>You're certainly taking the wrong approach to this. Eventually you'll find that WIn9x won't run on new hardware and other applications will stop support of Win9x too. Also, the newer versions of Windows are much more stable. IMO, you should be working on an upgrade path that will allow you to gradually move to a newer OS. If not, you'll be forced to upgrade them all at once.
>
>
>>We've never once had to use support from ms so I doubt a formal declaration will change anything. I'm not being negative or sarcastic either it's just a
>>fact.
>>

I think you're misunderstanding the situation. Our focus is not the desire to stay with windows 95. Our focus is to make 20 or so pentium 266's with 64MB and windows 95 last as long as possible. That means as long as they run our software we will keep them. The strengths of our PC's are all over the map with about half decent machines and the other half older stuff. You don't upgrade P2-266's, you replace them. PC's are expensive. The budget drives these things. We'd be VERY cautious to adopt any software that caused half of our pc to be obsolete. Being a tech nut I've love to run out and buy a bunch of new pc's but it's not going to happen. We've laid off about half of our workforce and the IT budget (which was already meager) is frozen. So sure I could show a paper to the COO which describes a slick upgrade path but I'd be a fool to do so. Blowing $10000 (probably more) just to upgrade vfp won't fly.