I will second X-Win 32 - IIRC, it was inexpensive, was very reliable,  and had a small footprint. 

> I have tried both Exceed and X-Win 32 and they both worked fine
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netbsd-users-owner@netbsd.org
> [mailto:netbsd-users-owner@netbsd.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Yerkes
> Sent: 18 January 2003 00:32
> To: netbsd-users@netbsd.org
> Subject: Re: windows X server?
> 
> Quoting Steve Bellovin (smb@research.att.com):
> > This is slightly off-topic, but related...  My daughter wants to use 
> > various X applications on a NetBSD box.  Her machine is running Win98.
> 
> > What are some choices for an X server?  Cygwin, the obvious answer,
> has 
> > proved unstable.)
> > 
> > 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
> > 		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls"
> book)
> 
> Of all the people at all the companies from whom I might expect
> children running Unix...
> 
> VNC jumps to mind.  I sort of miss when Windows had
> no TCP and you had to buy (far better) TCP programs
> that came with good tools.
> 
> Hummingbird makes a fine X Server for Windows, I'm told.
> Not cheap, but that's the penalty for using Windows.
> 
> Otoh, you could upgrade her machine to a Unix and keep
> some box to run Windows and VNC the desktop Unix to
> get Windows apps when you absolutely need them.
> 
> Quake over VNC sucks, but it's adequate to sit in whatever
> program you occasionally need but can't get on Unix.

-- 
Some people should just not have root.