Week of 5/24/99
Sunday, May 30, 1999 09:08
A (mostly) daily
journal of the trials, tribulations, and random observations of Robert
Bruce Thompson, a writer of computer books.
May 24, 1999
Today the Current Topics page debuts. The Current Topics home page will
link to pages on various subjects. I'll put those pages up and add
material to them as it arrives. I may write an intro for a given page and
then throw it open for contributions by readers. The pages will remain as
resources organized by topic for convenient reference. I'll date each
entry on the Current Topics home page, so you'll be able to tell which
ones have been updated recently. If a topic grows too large, I'll break it
out into separate sub-topic pages.
I'll use these pages, among other things, to learn more about things
I'm writing about. For example, back in January, we had a great on-going
discussion about CD-R and CD-RW drives, IDE versus SCSI interfaces,
incompatibility of various media types, etc.. That material would be more
accessible if I organized it in one place. For now at least, I plan to
restrict these pages to discussion of computer-oriented topics rather than
politics and so on. I hope all of you will choose to participate both by
reading and by contributing to the pages on topics you know something
about. I'll maintain a permanent name for each page, so they will be
All this means that this page will not be as long as it was previously,
because much of the technical discussion will be organized on the topic
pages. I'll still update this page daily, and it will serve as a
collection bin for the stuff that doesn't belong on the topic pages. So
please jump in. Send me mail about the topics I've posted. Thanks.
* * * * *
Hmm. I can see how accidents happen. While I was setting up the new
Current Topics page and a sub-page for it, I noticed that the background
color was set to FFFFFF rather than FFFFCC. Also, the "brown"
text was set to 804040, rather than 993300. So I went in to fix them. I'd
copied the Current Topics page from my Daynotes home page, and the
superfloppies subpage from the new Current Topics page. I was surprised to
find that the content for the Keywords meta-tag was set to Pournelle's
tags. Apparently, some time in the dim past, I'd created a page for
Pournelle and then used that page as a template for one of my own pages,
forgetting to change the tags.
May 25, 1999
Quite a few interesting and useful responses to my query about Super
Floppy drives. See Current Topics. If you have something to say about the
subject, please send me your remarks.
* * * * *
Interesting article in the paper. It listed the top ten
"wired" countries in the world. As expected, the U.S. came in
far and away first. What really surprised me was positions two through
ten. Sweden was second. The rest of Scandanavia also did well, with
Norway, Finland, and Denmark all in the top six. Canada, which I would
have guessed to be second, came in tenth. The UK did not appear on the
list. Although the criteria used for the ranking were not explicit, it
appears that it is a consolidated figure arrived at by considering the
percentage of the population with Internet access; the number of hosts
that reside in each country; the ubiquity and speed of the network
Pareto's Principle (the old 80/20 Rule) applies here in spades. The top
five or ten percent of the countries (in population and number) have about
99% of the Internet infrastructure and about 99% of the IT spending.
Outside of South Africa, for example, there are only a few thousand people
with Internet access on the entire African continent. It appears that a
lot of second-world countries are rapidly devolving into third-world
countries, and many third-world countries are dropping off the map
altogether. I don't think of the Internet as the be-all and end-all that
some people seem to think it is, but there's little doubt that a strong
Internet infrastructure is important to busines and will become more so.
May 26, 1999
Lots of new stuff up over in Current Topics.
I added a section on CD-R and CD-R/W drives, with material abstracted from
the discussion posted here in January. Please feel free to add to that
discussion as well.
* * * * *
No Internet connectivity this morning. I've dialed in repeatedly. Each
time, DUN Monitor shows I'm getting 148 bytes in 9 frames and then
nothing. I just called BellSouth.net tech support. The automated problem
reporting system said there was nothing wrong in Winston-Salem, so I
punched the option to speak to a live person. She said they had been aware
of the problem for about half an hour, had not yet gotten it up on the
automated reporting system, and were working on it.
It's surprising to me just how dependent I've become on ready access to
the Internet. When something like this happens, I can't receive or send
email. I can't visit the web pages that I visit each day, read the news,
or research things I'm working on. While Barbara still worked at the
library, we had her county-provided dialup account as a backup. With that
gone and BellSouth down, we're both dead in the water. I seriously
considered signing up for a second account for backup, but it doesn't seem
worth $20/month for something that will go unused for months on end. If
AT&T WorldNet still has the five free hours per month deal, I'd
consider signing up for that, except their nearest POP is a long-distance
call. Not that I'd mind paying long-distance charges when BellSouth is
down, but AT&T WorldNet has a minimum monthly usage requirement for
the free account that would cost me nearly as much as a regular second
account. I think I'll just hold out until cable modems and/or ADSL make it
* * * * *
The Costa Rican woman who ran down the little boy at the school bus
stop last week has been charged with Misdemeanor Death by Vehicle. The
District Attorney has announced that, if convicted, she will be sentenced
to between 1 and 45 days of community service, sentence suspended. That
seems to me to be equitable. She did break the law, but she had no intent
to harm anyone and did not recklessly disregard anyone's safety.
* * * * *
I've gotten several messages that refer me to the Click
of Death page on the Gibson Research site, including one last night
from Jim Griebel. When I received that message, I had nothing running
except Outlook. I read the message in the preview pane, and clicked on the
live link. Talk about the Click of Death! I expected IE5 to come up as
usual and display the page. Instead, my cursor went to an hourglass and
nothing happened. After 15 seconds or so, I decided things were locked. I
fired up Task Manager. The Applications tab showed only Outlook, and
displayed its status as Running, even though it appeared to be locked. The
Processes tab looked normal except for nine incidences of Rundll32.
Although IE5 wasn't showing up in the Applications tab, IEXPLORE.EXE was
displayed in Processes. I finally highlighted IEXPLORE.EXE and killed the
process. Things came back to life instantly. What was really strange was
that I ended up with nine IE windows scattered all over my screen,
displaying various web sites that I had visited in the past. No rhyme or
reason as to which. Several were sites from my Frequent folder of URLs
that I visit daily, but others were sites that I hadn't visited for
several days and that were not bookmarked anywhere within IE.
* * * * *
Okay, it's 10:15 a.m. and my Internet connection works again.
Withdrawal symptoms are gradually dissipating as I get my daily fix of web
updates and mail. Tiime to publish this...
May 27, 1999
Quite a bit of new stuff over in Current
Topics. I must say that I'm getting an education from my readers...
Meanwhile, some interesting general mail.
* * * * *
This from Dave Farquhar [email@example.com]:
I've seen this problem crop up a couple of
times and I'm wondering if you've ever seen it. It would appear that on
rare occasions when NT is shut down improperly, all data on the bootable
partition, with the exception of things like MS Find Fast indices, is
lost. CHKDSK and Norton Disk Doctor for NT report no problems--they see
20KB of good data, so as far as they're concerned, there's nothing
I suspect when this happens, the data's just
gone and there's nothing you can do about it. Does it sound that way to
I've devised a couple of workarounds to the
problem, like storing important data on the second partition, or
formatting the boot drive FAT (you can always recover something off a
FAT drive with Norton Disk Editor running under DOS.) Of course, those
don't always fly when users save data anywhere they want, and when FAT
has a stigma of undesirability.
I thought I'd see what your thoughts, if
No, that's never happened to me, nor have I ever heard of
it happening. I've shutdown NT improperly scores of times over the years
on various machines, either from necessity or a power failure, and I've
never seen it lose data like that. As far as filesystems, I generally use
NTFS exclusively on my own machines. If I were building a production
server, I'd create a small (~10 to 50 MB) FAT partition as the System
Partition (the one that contains Ntdetect.com, Boot.ini, etc.). That way,
I can use Norton or a similar DOS-based utility to fix problems on that
partition. I'd put the Boot Partition (the one that contains \WINNT) on an
NTFS volume, though. FAT partitions support only share-level permissions,
and that's not good enough to protect the system files.
The real problem with recovering data from an NTFS
partition is that utilities to do so require that the volume in question
be locked for exclusive use. That can't be done on the partition where NT
resides, so it's difficult to perform any salvage activities. I always
suggest that people install NT twice on any important system. Install the
real copy as usual, but install a second bare-bones copy of NT on another
partition (and ideally on another physical drive). That way, if you have
problems with the working copy, you can always boot into the emergency
copy and use repair utilities to access the NTFS volume that the working
copy resides on.
