Windows 2000 was always designed as a business rather than gaming OS.

Having said that, I know that people do run FS2002 succesfully on it. I suspect the problem lies elsewhere than with the OS itself.

Have you obtained Windows 2000 specific drivers for all your hardware? It will need different ones to those used in ME.

Yeah Tipster's right, but although I run XP Pro now I had FS2002 pro running great for quite a while on Win2K Pro. Much better than ME which frankly was appalling in comparison. ME took twice as long to load and was far less stable for me.

Most of these things are all in the setup. If your Win2K Pro setup is right in the first place it'll run FS2002 fine - but you must have all the right graphics and sound drivers for your PC.

So look at the basics first - get the OS running right and FS2002 will be fine. Having said that, if the system is stable (and fast compared to ME) with other progs, then it's time to think about your FS2002 setup - even possibly a reinstall using the patent Rollerball method - rename your FS2002 folder to something like FS2002_old (so setup can't see it - otherwise you can't install again), reinstall to the same path as you did originally and see how the completely clean prog runs.

If it does, then you can copy stuff over from the original folder a bit at a time checking each time that everything starts and runs fine (I'm thinking about scenery and d'loaded aircraft). Careful just copying over gauges - they are a MAJOR cause in my experience for prog instability. There are aircraft/panels being offered even now with gauges that crash or otherwise mutilate your system so to start with only copy over stuff you know is OK and always take a copy of your 'working' folder before you add anyhting else to it so if things do go pear shaped and you can't see why you can immediately go back a step.

Guarantee that if you do all that - and we've all had to at some time - you'll have the system flying (pun - sorry) on Win2K Pro.

BTW

It's generally reckoned in the 'trade' that ME was the worst Windows M$ produced after the original Win95 - and at least that had an excuse to be flakey

I have to say that whilst ME had a shocking reputation, I didn't have many problems with it.

Again, it's down to the setup. Microsoft's default settings with ME were little short of appalling.  Once "fixed" it ran ok but none of the Win95/98 OS's carry the stability of XP.

Thanks for the help.

I will try all the info for fixing the situation.

Austin