Hi,

I have a Windows 2003 R2 server running SQL2005, SP1 all is working fine.
Now I need to install SQL 2000 onto the same machine, as a side by side
installation.

Presumably I need to install 2000 as a named instance of SQL server. Are
there any pitfalls or problems to watch out for? Obviously its important
that I don't disturb the 2005 server at all. Is there anything I need to
watch out for in terms of memory usage? I plan to install a second instance
of 2000 later on as well, so I'll have three SQL servers running on the same
machine.

Thanks for any guidance you can give,

Regards,
Steve

This is not a recommended installation order. The recommended order is 2000 first and then 2005. Two
things I've heard that can go wrong doing it in the incorrect order:

SQL Server Browser doesn't do its job as it should if you after 2005 install 2000.
SQLDMO dlls are incorrectly unregistered if you uninstall 2000, but leave the 2005 install

Above are from memory...

--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi


"Steve Gr" <MSDNNospam235@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ezxMSf6vHHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I have a Windows 2003 R2 server running SQL2005, SP1 all is working fine. Now I need to install
> SQL 2000 onto the same machine, as a side by side installation.
>
> Presumably I need to install 2000 as a named instance of SQL server. Are there any pitfalls or
> problems to watch out for? Obviously its important that I don't disturb the 2005 server at all. Is
> there anything I need to watch out for in terms of memory usage? I plan to install a second
> instance of 2000 later on as well, so I'll have three SQL servers running on the same machine.
>
> Thanks for any guidance you can give,
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>

Tibor, that is bad news for me.
I would really like to use the same machine for 2000 without having to
uninstall 2005 first.
Is there a workaround?

Steve

"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@hotmail.nomail.co m> wrote in
message news:41DCA731-7E6C-4B65-8B92-BF5153E2C785@microsoft.com...
> This is not a recommended installation order. The recommended order is
> 2000 first and then 2005. Two things I've heard that can go wrong doing it
> in the incorrect order:
>
> SQL Server Browser doesn't do its job as it should if you after 2005
> install 2000.
> SQLDMO dlls are incorrectly unregistered if you uninstall 2000, but leave
> the 2005 install
>
> Above are from memory...
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
>
> "Steve Gr" <MSDNNospam235@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ezxMSf6vHHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a Windows 2003 R2 server running SQL2005, SP1 all is working fine.
>> Now I need to install SQL 2000 onto the same machine, as a side by side
>> installation.
>>
>> Presumably I need to install 2000 as a named instance of SQL server. Are
>> there any pitfalls or problems to watch out for? Obviously its important
>> that I don't disturb the 2005 server at all. Is there anything I need to
>> watch out for in terms of memory usage? I plan to install a second
>> instance of 2000 later on as well, so I'll have three SQL servers running
>> on the same machine.
>>
>> Thanks for any guidance you can give,
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>>
>

> Is there a workaround?

I was only posting things I've heard and read about, to give you some heads up. I suggest you start
by Google to see whether I remembered correctly, and if so, you will probably find out whether each
problem I described has a solution (the DMO solution would be simple - to re-register DMO). But
there could be other issues, of course, - things I haven't heard of. Obviously, I haven't done this
install order myself, knowing about these potential problems.

--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi


"Steve Gr" <MSDNNospam235@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:eMBQSW%23vHHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Tibor, that is bad news for me.
> I would really like to use the same machine for 2000 without having to uninstall 2005 first.
> Is there a workaround?
>
> Steve
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@hotmail.nomail.co m> wrote in message
> news:41DCA731-7E6C-4B65-8B92-BF5153E2C785@microsoft.com...
>> This is not a recommended installation order. The recommended order is 2000 first and then 2005.
>> Two things I've heard that can go wrong doing it in the incorrect order:
>>
>> SQL Server Browser doesn't do its job as it should if you after 2005 install 2000.
>> SQLDMO dlls are incorrectly unregistered if you uninstall 2000, but leave the 2005 install
>>
>> Above are from memory...
>>
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>>
>> "Steve Gr" <MSDNNospam235@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:ezxMSf6vHHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a Windows 2003 R2 server running SQL2005, SP1 all is working fine. Now I need to install
>>> SQL 2000 onto the same machine, as a side by side installation.
>>>
>>> Presumably I need to install 2000 as a named instance of SQL server. Are there any pitfalls or
>>> problems to watch out for? Obviously its important that I don't disturb the 2005 server at all.
>>> Is there anything I need to watch out for in terms of memory usage? I plan to install a second
>>> instance of 2000 later on as well, so I'll have three SQL servers running on the same machine.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any guidance you can give,
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>