* * * * *
This from Edmund Hack [firstname.lastname@example.org]:
I enjoy your site and it is inspiring me to
start planning on building a new system from piece parts. I'm looking at
Intel, Epox and Asus motherboards and a PIII/450 to start. A co-worker
just replaced a system motherboard with an Asus board with onboard SCSI
and it ran like a champ, recognizing his SCSI hard drives, scanner,
CD-ROM drive and CD-RW drive at first bootup. You might look at them if
you make the jump to SCSI.
Thanks for the kind words. I'd say you've picked three very
good motherboard vendors to look at. Intel is rock-solid, has a superb web
site, and makes some very nice integrated boards. As you might expect,
they're not the best choice if you're interesting in overclocking. EPoX
makes first-rate boards with exceptional stability, supports them well
both on their web site and via email, and does provide overclocking
options. Although I've never built a system around an ASUS board, they're
very well thought of by many, and I have many readers who use them. I
could probably send them email and get some eval boards, but I'm pretty
satisfied with Intel and EPoX.
As far as SCSI, I hope to be getting some Adaptec SCSI
adapters in the not too distant future. It's not that I don't have any
experience with SCSI. I have a lot, probably too much. But that experience
dates back years to when I worked often with various servers. I concluded
back then that SCSI was fine for servers, but simply too complex for
standard PCs. Having once made that decision, I've been too ready to stick
with it. I know that SCSI has changed a lot with the passing of the years,
and it's past time that I jumped back into it.
My main objection to SCSI at this point is cost. There's
nothing inherently expensive about building a SCSI device. I just checked
prices on Zip Drives, for example, and found that the SCSI version was
only a few dollars more than the IDE version. Granted, that is a low
performance SCSI interface, but even so it makes the price differential
between otherwise identical hard drives with IDE and SCSI interfaces all
the more glaring.
* * * * *
This from Chuck Underhill [email@example.com]:
I found your page thru using Webferret to
search for in on the Honeywell Pentex I have. I too found mine sitting
in the back of my closet... two of them to be exact. They both seem to
work.. sometimes. Having the worst time getting either to cock properly.
I love these camera, and I remember my Father bringing one home when I
was in High School... he was very proud of it.. and still uses it all
Anyways, I am learning photography and I am
a complete novice. I own a Olympus OM-77af, an Olympus XA2 with A11
flash, and a
Minolta X-700 with 49 mm and 28-105 (i think) len. Here is what I would
like to ask you... I am planning on really learning to take pictures...
and i thought by learning on a full manual camera I would have a better
shot at learning how to do photos correctly. Does this make any sense?
The Honeywells are the closest thing I have to a K-1000 which it seems
like every photography teacher in the world loves...
Thanks for taking a few minutes to read this babble... and I hope to
hear from you.
Well, there are really at least two separate aspects of
learning photography. The first is learning how to see, which is not as
trivial as it sounds. What appears on the focusing screen and subsequently
on film is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional
reality. Learning that transition takes most people a lot of work. Many
never learn. I think there is no simple way to do it. One simply must
spend a lot of time looking through a camera lens. For that, a manual or
an automatic camera serves equally well. The second aspect is learning to
use the peculiarities of the photographic process. Aperture controls depth
of field and shutter speed controls the extent to which motion is frozen.
For such things, a manual camera is necessary.
I think the first point is key. Many wonderful photographs
have been taken with automatic cameras. Years ago, photography magazines
invariably noted the aperture and shutter speed in the caption for each
photograph they published. Nowadays, it usually says "exposure not
recorded." My advice to you at this point would be to not be too
concerned with your equipment. Look at lots of photographs by great
photographers. Choose a photographer whose work you particularly admire,
and then try to imitate him. Eventually, you'll succeed, and that will
serve as a departure point for you to develop your own style.
I also wouldn't worry too much about classes and so on.
Photography can't be taught, other than in a simple technical sense. It
must be learned. The secret is to take a lot of photographs and to be
ruthless about discarding those that don't meet your standards. In the
beginning, that will probably be most or all of those you take.
May 28, 1999
There's some new stuff over in Current Topics.
* * * * *
Here's an interesting item I picked up from a press release someone
sent me: Drive
Service Company released a list of the ten best and worst disk drives,
based on the ones that they see most and least often. The best three are
IBM, Fujitsu, and Seagate since 1998. The worst three are the Western
Digital AC2XXX and AC3XXX series (except the 31000); any model of the
Quantum Bigfoot series; and the Conner CFS850A and CFS1275A. I have no
idea how (or if) these data were normalized, or whether the results are
statistically valid, but it's an interesting data point nonetheless.
