From: Chris Robinson 

I suppose that's often the way.  The disadvantages can often outweigh the
advantages.  It's just unfortunate that the mandatory parts of the OS are
the ones that fall into the disadvantage catagory (AD).

Chris.

"Geo." wrote:

> "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