>We have a few people here who have tried VFP applications on Win2k compared to previously running on NT. They say that Win2k is noticably slower (very noticably) but this conflicts with what I've heard that Win2k should be noticably faster than NT.
>
>Who's right here? We're close to pulling each others hair out here.

Are you comparing apples to apples? Is everything equal, and enough RAM for Win2K? IOW, all machines have 128 RAM, are the same speed, and have the same network conditions, etc.?

FWIW, I heard the same about NT4 compared to Win9x, and it turns out that with 64 or less RAM, Win9x is generally faster, and especially at 32 RAM, a lot faster. A lot depends on RAM. Even at 128, NT is not "faster" than Win9x in general - it's just more robust and has better security features, IMO.