* * * * *
A German copy of Windows NT TCP/IP Network Administration
showed up in yesterday's mail. What surprised me was that I was actually
able to follow the text pretty well, although college German was more than
20 years ago. No doubt I was aided by knowing what I'd written originally.
Everything somehow seems more authoritative in German than in English.
* * * * *
This from Paul Robichaux [firstname.lastname@example.org],
a man of few words, referring to an article in Salon about television
advertising and demographics:
Yep. I don't worry much about television commercials any
more. I don't see many. The only show I watch every week is Buffy the
Vampire Slayer, and we have a commercial-zapping VCR. Barbara watches
Winston Cup racing, golf, the Weather Channel, and a handful of network
shows. We sometimes watch a movie on AMC or something on PBS. Other than
that, the TV is usually off. Even when it's on, I'm usually reading.
* * * * *
This from Chuck Waggoner [email@example.com]:
Problems with Win98 on my 1994 Gateway P90
are driving me crazy enough that I'm ready to throw in the towel on
Win9x and this machine. I know I can MAKE it work by not opening very
many windows at once (although I think the constant opening and closing
causes problems, too), but that's not the most efficient way for me to
After some correspondence with Tom Syroid
who loves his new machine, I'd like to attempt a dual like his.
Knowing that you, Pournelle, and Tom all use
NT Server, my question is: for somebody that can't see a need for
serving in the foreseeable future, is Workstation an okay way to go? or
will anything useful be missing in that configuration?
--Chuck Waggoner [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Actually, I think Tom and Jerry run Windows NT Workstation
on their main machines, although Pournelle has an NT Server box or two in
the back closet. I run both Server and Workstation, but the reason has
more to do with staying legal than anything. Microsoft has at various
times sent me half a dozen different copies of Windows NT Server 4.0, but
only two or three copies of Windows NT Workstation 4.0. Accordingly, I
load Server on machines that I might otherwise use Workstation on.
Actually, these are all NFR eval copies, so Microsoft probably doesn't
care (or even expects) that they'll be run on more than one computer. But
I still like to stay legal.
As far as functionality, I think you'll find little
difference between NTS and NTW for your purposes. The main differences are
that NTS has various "servers" (e.g. DCHP Server, WINS Server,
etc.) that NTW does not, and that NTS is required for a domain controller.
For your purposes, a workgroup is as good as a domain, so you don't really
need a domain controller. I'd go with the Workstation version in your
May 29, 1999
Some interesting new stuff over in Current
Topics. Apparently, the wobbly CD problem is not as rare as I'd
* * * * *
Sign up for cable modem service. Go to jail. Or at least that's what
almost happened to one woman. Read all about her travails here.
Maybe I will wait for ADSL after all. It certainly seems safer...
* * * * *
Okay, here's another bizarre one. Why do these things only happen to
me? I downloaded the IE5 supplementary tools from the Microsoft web site.
One of them is Toggle Images.exe, a utility that you can install
on your links bar. Clicking it turns images on or off. It accomplishes the
same thing as going into Internet Options and marking or clearing the
check box, but it's a lot more convenient.
I installed this a couple of weeks ago, and something weird has been
happening. When I click Toggle Images.exe, every once in a while
the Outlook mail-check dialog pops up in the middle of the web page. I run
my mail through the WinGate proxy server, so everything is in the
background. When I send a message, it spools out to disk very quickly and
then gets sent in the background. I have Outlook configured to POP new
mail every five or ten minutes, which it also does in the background.
The first time this happened, I assumed that there was some weird
interaction going on. Perhaps running Toggle Images.exe while
Outlook was actually POPping mail caused the dialog to display, or
whatever. But now it's started happening much more frequently. Just now, I
toggled images, and the Outlook dialog popped up. I toggled again, and it
popped up again. I did that four or five times, and the dialog popped up
every time. I kept an eye on GateKeeper (the WinGate monitor utility), and
there was nothing going on immediately before I toggled the images each
So, I've found a new use for Toggle Images.exe. In addition to
turning images on or off, you can also use it to force a mail check. Geez.
