want to test NT as much as possible, to learn about issues exactly like this one.