Michel,

I currently use W2K Professional for my workstation here at home. I figure the extra $$ is worth the learning experience. Until I upgraded to the release version I'd get the Blue Screen of Death quite often. So often that I actually thought of reverting to NT4, Fortunately the CD's arrived and all is now well.

So far W2K is EXTREMELY STABLE and IMO worth the $$.

NT4 is MUCH better than W98 or W95 but there's one rule to make sure you follow: Do everything in your power to use hardware from the HCL (Hardware Compatibility List). Using uncertified hardware can be ugly.

Don't know who suggested that W2K would not be adviseable for a workstation...

>Not really a technical question but mostly to get comments about this Windows '98 rebooting adventure.
>
>My workstation was on Windows '95 before and it was stable. I would say, with all those apps always running 24 hours a day, I only had to reboot about once every two weeks. I considered that to be a good standard. However, since I upgraded, I have to reboot several times per week. As oppose to Windows '95, this time, it reboots itself even while I'm not doing anything. See, last week, I was on the phone and it just rebooted. I didn't do anything.
>
>Some says to go to Windows 2000. However, for a workstation, it's not suggested. Should I go back to Windows '95, put NT on it or just wait for a miracle?

When I was full time as a consultant I had a couple of years where I spent > 10K for hardware, then more for software. It's the price we pay to keep up our level of professionalism.

I'd say go for the W2K workstation unless your hardware can't handleit. In that case go for NT4, then W98 then W95c.

Best,

DD