* * * * *
As a part of researching removable storage, I stumbled across the Castlewood
ORB drive. I remember vaguely reading about it around the end of 1997 when
they first announced the drive, and then again around the end of last year
when they finally started to ship some units. This drive looks like a
winner. It costs like a Zip drive--an internal IDE with one cartridge
included retails for $200--and has features that compare to the Jazz
drive--2.16 GB capacity, and hard drive speed. The best part is that 2.2
GB cartridges sell for only $30 each.
The guy who founded Castlewood is the same one who founded SyQuest and
then left SyQuest in 1996. He has some heavy hitters behind him, including
Sanyo, Daewoo, and Aiwa. Apparently, this drive will be provided not only
in a form suitable for computers, but also in consumer electronics gear
designed to store MP3 files, movies, etc. One manufacturer is bringing out
a VCR that stores more than two hours of satellite-quality video on a
I'm going to keep my eye on this one.
* * * * *
Tom Syroid Tom Syroid [email@example.com]
CC'd me on this message he sent to Chuck Waggoner regarding my my response
After reading your dialog with Bob regarding
NT, I'd further offer the following to think about...
Be aware (I was not and Bob corrected me) that if you plan to upgrade to
NT5 (and so far, I consider this to be a worthy upgrade), you'll need to
run NT5 Server to support dual processors. I believe I posted this info
on my pages a few days back after hearing it from Bob...
You can certainly install NT4WS (my recommendation) and migrate this to
NT5 Server down the road, but NT5S is going to cost. More than
Workstation. How much more I do not know yet.
I think you'll be delighted with the performance benefits of NT4WS. I
found it faster than Win9X even on Donovan (P-100, 64MB of RAM). And now
on Janus, it is the ONLY OS to match the hardware I run, given -- of
course -- that I need to work in Office for my daily productivity.
I'll be installing NT5 Server on Janus later today, so I'll keep you
Interesting point, and one that not enough people are aware
of. NT4 is indeed faster than Win9X if you have some minimum level of
memory. Most people find that NT4 and Win9X are about even at 32 MB, and
NT4 pulls well ahead at 64 MB or more. I dual-boot a couple of system
between WinNT and Win9X, and I find the difference noticeable.
May 30, 1999
About three years ago we had our driveway repaved. We checked into both
concrete and asphalt pricing, and found that concrete would be more than
twice as costly. My first inclination was, as always, to pay more for the
better solution. However, in talking to various people we learned that
concrete is not really likely to last all that much longer than asphalt,
assuming that both are properly maintained. My next thought was that
concrete would require much less frequent routine maintenance than
asphalt. Wrong again, according to the people who know. Either one
requires routine sealing every couple or three years. So we went ahead and
got the driveway blacktopped. They told us at the time that we should seal
it after three years, and then every two years thereafter.
Yesterday we decided it was about time we sealed the driveway. Barbara
had picked up a couple of buckets of asphalt sealant at Lowes, along with
a disposable roller. We worked from about 9:00 until about noon, and that
counts a break while she went back to Lowes to get another bucket of
sealant.. Not bad. About three hours work and maybe $50 in materials and
it should be good for another couple of years. And that with the
water-soluble stuff that was $16 per bucket rather than the ordinary $8
per bucket tar. Actually, we may put down a second coat this fall just to
be sure. We'll probably use the cheaper sealant for that job. I tend to
mistrust water-based products versus oil-based ones.
I have to admit that it wasn't all that bad. I hate manual labor. I
hate being outside. I hate sun. I hate getting dirty. But it wasn't all
that bad. Of course, this morning I'm so stiff I can barely move...
* * * * *
Tom Syroid reports
that, contrary to what I'd said earlier, Windows 2000 Professional (NT5
Workstation) does in fact support two CPUs. He installed W2KP on his new
dual-CPU workstation, and both were recognized. So, either my informant at
Microsoft was mistaken when he told me that W2KP will support only one CPU
and W2KS only two CPUs, or Microsoft has changed their minds since then,
or Microsoft just hasn't gotten around to cutting multiple CPU support in
* * * * *
Speaking of Tom Syroid, he sent me this URL
about the release of the Open eBook Authoring Group's draft standard for
electronic books, called The Open eBook 1.0 specification.
* * * * *
This from Shawn Wallbridge [firstname.lastname@example.org]:
Hello, I don't know if you remember me, but
we 'chatted' a while ago. I have a little problem that I was wondering
if you had any ideas.
