According to Bill Reburn: >If a valid attempt was made at doing this again today with say a modern >Intel chip, VPC would dry up and blow away (or at least linger for the >hangers-on like RamDoubler users). Yes, I agree. But the deal is VPC is only a 286 MX emulator, and as such, does quite well. Starting from a 'saved state' still involves booting VPC, loading the image into it, and watching the XP OS draw its startup screen. I mentioned the speed of it, not in terms of theoretical fairness, but to illustrate that in 'real world' working conditions [which for me seem to rule out saving one's setup, config, workflow in anything but a 'saved' state], the reality is my 'saved' images are, for all intents and purposes 'cold', in that they aren't using RAM or any CPU cycles, at all. I realize that a 'saved' state isn't technically a cold boot, but in the real world i haven't seen any logical reason to save, or quit, the VPC app in any other manner. Obviously my results would be far different if I had VPC as a Login item and booted the Mac, from a truly cold state. But that, too, would seem totally illogical...'fair' perhaps, but not what I would consider a practical, real-world test. One thing I love about 'our' platform is that booting from a 'cold' state is not a daily [or worse] requirement, so why should I tie one 'hand behind the back' of the Mac in order to give PCs a chance? I'm not interested in 'fairness' as much as getting the work done. I have a few big apps in Mac and Windows, and there's no doubt that my Mac can run them, or most of them, faster, so... I use the Mac versions. For me, VPC is a 'last resort' proposition. Back in the old days, although I had no need for it, I was always curious about the Orange boards, and what it would be like to run a PC inside a Mac. I wasn't intending to 'compare' the 7 year old tech with newer things, just mentioned it because the emulator, that VPC is, has come a long ways, that's all. ~flipper