Warning!

[jefflar]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes
any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

[jeannique]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on
fsx.
John

[jefflar]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

[lkx]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

Hello you two!

Strange to see someone around hear from back then...

Have had FS9 for something like two years now, more or less. Runs it with
everything set to max. and it works perfectly for me. BUT - i have decided to
drop out of the race and will stick with this, as the graphics are great -
especially with some of the sceneries i've downloaded.

If it hadn't been for FS9 or any of the previous version's, i would most likely
have run Linux too - but i can't let go of this hobby.

I still have XP on my stationary PC and have no plans of changing - especially
after i got a laptop with Vista. Well - it works allright, with the most
default software. But i've installed some of my shareware stuff and it has some
problems. Choicemail opens up a box, which one has to close manually. Never
seen that on XP. (They mention it on their website, so it's not just me).
Wincommander, which i use instead of Explorer works, but no text on the icons.
What i feared seems to be true - lots of old software don't work (well at
least) on Vista. It's not a big issue on my laptop, but i won't have it on my
stationary (and main-) PC. That have to function!

Strange - btw - my laptop, with 1 GB of ram open's pretty fast. May the
configuration on this laptop you mention isn't the best?

Cheers

Lars - former "loonie" )

[jeannique]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

Hello you two!

Strange to see someone around hear from back then...

Have had FS9 for something like two years now, more or less. Runs it with
everything set to max. and it works perfectly for me. BUT - i have decided to
drop out of the race and will stick with this, as the graphics are great -
especially with some of the sceneries i've downloaded.

If it hadn't been for FS9 or any of the previous version's, i would most likely

have run Linux too - but i can't let go of this hobby.

I still have XP on my stationary PC and have no plans of changing - especially
after i got a laptop with Vista. Well - it works allright, with the most
default software. But i've installed some of my shareware stuff and it has some

problems. Choicemail opens up a box, which one has to close manually. Never
seen that on XP. (They mention it on their website, so it's not just me).
Wincommander, which i use instead of Explorer works, but no text on the icons.
What i feared seems to be true - lots of old software don't work (well at
least) on Vista. It's not a big issue on my laptop, but i won't have it on my
stationary (and main-) PC. That have to function!

Strange - btw - my laptop, with 1 GB of ram open's pretty fast. May the
configuration on this laptop you mention isn't the best?

Cheers

Lars - former "loonie" )

I'll stick to fs2002. I use g2k, fssc, fsds2,EOD which allows me to modify,
as best I can, the scenery. fs2002 looks a lot better on my system than fs9 and
hopping from new sim to new sim never allows time to improve the current
scenery. And I'm not getting any younger...
I still use win98 because I have a special PC with an ISA slot. It's a P4 at
with 3.2G using a Radeon 9600. Since I don't know for sure whether sp would
handle an ISA slotted mother board I cringe to try. If I found out that sp does
handle ISA good, I would switch right away because sp can handle 2g of mem
while win98 is stuck at 500megs.

John

[jefflar]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

Hello you two!

Strange to see someone around hear from back then...

Have had FS9 for something like two years now, more or less. Runs it with
everything set to max. and it works perfectly for me. BUT - i have decided to
drop out of the race and will stick with this, as the graphics are great -
especially with some of the sceneries i've downloaded.

If it hadn't been for FS9 or any of the previous version's, i would most likely

have run Linux too - but i can't let go of this hobby.

I still have XP on my stationary PC and have no plans of changing - especially
after i got a laptop with Vista. Well - it works allright, with the most
default software. But i've installed some of my shareware stuff and it has some

problems. Choicemail opens up a box, which one has to close manually. Never
seen that on XP. (They mention it on their website, so it's not just me).
Wincommander, which i use instead of Explorer works, but no text on the icons.
What i feared seems to be true - lots of old software don't work (well at
least) on Vista. It's not a big issue on my laptop, but i won't have it on my
stationary (and main-) PC. That have to function!

Strange - btw - my laptop, with 1 GB of ram open's pretty fast. May the
configuration on this laptop you mention isn't the best?

Cheers

Lars - former "loonie" )

You will find Vista is short drivers for many printers USB devices etc. This

may be remedied when the patch (whoops "service pack")comes out. You could try
the providers to see if they have any updates.

Glad to hear your laptop goes with 1 Gig. It certainly doesn't with 512. How
does yours go with defragmenting the hard drive?

Vista has lots of little surprises. You know how XP wanted to know if you
wanted to send an error report after a crash? Vista does it without asking
you....a good little spy

Jeff

[jefflar]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

Hello you two!

Strange to see someone around hear from back then...

Have had FS9 for something like two years now, more or less. Runs it with
everything set to max. and it works perfectly for me. BUT - i have decided to
drop out of the race and will stick with this, as the graphics are great -
especially with some of the sceneries i've downloaded.

If it hadn't been for FS9 or any of the previous version's, i would most likely

have run Linux too - but i can't let go of this hobby.