I have a cable modem through Shaw@Home. I
also am in the process of setting up a test network that resembles my
network at work. I had planned to use proxy server to connect to the
@Home network. I have two NIC's in my server and I was about to set it
all up when I found my problem.
- I have DHCP running on my Server.
- I need to have my NIC that is connected
to my cable modem run DHCP.
- NT Server will not allow any NIC's to use
the DHCP client on a DHCP server.
I see two solutions.
- Don't use DHCP on the server. Which is
fine I really don't need it, but I wanted to keep this as close to
the setup at work as possible.
- Move the cable modem to another machine
and use WinGate or equivalent. Unfortunately this will not allow me
to have my Server act as the Web Server. Which is pretty important,
because I want to play around with IIS and Active Server Pages.
When I talked to the Tech at Shaw he told me
a couple things.....
They check to see if any machines "have
a WinGate port open" now I would think that WinGate would have a
way of preventing them from being able to tell, but I am not sure.
I am also concerned about them pinging my
server and finding out that I am running NT Server. I read their
'Acceptable Use' policy and they specifically say you are not allowed to
use a server. Now I could probably talk my way around it (esp. if NT5W
will not support SMP). But I don't want any hassles.
Do you have any suggestions as to what would
be my best route.
Obviously, Shaw's concern is that people might use their
cable modem service to run a full-time server, so I would guess that their
restrictions are aimed purely at that issue. A lot of people don't realize
how small a pipe many cable modem providers have to the Internet backbone.
It's pretty common for a major cable system to have only one or a few T1
(1.544 Mbps) connections to the backbone. Having so much as a T3 (45 Mbps)
is extraordinary. Just one or a few cable modem users can easily saturate
a pipe that size. So cable modem providers can't afford to have one or a
few users running what amounts to commercial web sites on their relatively
Given the situation as you describe it, it seems to me that
your solution number one best fits your requirements. You won't have a
DHCP Server running on your local network, but that seems a minor
difference. One possibility would be to contact Shaw and request that you
be assigned a static IP address. Many cable companies that routinely
provide dynamic IP addresses will assign a static IP address upon request,
either at no charge or for a few bucks a month additional.
As far as WinGate, I don't know the answer to your
question, so I forwarded your message to my contact at WinGate and asked
him to comment. As far as Shaw finding out that you're running Windows NT
Server, I don't think you have much to worry about. Even if they somehow
find out that you have an NTS box connected to their cable modem, so what?
It's none of their business which client OS you choose to run. They can't
prove that it's a "server", whatever that means. The word
"server" as they're using it is so ambiguous as to be
meaningless. If you were instead using a Windows 9x box with file and
print sharing enabled, is that a "server"? It is by any common
definition. What about NT Workstation? For all intents and purposes,
that's equivalent to NT Server for a small network. Many people build
small networks around NTWS as a "server." For that matter, what
As far as SMP support in Windows 2000 Professional, Tom
Syroid found by accident that W2KP does in fact support two processors. I
don't know if Microsoft changed their minds, or if SMP support will
disappear with the shipping version.
* * * * *
This from Bo Leuf [email@example.com]:
W2kServer reliability, and fewer reboots
required... MS gives their own view
Essentially, it seems that MS had managed to
incorporate a number of the things Linux users take for granted in terms
of reconfiguring and adding modules while still running. Excellent. The
mountain comes to the molehill. It is a significant advance that MS
admits, albeit indirectly, that rebooting is inefficient: "...
Common system management tasks such as configuring a Plug-and-Play
device, increasing the size of the page file, adding a new page file,
increasing the size of an NTFS partition, adding or removing network
protocols, installing SQL Server 7.0, or changing the mouse no longer
require a system reboot. Preliminary studies in Microsoft's Data Center
show that these improvements can reduce downtime by more than 20
"Bo Leuf" firstname.lastname@example.org
Leuf fc3 Consultancy
I don't think there's much question that W2KS will be
superior to NTS4 in many respects, nor that Microsoft perceives Linux as a
serious threat in server space. Now, if they can only get the product out
the door. As far as I know, Microsoft still says that W2K will ship
sometime this fall. I don't believe it, though. I think sometime in late
Q1/2000 to late Q2/2000 is more realistic. Unless, of course, they decide
to ship something they call W2K with key core functionality missing. What
we may see this fall is a preview release with a lot of stuff still not
implemented. I think that'd be a dumb move, but who knows?