> I've been running XP since June or so. I have to agree with what Scott >said. There is no doubt that it is faster than Win98 was. but will it run on a 486? win98 would; but if XP won't, then win98 is faster (at least in that case). I tried XP on a P233/96MB here at the office; and IMHO, it was slower than anything else on that box. If you turn off the cycle-wasting new interface stuff (rounded windows and such), and go back to the win2k-ish 'classic' interface; it was about the same as w2k. as for buying more memory... not all memory is obscenely cheap. 72-pin stuff isn't. :) so the upshot as I see it is; that it's not a worthwhile upgrade, unless you have bleeding-edge hardware... and even then; if it's not broke, why fix it? (of course, one could argue that windows is inherently broken...). Microsoft's 'fixes' usually just lead to a different set of problems you have to learn to deal with. Carl Soderstrom -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises (952) 943-8700