Hi, Patrick, and everyone else, You wrote: > Another thing, I wouldn't suggest win2k... as it is new > and also full of good ol' M$ bugs... Err... not to defend Micro$oft, even for a second, but... if I really, really wanted to run Windows something-or-other, Windows 2000 is the one I would recommend. It is a big improvement over NT 4.0 (it really is NT 5.0) and is certainly more stable than Windows '95/'98/ME. Speaking of a buggy mess, avoid Windows ME at all costs. Also, WIN2K isn't that new any more, and it's replacement is already in beta. Oh, and I am not recommending Windows XP to *anyone*. Later, Caity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlyn M. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Analyst (919) 541-4441 Lockheed Martin (a contractor for the US EPA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
