Question about fs.FileExists and Servers 2000 or 2003

OK, thanks.

Lionstone wrote:
> "Lee" <lee_nospam_@artjunky.com> wrote in message
> news:f493ns$hm9$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> I think I answered my own question about the "CDONTS.NewMail" From what I
>> could find on the Internet, it can't be done.
>
> Well, it's not that bad to change to CDO.Message, but it does take some work
> to re-do all your code. If you had control of the server, you could put the
> CDONTS dll on the server, but if you don't...
>
> 2003 has a newer version of IIS, so it is likely to be faster than 2000
> especially in a shared hosting environment (several sites on one server).
>
>

"Lee" <lee_nospam_@artjunky.com> wrote in message
news:f493ns$hm9$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>I think I answered my own question about the "CDONTS.NewMail" From what I
>could find on the Internet, it can't be done.

Well, it's not that bad to change to CDO.Message, but it does take some work
to re-do all your code. If you had control of the server, you could put the
CDONTS dll on the server, but if you don't...

2003 has a newer version of IIS, so it is likely to be faster than 2000
especially in a shared hosting environment (several sites on one server).

I think I answered my own question about the "CDONTS.NewMail" From what
I could find on the Internet, it can't be done.

Lee wrote:
> Thank you Lionstone. And thanks for the heads up on the CDONTS/CDOSYS.
>
> Is "CDONTS.NewMail" the same as CDONTS and would "CDONTS.NewMail" work
> on 2003 server if it is different?
>
> By the way, do you think 2003 would be any faster than 2000?
>
> Lionstone wrote:
>> No hidden problems keeping your images together.
>> I'd consolidate on 2003, not 2000, unless you use CDONTS for e-mail
>> and don't have time to change all your sites to use CDOSYS instead.
>>
>

Thank you Lionstone. And thanks for the heads up on the CDONTS/CDOSYS.

Is "CDONTS.NewMail" the same as CDONTS and would "CDONTS.NewMail" work
on 2003 server if it is different?

By the way, do you think 2003 would be any faster than 2000?

Lionstone wrote:
> No hidden problems keeping your images together.
> I'd consolidate on 2003, not 2000, unless you use CDONTS for e-mail and
> don't have time to change all your sites to use CDOSYS instead.
>

No hidden problems keeping your images together.
I'd consolidate on 2003, not 2000, unless you use CDONTS for e-mail and
don't have time to change all your sites to use CDOSYS instead.


"Lee" <lee_nospam_@artjunky.com> wrote in message
news:f46sbc$jil$2@forums.macromedia.com...
> Any ideas? Opinions?
>
> Lee wrote:
>> I have a number of sites and because I have so many images, I use the
>> same image folder on one of my sites for ALL the sites.
>>
>> First of all, is doing this "breaking" any rules or creating any problems
>> that may not be obvious?
>>
>> Second, I've recently added a new domain and the host put the new site on
>> a different server than the others. The older sites are on a windows 2000
>> server while the new site is on a windows 2003 server.
>>
>> Now back to the image thing. In order to do the File check on the images,
>> I need all of them to be on the same server. The host can move the sites
>> and I'm considering moving the new site back with the others to the
>> windows 2000 server.
>>
>> Good idea? Bad idea? Recommendations?
>>
>> Thanks

Any ideas? Opinions?

Lee wrote:
> I have a number of sites and because I have so many images, I use the
> same image folder on one of my sites for ALL the sites.
>
> First of all, is doing this "breaking" any rules or creating any
> problems that may not be obvious?
>
> Second, I've recently added a new domain and the host put the new site
> on a different server than the others. The older sites are on a windows
> 2000 server while the new site is on a windows 2003 server.
>
> Now back to the image thing. In order to do the File check on the
> images, I need all of them to be on the same server. The host can move
> the sites and I'm considering moving the new site back with the others
> to the windows 2000 server.
>
> Good idea? Bad idea? Recommendations?
>
> Thanks

Anyone have an opinion about this?