OK, I'll comment... For me personally, Win2K has a much better TOC than Linux. Why? Most of my experience is with Windows. In terms of stability and reliability, I've always found NT/2K to be so, especially for development. (Win9x, on the other hand is often nothing but trouble.) In terms of virus resistance and security, if you play without protection, you're going to catch something, no matter what the platform. Do I have to apply the occasional patch? Of course. Is a misconfigured system going to be flaky? Of course. But I've seen firsthand the same holding true whether you run Linux or NT/2K. Come on, be honest--you know this is true. Now, don't get me wrong--I really enjoy Linux. I want to see it used more at home and at the workplace, and I suggest a Linux solution to my clients whenever feasible. And someday, I certainly won't mind leaving Windows behind. But right now, the experience factor alone makes Windows much cheaper for me. What would turn the tables in favor of Linux? Time, a lot of it. And as a consultant, time is money, a lot of it. Lee Behrens <BobTanner> I might be blinded by by religion and this group my not have the ability to let the religion go, but can anyone look outside the box on this and comment? My perspective is Linux is much cheaper then Windows. Even if you pay for a distro you are starting out ahead. Add the virus resistence, stability, reliability, and security out of the box. Linux should be have a better TOC then Win2k. </BobTanner>