> 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