Seriously, I want to know.\n\nI still use it on a Pentium II for the following reasons.\n\n1.) It does what I need it to do.\n2.) See reason #1.\n\nI generally use it to type college term papers. How sophisticated of a \ntyping program do I need? I have Microsoft Word 6.0, which has more \nfeatures than I will ever use.\n\nNetscape 4.07 loads pages very fast. It doesn't load all of the "cool," \nflashy content found on most of the web sites these days, but I can still \nlog into most sites without difficulty. Basically, sites are loaded as a \nlong page of text with some images here and there. Most of the unnecessary \nstuff simply isn't displayed. Since I am only concerned with the text for a \npage, I don't miss the lost PNG images that cannot be displayed on it. And \nI can get on high-speed Internet through the use of a network card so \nthere's no problems.\n\nI do have an XP system that I use for other work, such as using my digital \ncamera. But consider this: XP takes about 5 full minutes to load on a P4 \n3.00GHz, 1GB RAM. Windows 3.11 loads in the blink of an eye on a P2 400MHz, \n256MB RAM.\n\nSo I have tried Windows 95 and ME in the past. Every time I "upgraded," if \nyou want to call it that, I have needed to purchase newer computer parts. I \nshould think that a newer OS would employ more efficient code and thus run \neven faster but that is not the case. Instead, what I get is a system \ncrammed with even more "stuff" that I'll never use. XP uses an absurd 300MB \nof memory just sitting there as soon as I start up the computer. 3.11 uses \nabout 1MB.\n\nAnother thing I never liked about Windows 9x and above was the damn task bar \nand the cumbersome Start Menu system. I prefer the Program Manager \ninterface of 3.1. On my XP system I created folders with shortcuts in them \nlike the Program Manager ones. It is just easier than the stupid menus that \nalways have me clicking the wrong thing by mistake.\n\nTo me, a computer is more of an office thing. So naturally I was turned off \nby XP and how it looks all cutesy. Sure I can change the skin to make it \nlook like 9x, but then I still have that accursed "X" button in the upper \nleft corner, which I invariably hit by mistake. 3.1 was great in that there \nwas no X button, so if you wanted to close a Window you could either do \nFile -> Exit or double-click the [=] box in the upper-left corner, far away \nfrom the min/max buttons.\n\nWin 3.1 looked nicer, too. The arrows had a definitive shape with both head \nand tail. The new arrows are just a boring triangle. Not to mention the \nwhole 3.1 interface was simpler and crisper. The 9x 3-D look, or the XP \ncutesy look most be really taxing on the memory... and for what?\n\nFind something that works, and stick with it!