>>I would appreciate any input on this issue so that I can give my boss a more informed opinion of whether or not we should switch our workstations before I go any further in making changes to my program.
>
>A couple things from our testing here, on 95 vs NT in an NT Server environment:
>
>1) At this point moving to NT4 seems kind of redundant, it's old, and has some big weaknesses in things like Plug & Play. I would look at moving to Win2K if headed in that direction.

Especialy since he cost is identical.
>
>2) The 2 reasons to move to an NT-based OS are security and security - er, I mean and OS robustness for development.
>

And secuity. Don't forget to mention security and robustness at least twice. And a fanatical devotion to the Pope...

>3) If you don't need security, there is not a lot of point in moving regular users to NT. We have had plenty of problems in testing here, trying to reconfigure a solid 95 WS-base to NT. Some are vfp-related, some are not.
>

It may be that the Win9x-Win2K move is better, since it will preserve some of the registry and avoid the mandatory reinstall of everything.

>4) Test, test, & more test before you move to NT. Our LAN has created a large volume of NT issues, many of which have not yet been resolved, though we are continuing efforts, since we want the security features of an NT-based OS. One of the most serious problems in NT did not manifest for nearly 2 months of testing.
>
>5) NT requires more memory than 95 - you really should have 128 RAM for NT, whereas 95 does okay at even at 32.