February 22, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Now that I finally have my SQL 2005 default instance upgrade completed, requirements are changing (ain't it just the way!) and I think I have to re-install 2000 as a second named instance to support that part of the project.
Has anyone installed 2000 after and along side 2005?
Am I in for major pain?
thanks all!
Skål - jh
February 23, 2006 at 9:24 am
This is not recommended. The supported and recommended method for running SQL2K and SQL2K5 side-by-side is to install SQL2K first and then install SQL2K5. You can go ahead and try it. My guess is you'll find that everything will seem to work as expected. But uninstalling one or the other will break the one that's left behind. If that happens you'll have to repair (or reinstall) the one that's left behind.
If you install SQL2K prior to SQL2K5 the uninstall behavior will be correct regardless of which one you uninstall first.
Bottom line, proceed with caution.
Cheers,
Dan
February 27, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Does SQL 2K have to be thr default instance or can it be a named instance?
March 14, 2006 at 8:44 am
SQL2K can be a default or named instance. The only restriction is that instance names must be unique - you can't have a SQL2K and a SQL2K5 instance with the same name.
March 30, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I installed SQL 2000 after a 2005 instance, and had no troubles. You will have to use a named instance on one of the installs though.
Near Kindest Regards, Gator
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply