I won't be writing a post like this in the futre about XP. WIndows 9X has always been a complete and utter POS, even in it's heyday. Maybe it was good enough to do what most people needed to do, but it was a completely unnacceptable OS compared to what we could of and should have had had it not been for Microsoft's anti-competitive practices that gained their monopoly. Microsoft is NOT ahead because there products were superior, they are ahead because they had a superior marketting strategy. Windows 9X arte based on old DOS code and aren't even true 32-bit operating systems. Had Microsoft not unfairly dominated the OS desktop market, we would have been running real 32-bit operating systems for the last 10 years on the home PC. Only because of MS, did we have to deal with such POS opertaing systems that constantly crashed and forced you to reboot your PC 10 times a day. Windows NT was a fine OS back in it's day and still is today in many ways. Windows 9X is NOT!! I have a hard time believing your running Windows 9X stable on an Athlon 3200 with 1GB of RAM. Windows 9X can't even address more than 512MB of RAM. So how in the heck are you running Windows 9X on a system with more than 512MB of RAM. And Windows XP may be bloated, but use Windows 2000 if you hate XP and think it's bloated. Windows 2000 is still a qaulity OS as it is based on real 32-bit code, and not some piece of junk emulating 32-bit GUI on top of a DOS shell. That is why I think Windows 9X and 2K/XP are completely different. Developers shouldn't have to spend the extra effort ensuring compatibility with both OSes.