Dale B. That would be a interesting test if you do it. I'd like to see the results. I plunked Win2000 on a puter and it crawled so I can't see how it could possibly be faster. It's a no brainer Speed=cpu executed instructions (Flops) If you cut the instructions down to the bare min the speed will increase, It's directly proportional. Now there is things like swap files and who knows what but a clean machine should be much faster because only render and output should be running. Like there is no magic here. There is only so many instructions available on a 32 bit puter. Nothing you do is going to make them execute any faster. Like it don't matter what operating system the processor instruction calls are the exact same. Good thing too. Now sloppy code could impact it but complexity is usually a sign of sloppy code. So what's going to render faster? A 80 meg 98lite or a 1.5 gig Win2000? I'd like to see. The Win2000 boxes that are at work run slower than my machine here. Most of them are newer and faster processors than mine here. Yes there is a few instructins in the newer processors that Win may use or not use. The running program chances are does not use them. Not to many out there yet. And big deal Intel has them and AMD does not but running the code on the Intel box VS running a AMD box shows no real advantage. The AMD box still does more work in the same time frame. So where is the advantage of these wonder instructions? It like a Sale a 4 letter word. Beware. Put the price up 50% then mark it down 25% and call it a sale. Bottom line is your pocket book cause it tells the real truth. See Intel chips keep getting faster and faster but the FLOPS are not doubleling for every double of the clock there dropping like a rock so they put extra code in there to speed it back up. Like a 1 gig processor and a 2 gig processor from intel you'd think it would think it would be twice as fast but it's only 25% about faster. So add a new bus and get it to 50% faster then call it a sale ! See my point. So it may seem faster when the operating system is using it but it's actually slower than it should be still. By lots to. The 3 gig chips are only 10% faster yet. That's why AMD give up on that Mhtz idea long time ago. It's a poor measure of work done. A cool test I did. A Intel and a AMD that was exactly twice as fast. Same job. Intel time 24 hours to complete task AMD should be 12 hours right ? Nope 3 hours 22 seconds. Why is that? FLOPS, More FLOPS per clock cycle. FLOPS ( Floating Point Operations) Win2000 will not save you on a AMD. Now on the Intel above that would have improved the speed task down to about 12 hours and we'll call it a sale. Same processor speeds would have cut it down to 6 hours. It's still a 4 letter word.