Jim Lawrence (AccessD)
accessd at shaw.ca
Thu Dec 2 10:13:23 CST 2004
Hi Andy: I have installed a XP Development Server version, in my office and found it dead-easy. I would recommend at least one GB of RAM as it is a little hungry and formatting the drive first (No updating). The server hardware on which the OS was installed is an eclectic mix and has had no issues, accepted a strange group of software...from Oracle, SQL 2000, Dreamweaver suite, Adobe suite, VB Studio and MS Office, internally runs a domain, IIS and termserver and still is running without hiccups (very stable). Either OS would be just fine but XP 2003 Server is newer and should theoretically have a longer supported life. My thoughts. HTH Jim -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Andy Lacey Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:44 AM To: Dba Subject: [AccessD] OT: Server versions (X-posted to dba-Tech) Posted this question on dba-Tech. If anyone here has any input I'd be grateful, but would be best if you could reply direct to me or to dba-Tech, so as not to annoy other Access-only members. ---------------------------------------- Dear all Your advice is sought. If a customer was thinking of upgrading from NT4 Server would the consensus of opinion be to go to W2003 Server or W2000 Server? I ask because he has a mix of W98 and W2K clients so is familiar with W2K and is therefore drawn to W2K Server (still just about available to buy). But it will no doubt have a shorter life than W2003 Server. So that is one point in W2003 Server's favour, but what are the other pros and cons? -- Andy Lacey http://www.minstersystems.co.uk ________________________________________________ Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2 -- _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com