When does 2195 not equal 2195? Why, when it refers to the build number of Windows 2000, of course. Attempting to discover why a system that ran happily under the gold code version of Win2K refused to have anything to do with AGP graphics when upgraded to the full retail version of the OS, we discovered that there are two sorts of 2195. So two versions of a Microsoft product can have the same build number, but that doesn't mean they're the same. MS technical support confirmed today that after the gold code of Win2K was released to manufacture some "licensing issues" came to light which meant some aspects of video support had to be pulled from the retail build. As a result, Win2K's rudimentary video support is worse in the retail version than it was in the final beta, although the two products are supposedly identical. Call us old fashioned, but shouldn't a different version of Win2K carry a different build number? Any users still running the gold version of build 2195 would be well advised to put off upgrading to the retail build 2195 until it reaches its next build, probably also called 2195. In the meantime, the (very helpful) MS support guy suggested a workaround: "Reinstall everything from scratch and it should be OK." Although this seems a somewhat drastic means of getting the thing to work properly, we're willing to give it a try. Watch this space and we'll let you know what happens. ®