I still have XP on my stationary PC and have no plans of changing - especially
after i got a laptop with Vista. Well - it works allright, with the most
default software. But i've installed some of my shareware stuff and it has some

problems. Choicemail opens up a box, which one has to close manually. Never
seen that on XP. (They mention it on their website, so it's not just me).
Wincommander, which i use instead of Explorer works, but no text on the icons.
What i feared seems to be true - lots of old software don't work (well at
least) on Vista. It's not a big issue on my laptop, but i won't have it on my
stationary (and main-) PC. That have to function!

Strange - btw - my laptop, with 1 GB of ram open's pretty fast. May the
configuration on this laptop you mention isn't the best?

Cheers

Lars - former "loonie" )

I'll stick to fs2002. I use g2k, fssc, fsds2,EOD which allows me to modify,
as best I can, the scenery. fs2002 looks a lot better on my system than fs9 and

hopping from new sim to new sim never allows time to improve the current
scenery. And I'm not getting any younger...
I still use win98 because I have a special PC with an ISA slot. It's a P4 at
with 3.2G using a Radeon 9600. Since I don't know for sure whether sp would
handle an ISA slotted mother board I cringe to try. If I found out that sp does

handle ISA good, I would switch right away because sp can handle 2g of mem
while win98 is stuck at 500megs.

John

Sounds too complicated for me. I was told none of the "new" hard drives could

run 98 and informed I should like XP or lump it. I still use 98SE on my
internet or "firewall" computer and sometimes run 2002 when I feel like
reinstalling after reformatting. Unfortunately it is only a 1.6 but it serves
the purpose.

I currently have an Athlon 3.8 dual core for "fun" but my graphics card is a
little short on memory for FSX. Next time maybe...

Happy flying
Jeff

[lkx]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

Hello you two!

Strange to see someone around hear from back then...

Have had FS9 for something like two years now, more or less. Runs it with
everything set to max. and it works perfectly for me. BUT - i have decided to
drop out of the race and will stick with this, as the graphics are great -
especially with some of the sceneries i've downloaded.

If it hadn't been for FS9 or any of the previous version's, i would most likely

have run Linux too - but i can't let go of this hobby.

I still have XP on my stationary PC and have no plans of changing - especially
after i got a laptop with Vista. Well - it works allright, with the most
default software. But i've installed some of my shareware stuff and it has some

problems. Choicemail opens up a box, which one has to close manually. Never
seen that on XP. (They mention it on their website, so it's not just me).
Wincommander, which i use instead of Explorer works, but no text on the icons.
What i feared seems to be true - lots of old software don't work (well at
least) on Vista. It's not a big issue on my laptop, but i won't have it on my
stationary (and main-) PC. That have to function!

Strange - btw - my laptop, with 1 GB of ram open's pretty fast. May the
configuration on this laptop you mention isn't the best?

Cheers

Lars - former "loonie" )

I'll stick to fs2002. I use g2k, fssc, fsds2,EOD which allows me to modify,
as best I can, the scenery. fs2002 looks a lot better on my system than fs9 and

hopping from new sim to new sim never allows time to improve the current
scenery. And I'm not getting any younger...
I still use win98 because I have a special PC with an ISA slot. It's a P4 at
with 3.2G using a Radeon 9600. Since I don't know for sure whether sp would
handle an ISA slotted mother board I cringe to try. If I found out that sp does

handle ISA good, I would switch right away because sp can handle 2g of mem
while win98 is stuck at 500megs.

John

I almost did not switch to COF, but when i did i said to myself that now i
would wait for a long time to renew the simulator. I've had it for more than 3
years now and there are still places i haven't visited. Whenever i have to buy
a new stationary computer (not something i plan), maybe.. and then it will not
necessarily be the newest i choose - but the one before.

But i won't use Win98 anymore, as MS don't support it anylonger - no more
security updates. XP is what i prefer, but my laptop came with Vista already
installed.

Lars

[lkx]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

Hello you two!

Strange to see someone around hear from back then...

Have had FS9 for something like two years now, more or less. Runs it with
everything set to max. and it works perfectly for me. BUT - i have decided to
drop out of the race and will stick with this, as the graphics are great -
especially with some of the sceneries i've downloaded.

If it hadn't been for FS9 or any of the previous version's, i would most likely

have run Linux too - but i can't let go of this hobby.

I still have XP on my stationary PC and have no plans of changing - especially
after i got a laptop with Vista. Well - it works allright, with the most
default software. But i've installed some of my shareware stuff and it has some

problems. Choicemail opens up a box, which one has to close manually. Never
seen that on XP. (They mention it on their website, so it's not just me).
Wincommander, which i use instead of Explorer works, but no text on the icons.
What i feared seems to be true - lots of old software don't work (well at
least) on Vista. It's not a big issue on my laptop, but i won't have it on my
stationary (and main-) PC. That have to function!

Strange - btw - my laptop, with 1 GB of ram open's pretty fast. May the
configuration on this laptop you mention isn't the best?

Cheers

Lars - former "loonie" )

You will find Vista is short drivers for many printers USB devices etc. This

may be remedied when the patch (whoops "service pack")comes out. You could try
the providers to see if they have any updates.

