Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: How a Windows Developer Thinks...

Author:Luke Tymowski
Posted:9/8/1999; 10:03:01 AM
Topic:Today's scriptingNews Outline
Msg #:10756 (In response to 10747)
Prev/Next:10755 / 10757

BTW, lots of people say Windows 2000 is better than NT4 at setup.

Yes it is. I just set up two brand-new Dell 2300 servers with NT4. It took juju to get NT to recognise the SCSI card. It took work to get it to recognise the NIC. It took SP4 before I could configure the video card. On the second server, identical hardware to the first server, NT would see only 1 GB of the 18 GB hdd. (I had to use Partition Magic and SP4 to make the rest of the hdd useable.)

Now with W2K Server, it had no trouble recognising any of the hardware, and installation was done in one go. No swearing.

But I did swear when I checked the Event Viewer and saw a warning about low disk space.

I always use 1 GB system partitions for our NT workstations and servers. Well, W2K Server took up over 900 MB with just a plain install. It also took up almost 100 MB of RAM running without any options. (Compare with NT4 Server requiring about 200 or so MB of hdd and 25 MB of RAM.)

So if you're getting a server to use with W2K eventually, get at least 256 MB of RAM right now, and set your system partition to at least 2 GB.

What is frustrating about W2K is that they've split networking options so that some networking stuff is found in the Network Control Panel and some is in the System Panel. Whereas before everything was in one place.

If you're going to administer a W2K Server I recommend installing a beta and playing with it quite a bit before you actually have to get one into production. Lots of changes and gotchas as described above.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:52:29 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.