Hello again Ron (See? I got it right!). I'm not trying to argue so please take this as further explanation re XP vs w2K. >If you do a search of the Poser Forum for this same sort of problem, you'll see that the consensus is that this problem is somehow related to Windows 2000 and Poser working together. I didn't actually do this search. However, a concensus of opinion is not necessarily the same thing as correct. The immediate problem is related to the page file although it is true that this is indirectly caused by w2k's different manner of handling virtual memory as compared to the methods employed by the w95/98/me family. >Many of us will never bother to adjust our swap file size. I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately this has no effect or bearing on the cause of the problem, only one's probablity of success in dealing with it. >We are told that more recent versions of Windows do the best possible job of taking care of virtual memory for us. It may well do so though I am not inclined to believe everything I am told. But the problem is not just the virtual memory. It is that both W2k/XP and Poser attempt to control it simultaneously. Virtual memory is the proximate cause, not the immediate one. >If memory serves, others had messed with those settings, and it didn't help much or at all. I was hit many times by that out of disk space error... too many times...with Windows 2000. I got it only once with Windows XP. I suspect that your XP page file is set higher than it was on your w2k and perhaps the others just did not increase it sufficiently. Others in this thread have indicated that a sufficiently high setting eliminates the problem and this also turns out to be Curious Lab's official fix. >Windows XP doesn't try to remain backward compatible for DOS and Windows 3.0 users, etc. Actually, one of its selling points is that it is more compatible with older games and software than w2k. I don't say this. Microsoft does. w2k's compatibility with older software is not as good nor was it intended to be. However, numerous complaints prompted Microsoft to release patches improving this compatibility. >Windows XP is the first Windows operating system that is essentially the same for Home and Pro users. XP actually comes in 2 flavours- Home and Professional. The Pro version tends to have greater focus on networking, etc and even delivers a different interface look although this can be adjusted. You could think of it as Super-XP. Most home users are likely to have no need for the Pro version. >There never was such a correlation between Windows 2000 and Windows 98 or Windows ME. Correct. W2k was a completely different product intended for a different audience and was a further evolution of Windows NT. Internally it is very different than 95/98/me as it consists of completely different programming code. XP has a greater correlation with w2k than 95/98/me because at its heart it is the same thing. For various reasons Microsoft prefers that all users migrate to what is essentially the same system. But they realized that the casual user would likely be overwhelmed by w2k. Hence XP- which is basically w2k with a much friendlier face lift and a pile of consumer oriented additions. As it is, I hate the XP look so my XP looks almost the same as my old w2kpro. I've also trashed most of the consumer add-ons which are of no use to me. If it weren't for the Windows logo and the slightly different icons people using my system would think it was w2k. Thanks for the best wishes. I hope your future bodes well for you also and hope I haven't bored you with the above.