>>Not even Win98? Next you'll tell me it's OSR1.:-) Of course, I'm still using Wi8n98SE when I've got Win2K available. Who am I to talk?< g >
>
>No, we never got to 98 here, no one quite understands why, just procrastination. I use 98SE at home, though. BTW, I just read a Post article that strongly advised against using Win2K for home use. Some of the most important apps (mainly games :) did not work at all. It also said Win ME (Millennium Edition, the natural upgrade for 98) will be released in a few months, and may be worth upgrading (though still will be on a DOS shell, basically, but will have some of the Win2K characteristics).
>
>The true merger of the Home/Business technologies is not due for about a year, the author claimed.

Bruce,

I've seen similar things, and I wouldn't doubt it for a minute. However, it should be kept in mind that, like NT, Win2K is a business platform. Therefore, compatibility with games wasn't an essential feature. This is one of the reasons that I wouldn't install it at home (my son has loaded a bunch on that machine). As a matter of fact, a recent MSDN News presented a list of potential problems that some applications might have running under Win2K. It should be kept in mind that when faced with a choice between backward compatibility and stability, the latter was always chosen. FWIW, applications that would have problems running (or even installing) under it, most likely break a number of the design rules, and may be the cause of many of the problems associated with previous versions of Win.