Penguinisto - since when is XP more stable than Win2K? I've used Win2K since beta 3 and have never had a problem with it. I've had problems with XP from the first time I installed it, and not just on my machine, but on close to 100. (Yes, 100) XP managed to kill (yep, kill) 4 HDD's for me so far - which is why I will not use it again. It has a "La-la Land" interface by default which I absolutely loathe (my personal gripe, many people like it - I hate it) and will dump the second I see it. If you want to network the damned thing properly, prepare to have issues. It sucks RAM like there is no tomorrow. On top of that... I work at a college. We rolled out 45 laptops with XP Pro. Within 4 weeks, we got 15 of them back because they had crashing issues. We recalled all of them and wiped and installed Win2K Pro on them. Not ONE of them has had a problem since. And XP Home? Don't even GO there. Do not touch. Ever. If you must go for XP, then do yourself a favor and at least use XP Pro instead of Home. I wouldn't be so opposed to XP if it wasn't using as much RAM purely to run the OS as it is. To be honest, the time is fast approaching where I am considering a MAC for home use. If there were more apps for Linux and I could run most of the stuff I'm running on Linux, I would install Linux. Hell I would install just about anything before I install XP. Silke

Silke