running sql xml versions next to each other?

Hi,
i have installed sql 2005 on my test machine, and it installed sql xml 4.0.
Now i wanted to try running BizTalk 2004 on it, but the install complains i
have to have sql xml 3.0 sp2 or higher...
So the question is, can i install sql xml 3.0sp3 on the machine, without
breaking the 4.0 or the sql 2005 install altogether?
thnx,
J.
Hello,
You should be able to use sqlxml 3.0 and sqlxml 4.0 side by side without
any problem.
Thanks,
Monica Frintu
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

running sql xml versions next to each other?

Hi,
i have installed sql 2005 on my test machine, and it installed sql xml 4.0.
Now i wanted to try running BizTalk 2004 on it, but the install complains i
have to have sql xml 3.0 sp2 or higher...
So the question is, can i install sql xml 3.0sp3 on the machine, without
breaking the 4.0 or the sql 2005 install altogether?
thnx,
J.Hello,
You should be able to use sqlxml 3.0 and sqlxml 4.0 side by side without
any problem.
Thanks,
Monica Frintu
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Running SQL Server 2000 and 2005 on the same computer

Does anyone know whether or not both versions can be installed on the same machine?I know the September CTP is able to co-exist on a machine with SQL 2000. I can not imagine they will do anything to change that in the RTM.

Running SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 simultaneously

I have seen information on the web about running two versions of SQL at the same time on the same server but was wondering any tricks of the trade regarding it. The main recommendation that I have seen is to have SQL 2000 SP4 running first as the default instance (which is my current situation on a development server) and then install SQL 2005 as a named instance on it. Should the SQL 2005 installation place its files in a dedicated directory (ie, C:\SQL2005) as opposed to the default directory that the installation would normally write to, thus not overwriting any SQL 2000 system files? Any other recommendations?

Well directories of the core files (files needed to run SQL Server should be separated in different directories), for data and log files it depends. If you already established a physical structur of distributed data files and log files (to enhance performance due to split IO access) you should reuse this structure, placing the files on the disk using the same "logic" as you did for the other instance. If you did not do that yet, you can place the files wherever you want, I would just ot mix them up with the other (data-)files as it will ease the migration lateron if you keep them separately.

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de