A friend is building a new computer for me, which I'll use for graphics. I've had Bryce 3D and then 4.1 loaded on my old one (a PII 400, W98) and running pretty well, although rendering takes a while. I want to load Windows 2000 on my new machine, but can't get any info on whether or not Bryce 4.1 is compatible with it. The box says 95/98/NT4, and some friends have said since 2000 is really a new release of NT4, it should run OK. An email to Corel has gotten no response yet. Anyone here got any ideas? A friend has offered to test-drive my 4.1 on his 2000 machine, but if there's an easier way...that would be better! I know the Beta testing of Bryce 5 is including testing on W2000 machines, but I don't know if I want to be a guinea pig! Any advice is welcome.

Yes Bryce 4.1 runs in Win2000 just fine , even without ServicePack1 installed.

I have had no problems with Bryce 4.1 in Win2000 sp1. In fact, it seems to be significantly more stable than in WinNTsp6.

Great! Corel wrote me back, saying it wasn't tested with W2000, so there might be a few compatibility issues, but good to know you're both using it successfully. Thanks very much for your info; I really appreciate it!

Comment... anything is more stable than NT4 sp 6. try 6a. I had win2k pro and found it ran faster on my K7 than 98 or ME, but it was also easy to screw up cuz its loaded as NT5, so in reality, it is the new NT4 with wicked controls that require a $50k a year butler to fix. (Keep your ram chips very similar if you want NT 5. I'm going to write a white sheet about that.) Bryce worked on all operating system that I went through. Its a good program, but my peripherals like ATI all in wonder pro didn't work. I like ME but it doesn't have a dos mode unless you boot from a boot disk and choose minimum install. Leave it to Bill to force obselecense. Anyway, I digress. Yes, Windoze 2k runs bryce just fine.

Oh, I had enormous problems with tcp/ip in SP1 and instead of spening thousands in training programs, I just undeleted the upgrade. I did do it several times to verify. Always had a problem with not being able to go to links or secondary pages witout a reboot on SP1.

I've heard some bad things about ME, so was thinking of 2000 Pro. The guy who's building my new machine recommended it; he has about 4 machines networked, and says 2000 is more stable.

Djeser, depends on what you want to do I guess. Choose the operating system that you like. ME works fine for me cuz I hardly use dos any more. Just took my 5 1/4 floppy out last week if you can believe that. ME needs a good high speed processor to work with it. K-6/400 or above. Heck, it won't even load on a P 150 or below and rightly so. If you are a sophisticated enough user to know your way around W2K and don't have any peripherals that are older, then W2k does run a bit faster than the other MS products I've seen. Good luck. If your friend is building you a W2K machine then I would presume the peripherals and software he chooses are compatable.

The machine I'm on now is about 2 years old, with W98 on it. PII 400, 128mb, 52GBhds, cdrom. I have problems with it on and off, but I think they're more W98 than h/w. Does take a while to render. New machine will have 1G Athlon, 266 front side bus, 256mb 266DDr PC266, 2 20G hard drives, GeForce 256 MXII, a cdrw (40x16x10), and a 19" Samsung syncmaster monitor. I'm putting nic cards in both machines, will network them so I can share out drives, use this machine as portal to internet (via my ISDN box). So I think the hardware on the new machine will support W2000 ok. Not certain if I want to upgrade this one, or just to 98SE. The other machine will be primarily for graphics, this one for writing, email, surfing.

Ok, your render time will increase dramatically on that. I went from a K6-400 to a K7-550 (100mhz bus) and cut my render time down by 2/3. I'm envious of you. Thinking about doing what you are doing with a newer athelon and faster bus.