We are running a database that one user modifies, then about 10 other users use the modified files to do their work (these users never modify the files themselves, only the master file is ever modified). The "modifying" user running OS9 puts the database files into a location on her computer which is a share. The other users (OS X and OS9) grab these files and replace the old database files on their systems so they can use the updated information. The OS9 users have no problem. SOME of the OS X users have problems. When they copy the files from the OS9 shared folder, the files come over as read-only. The Database wants to be able to write to these files, so it craps out and dies. But on two OS X users computers, this does not happen, the files are read and write enabled once copied. Only the other 8 have problems. An interesting twist is that if the person who modifies the database physically pushes the files to these 8 users, the files come over as read-write enabled. The problem is that the 10 users are not always on the network, so attempts to push the files will fail more often than not. Also, the "modifying" user is a whiner. Yes, the 8 users can modify the files to make them read-only themselves, but they are whining about this. Any ideas why 2 users get the files from the OS9 share as read-write but the rest only get them as read only? I could be a hero to these users (and to the recipients of the aforementioned whining). Oh, and yes, even though the 10 don't modify the files themselves, the stupid database running in Classic wants to be able to write to them. It's a FoxBase database from 1989. Please stop laughing. Thanks, Peter A little computer haiku: I can't remember the last time I restarted I love OS X This message sent with Mail.app 1.3 on Mac OS X 10.3.7