Glad to hear your laptop goes with 1 Gig. It certainly doesn't with 512. How
does yours go with defragmenting the hard drive?

Vista has lots of little surprises. You know how XP wanted to know if you
wanted to send an error report after a crash? Vista does it without asking
you....a good little spy

Jeff

Hello Jeff.

I actually had no plans of getting Vista, but the laptop had it already
installed. Usually - like you, i would wait for a servicepack to be released or
preferably two! But my stationary has XP and that i won't change. My simulator
has to work!!

I use Norton 360 as one legally can install it on up to 3 computers with only
one license. It has beside the anti-virus function and the firewall also the
defragmentation option and it seems to work as it's supposed to.

Didn't know that, Jeff - but i have heard people claiming this and that - even
that it was sending info to - was it FBI or CIA.. LOL ) But i saw
something yesterday when i wanted to format a DVD - something i thought was
left behind in the past: THE BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH!! It simply crashed and i
had to restart.

If it becomes to peculiar i might buy XP...

Cheers

Lars

[jefflar]

Some of you may be tempted in the future to move on to FSX.

Don't!!!!!!

The recent "patch" has improved frame rates to 24+ however....my PC now crashes

any time I turn on the Auto Pilot or GPS.

Proceed at your peril.....

I suggest you try your luck with FS9 instead. That has most bugs removed. (I
never thought I would recommend FS9 to anyone but there is no alternative)

Vista - Please note this runs like a pathetic dog unless you have a 3.0 chip
and a gig of ram at least.

Don't believe anyone who says 512mb will do.

Here's to Linux my next OS! And bye bye Bill....

Jeff

Hi Jeff - long time no speak. BTW, I use FS2002 still - runs real good, seldom
experience any crashes and it is user friendly when it comes to scenery
building. Just a thought.
BTW, I do have fs9 - a piece of crap, pure and simple. Thanks for new data on

fsx.
John
Hi John

Good to hear from you

I never had any trouble with 2002 either. I still use it on an old PC but it
does show its age with the original setup. I did say FS9 had "most" bugs
removed but you are correct that FS2002 is still a good alternative. Compared
with FSX however FS9 is heaven. Its nice to get over the airport boundary
without "crashing"!

A friend at work has just bought a dual core laptop with 1 gig of ram and
Vista. It still takes ages to load. Looks like I will have to revise those
figures.

Best Regards
Jeff

Hello you two!

Strange to see someone around hear from back then...

Have had FS9 for something like two years now, more or less. Runs it with
everything set to max. and it works perfectly for me. BUT - i have decided to
drop out of the race and will stick with this, as the graphics are great -
especially with some of the sceneries i've downloaded.

If it hadn't been for FS9 or any of the previous version's, i would most likely

have run Linux too - but i can't let go of this hobby.

I still have XP on my stationary PC and have no plans of changing - especially
after i got a laptop with Vista. Well - it works allright, with the most
default software. But i've installed some of my shareware stuff and it has some

problems. Choicemail opens up a box, which one has to close manually. Never
seen that on XP. (They mention it on their website, so it's not just me).
Wincommander, which i use instead of Explorer works, but no text on the icons.
What i feared seems to be true - lots of old software don't work (well at
least) on Vista. It's not a big issue on my laptop, but i won't have it on my
stationary (and main-) PC. That have to function!

Strange - btw - my laptop, with 1 GB of ram open's pretty fast. May the
configuration on this laptop you mention isn't the best?

Cheers

Lars - former "loonie" )

You will find Vista is short drivers for many printers USB devices etc. This

may be remedied when the patch (whoops "service pack")comes out. You could try
the providers to see if they have any updates.

Glad to hear your laptop goes with 1 Gig. It certainly doesn't with 512. How
does yours go with defragmenting the hard drive?

Vista has lots of little surprises. You know how XP wanted to know if you
wanted to send an error report after a crash? Vista does it without asking
you....a good little spy

Jeff

Hello Jeff.

I actually had no plans of getting Vista, but the laptop had it already
installed. Usually - like you, i would wait for a servicepack to be released or

preferably two! But my stationary has XP and that i won't change. My simulator
has to work!!

I use Norton 360 as one legally can install it on up to 3 computers with only
one license. It has beside the anti-virus function and the firewall also the
defragmentation option and it seems to work as it's supposed to.

Didn't know that, Jeff - but i have heard people claiming this and that - even
that it was sending info to - was it FBI or CIA.. LOL ) But i saw
something yesterday when i wanted to format a DVD - something i thought was
left behind in the past: THE BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH!! It simply crashed and i
had to restart.

If it becomes to peculiar i might buy XP...

Cheers

Lars

Actually it goes to Bill but after that who knows? My mate Osama certainly
doesn't trust M$oft! There is an option to switch off error reporting both in
XP and Vista but I don't bother since 98 SE is "spyfree" and that is all I use
on the internet.

Last blue screen was brief encounter with Windows ME a couple of years ago. I
bought an old used system with ME mainly for a 19" monitor but no similar
instances with XP after I upgraded (crossed fingers)

Jeff