>no, it's a universal os 904 cd. And, while I have X installed on one >drive without 9 drivers, I just put in a separate drive today and >formatted it with OS9 drivers. If you have it on another disk -- why not update that disk to 9.2.2 and copy the folder over to the OS X drive? (though, I guess if you need VPC you need to be able to boot in OS 9 and having OSX only drivers might put a damper on that). >Last time I tried this cd it didnt work, but maybe I had 922 >installed then.... I will try again, but I thought if it was >bootable, holding the c key would boot it no matter whats on the >drive.... > >I wouldnt even need os 9, if it werent for crappola virtual PC that >works in OS9 but not X (for my usb camera, anyway...) So, what's the problem? You have OS 9 and VPC on the 1.3 GB drive and boot that when you need VPC? If you need to run OS 9 as Classic do as I suggested above. <chuckle> The cost of VPC is greater than many good cameras now -- especially if it's such a bizarre camera that is Windoze only. I'd sell your VPC and your camera on eBay and use the cash to buy a camera that works with Mac natively. I've got a ($500 mind you so more than your VPC + camera) Canon A70 that I'm very happy with -- today I was even using it to shoot pictures from the ocular on a dissecting microscope just by putting the camera's lens up agains the ocular (and they're sharp pictures too). PS 3 megapixels cameras are *more* than good enough to replace 35 mm cameras!!! I've printed off a number of pictures (at Lens and Shutter in BC) and they look *better* than most pictures from a film camera (because I can shoot 10 or 20 shots in sequence and pick the best one... my camera can shoot 12 pictures in sequence (2.something pics/second) and if you let off the shutter button for even a second you can continue shooting another 12 pictures... it's a nice little camera & I can see why it's one of the most popular on the market... it gives excellent manual over-ride features (*everything* but manual focus (ISO 100-400, 15 sec - 1/2000th, 2.4-8.0 f-stop)... it's *sooo* small). Only on some types of pictures (with *sharp* horizontal lines can you even figure out it's from a digital print... you can see the lines if you look very, VERY closely). The bonus on the A70 -- it *never* runs out of juice. I have a 256 MB card in there and I've filled the card up twice on one battery charge (and the empty battery warning didn't come on)... of course, I was using Energizer 1850 :) (they're the top-rated rechargeables you can find in regular stores): <http://www.imaging-resource.com/ACCS/BATTS/BATTS.HTM> That said, I can tell that the optics aren't quite as good as true 35 mm lenses (e.g. the Fuji 3800) but for most purposes (i.e. people/memory pictures) they're more than good enough -- the fact that you can shoot 20 pictures for every one that you print more than makes up for the optics (you can get that *just* right picture this way... no blinking, frowning, unappealing faces, etc). PSS I don't think it's worth going low-end 4 MP... You may as well get yourself a 3 megapixel with good lenses (like the 3800) rather than a mediocre 4 megapixel with a less satisfactory lens. A good lens can make up the difference between megapixels quite easily!!! I have a strange feeling that 3-4 megapixel is about as good as it gets for the sub-35 mm lenses (unless you happen to get a *really* good lens). You can shove more megapixel CCDs behind these "cheap" lenses but you ain't gonna get clearer pictures b/c of the higher megapixels. Eric. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup _________________________________________________ For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on http://muglo.on.ca/pages/members.html#Joinmuglo Don't forget to periodically check our web site at: http://muglo.on.ca/