Leonard Erickson wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:

 -=> Quoting Roy J. Tellason to Leonard Erickson <=-

 LE> That's why I want to no part of MS's planned successor to XP (or
 LE> even XP for that matter).

 RJT> I run nothing later here than 98,  and that only on one box that holds
 RJT> games for my grandkids to play.  Other boxes run software from other
 RJT> sources. 

 LE> I'm probably going to install 2k on a box soon. Mostly because I'll
 LE> need something a bit more stable than 98 has gotten with all my
 LE> apps loaded, and I need the experience with it.

That very last bit is about the only thing that could entice me in that direction...

I was taking some computerized tests at an employment agency fairly
recently, and was rather surprised at how many of the questions dealt with
w2k.  Now,  given my background and experience,  I'm sure that if I needed
to figure something out and were to sit down at a machine running w2k,  I
could figure it out.  But I never really saw much point to moving further
than 98 here.

My last employer ran w2k on their servers,  and I wasn't all that impressed
with the stability of those system.  :-)

I *might* pursue it if it made that much of a difference in terms of
employment,  but I havent gotten to that point yet.

Doesn't w2k require a bit more in terms of hardware,  too?  What would be a
good minimum system to install that on to and get a feel for it?  I'm
guessing probably more than what I have on hand here.

 LE> I'm thinking about a laptop, but it'll have to be one that I can
 LE> get from the factory with Linux rather than XP!!

 RJT> Sounds about right to me,  or one that I can wipe clean of whatever m$
 RJT> crap happens to be infesting it. 

 LE> Well, the trick is, they won't guarantee it to run ok with an OS
 LE> other than the type AND VERSION it ships with.

 LE> So if it ever needs repairs, you'll get it back with the factory 
 LE> OS. 

Euw.     :-|

---