Shaddy Baddah wrote: > >longer than MS does? It would make things easier if we > >dropped support for W2K hosts. > > > Surely not?!? I've heard of people being off hand about supporting > Win95/98 (and I would agree with that) et al..., but surely W2K support > should be sacrosanct ?!?
I would hope so, as I get the impression W2K is the last Windows version which can be run reliably in a VM, due to the "legitimacy" checking done by XP and later. :-) -- Jamie
