From: "Geo." 

"Chris Robinson"  wrote in
message news:3E8A989B.9F9AC1C4{at}NOSPAMtotalise.co.uk...

> life.  The problem is that how much more can be done to Windows servers to
make
> them actually worth upgrading to?  This is bound to mean un-needed
> "functionality" being added in the future to further insist
on upgrades.

I believe the differences between NT4 and W2K and 2003server are
significant enough to warrant upgrading, however I think the costs and
conditions (licensing terms) can negate a lot of that. But if you just go
by functionality I believe I would easily be able to justify upgrades.

The problem come in with the difference from NT4 to W2K being that it's
attractive for huge corporate networks but the features are not there for
small networks and in fact work as a disincentive for small networks
because of active directory. But it is a time sensitive disincentive, as
hardware gets more powerful and cheaper the added complexity becomes less
of an issue.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4