[RESOLVED] Roaming profiles and win9X

We are, unfortunately, being forced to move our email platform to Exchange 5.5. Here is our problem, ROAMING D@#$#@ PROFILES. We have a PDC and a BDC but the primary server is a Netware 5.0 box (so you see we are already going downhill fast from here) and have to use roaming profiles since we have 300 deputies accessing email on only about 100+ machines scattered over 5 different offices. Since I have a limited exposure to WIN2K, does any one know if it handles profiles better than WIN9X (I am a hardware geek and our network guy is dyed in the wool, blood red novell!)....(I assume it does but assumption is the mother of all screw ups!) Just FYI we are using Outlook 2000 with the exchange server (which is the DBC).

I have just about the same setup, and yes win2k handles the profiles alot better. It wont be so bad. We have a exchange server and novell everything you just said, and all the workstatiosn here are now running win2k pro. (180 machines, thanx to me)

And yes we are using outlook 2000 and outlook 98.

Works good, only thing is you need to use SP2 with windows 2000 and outlook 2000. Useing the sp2 it will handle outlook better.

I presume from your question that you were wondering about desktop roaming profiles, and not email profiles. As well, I was presuming that you were talking about Win2Kpro at the desktops, replacing the 9x PC's...

Win9x by default uses only the home drive if one is defined in user manager for domains (usrmgr), to store the roaming profile. To get Win 2K or NT to use roaming profiles, it has to be defined in usrmgr, under Profile, "user profile path", and you can put it almost anywhere on the network.

You can't reuse a 9x profile in Nt or 2K. At least it is not recommended. Therefore you will be recreating profiles if you should upgrade the PC's. Basic info can be copied form old profile to new; desktop shortcuts, Office Templates, etc...

check this out: KB link

If you're question was purly based on the addition of a 2k server, with exchange 2k, I am probably stearing you wrong, but thought I would post in the event you were refering to the above.