I don't get it. "Upgrading" the Windows OS inevitably means downgrading the speed and stability. I'm part of the local IEEE's Project Phoenix group, and we have an old laptop with only 256 MB of RAM and a 500 MHz processor. This laptop originally had Windows 98, which was upgraded to 2000 and then to XP. I'm sure the laptop was fast with Windows 98, but it was slow with XP on it. In my opinion, putting XP in a computer from the Windows 98 era was as dumb as moving a small 4-cylinder engine from a Honda Civic to a Lincoln Town Car. Just as that small engine would be overtaxed and the Lincoln would be as slow as molassas, that laptop was overtaxed, and Windows XP was as slow as molassas. I don't think Windows really gets better with each version. Windows 98 didn't seem that much better than Windows 95. Windows XP doesn't seem that much better than Windows 98. I have never used Vista or Windows 7. I do know that Vista is MUCH heavier than XP and 7 is comparable to Vista. Thus, in my opinion, "upgrading" a Windows OS on a computer is just as idiotic as installing a 4-cylinder engine in a Lincoln Town Car. At least everyone recognizes the idiocy of the latter feat, which I doubt has ever been done. I've since made the REAL upgrade to the old laptop. I installed antiX Linux, which I consider to be the gold standard for distros. antiX Linux is lightweight enough for computers from the Windows 98 era, yet is user-friendly and is compatible with the superior Debian software respository (which you need for engineering). antiX Linux version M8.2 also works with our WPC54GS v1.1 wireless card. -- Jason Hsu http://www.jasonhsu.com/ee.html http://www.jasonhsu.com/swrwatt.html http://embeddedengineer.wordpress.com/ http://www.jasonhsu.com/linux.html