Julian Bradley wrote:
> Anyone views on whether this is a sensible upgrade path at the
> present time?
>
> We have some program incompatibility issues and this has been
> suggested, though, as ever, money is involved.
>
> TIA for any thoughts.
>
> Julian
Windows 2000 has a larger footprint than NT4 (ie needs more disc space),
and makes greater demands for memory and processor time. I reverted to
NT 4 Workstation on one of our rather elderly PCs after having upgraded
to W2K. There are a number of odd issues surrounding permissions which
have to be worked through.
I'd say that W2K won't run any faster and that it'll take up more
resources - if NT4 is doing what you want, why upgrade?
Re-reading your question, I realise that your program incompatibility
issues are with NT4 - revised answer: if your workstation is up to it,
upgrade, but remember that there may be compatibility issues in the
other direction. For example, we found that TAS Books didn't like
running under W2K having worked perfectly under W95 and NT.
--
Michael
|