ColdFusion and NT or ColdFusion and 2000

Is anyone still running NT4.0? I guess we are still somewhat in the darkages with CF4.5.2 and NT4.0. The boss is a penny pincher ;) We are looking at upgrading to CFMX this week for sure. What I am wondering is, should we be going to Windows 2k at the same time? Are there any reasons why we should or should not upgrade the OS at the same time. I recall hearing about how much faster CF5.0 on Windows 2k was compared to CF4.5 on Windows NT. Does the same hold true for CFMX on Windows NT? Or CFMX on WIndows 2k? Thanks for the advice! Brook Davies maracasmedia inc.

Windows 2000 can support many more TCP/IP connections than Win NT. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

brook wrote: > Is anyone still running NT4.0? I guess we are still somewhat in the > darkages with CF4.5.2 and NT4.0. The boss is a penny pincher ;) Never fix something that isn't broken. > We are looking at upgrading to CFMX this week for sure. What I am wondering > is, should we be going to Windows 2k at the same time? Are there any > reasons why we should or should not upgrade the OS at the same time. If you have time after doing a compatibility test of your CF code and have fixed all the problems you should have a look at Windows 2K. But don't try it in the wild without trying it on a test system first. > I recall hearing about how much faster CF5.0 on Windows 2k was compared to > CF4.5 on Windows NT. Does the same hold true for CFMX on Windows NT? Or > CFMX on WIndows 2k? I believe this was mainly due to the speed improvements in CF. But the HTTP compression in IIS 5 is a nice bonus if you have time to test Windows 2000 before the scheduled CF upgrade. Jochem

I am in the same boat (ColdFusion 4.5.1 SP2 and Windows NT 4.0).  I am going to go to Windows2000 and ColdFusionMX. Chris brook wrote: > Is anyone still running NT4.0? I guess we are still somewhat in the > darkages with CF4.5.2 and NT4.0. The boss is a penny pincher ;) Never fix something that isn't broken. > We are looking at upgrading to CFMX this week for sure. What I am > wondering > is, should we be going to Windows 2k at the same time? Are there any > reasons why we should or should not upgrade the OS at the same time. If you have time after doing a compatibility test of your CF code and have fixed all the problems you should have a look at Windows 2K. But don't try it in the wild without trying it on a test system first. > I recall hearing about how much faster CF5.0 on Windows 2k was > compared to > CF4.5 on Windows NT. Does the same hold true for CFMX on Windows NT? Or > CFMX on WIndows 2k? I believe this was mainly due to the speed improvements in CF. But the HTTP compression in IIS 5 is a nice bonus if you have time to test Windows 2000 before the scheduled CF upgrade. Jochem

I would upgrade the OS to Win2k, it is significantly more stable than NT in my experience.  What I would do is to upgrade the operating system first keeping your 4.5 SP2 code as is until that is stable on Windows 2000.  You should not encounter too many issues here, the main point to watch for is that you will be using IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000.  My experience again is that IIS 5.0 is better than its predecessors.  I agree with Jochem, test, test, test. Going to CFMX has varying levels of possible issues from none to x. Here what you may or may not incur is largely related to the CF Code in your current applications. I believe that the level of expertise on this list is sufficient to get you through any issues you may face going to CFMX. As far as the difference in performance issues, CF5.0 was significantly more efficient on Windows than 4.5, this was actually due to some concerted work between Allaire and Microsoft.  As a historical note similar gains in performance were gained between 4.5 and 4.5 SP2 on Solaris and I think Linux versions.  I mention this only in case anyone out there is running 4.5 non service packs on Solaris (or possibly Linux).  As yet, there has been no talk of significant application response improvements on CFMX over CF5.0. The main potential benefits of CFMX are huge and many are only just being spawned out there somewhere. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt, CTO Webapper http://www.webapper.com Downey CA Office 562.243.6255 AIM - webappermb "Webapper - Making the NET work" I am in the same boat (ColdFusion 4.5.1 SP2 and Windows NT 4.0).  I am going to go to Windows2000 and ColdFusionMX. Chris brook wrote: > Is anyone still running NT4.0? I guess we are still somewhat in the > darkages with CF4.5.2 and NT4.0. The boss is a penny pincher ;) Never fix something that isn't broken. > We are looking at upgrading to CFMX this week for sure. What I am > wondering > is, should we be going to Windows 2k at the same time? Are there any > reasons why we should or should not upgrade the OS at the same time. If you have time after doing a compatibility test of your CF code and have fixed all the problems you should have a look at Windows 2K. But don't try it in the wild without trying it on a test system first. > I recall hearing about how much faster CF5.0 on Windows 2k was > compared to > CF4.5 on Windows NT. Does the same hold true for CFMX on Windows NT? Or > CFMX on WIndows 2k? I believe this was mainly due to the speed improvements in CF. But the HTTP compression in IIS 5 is a nice bonus if you have time to test Windows 2000 before the scheduled CF upgrade. Jochem

Jochem, Sort of Off-topic, but anyway, HTTP compression doesn't cause performance decrease? I think the gain is very relative since you have to add more time do compress (server CPU usage) and also more time to decompress (client CPU usage) in this operation. HTTP compress should be used only if your audience are, in its majority, 14k/28k modem users. Not to mention that I think Netscape is not compilant with that. This is true? Thanks! Alex