Coexistence of NF 2.60 and Attain 3.60

Business Central/NAV Developers Forum
1

Can I have NF 2.60 and Attain 3.60 Client installed on the same machine without running into any troubles ? Same question for the server side, can I have a NF 2.60 and Attain 3.60 installed on the same server. (I’m aware that this is possible with all versions of NF but I’m not sure about Attain 3.60)

2

quote:

Originally posted by Tarek Demiati
Can I have NF 2.60 and Attain 3.60 Client installed on the same machine without running into any troubles ? Same question for the server side, can I have a NF 2.60 and Attain 3.60 installed on the same server. (I’m aware that this is possible with all versions of NF but I’m not sure about Attain 3.60)

Didn’t try on a server. On my local PC I’ve … everything and all seem to work. Sometimes ZUPs files get messed up. [:)] Anna

3

Should be no problem with the client, just install into different folders. I’ve not specifically tried 3.6 and 2.6 on the same server but don’t see any reason why the rules would be any different to other multi service installations with Navision. As Anna says, I would definately run a different zup for each installation (or each database).

4

It should work. Use the ID=ZUPfileName option when invoking each of them (eg ID=c:\260zup or ID=c:\360zup) to keep the zups separated.

5

[:D] It will work! We have 2.01, 2.60, 3.10 and 3.60 Servers running on one machine (WinNT), and those clients on one machine, too! Each server installed in a seperate folder, all installed via BAT-file, HOSTS and SERVICES well configured, each client with seperate ZUP. No problemo! Best regards, Jörg

6

No problems at all… just use separate zups and setup properly the services and hosts files. The only problem you’ll find is that when installing the 3.60 client is removing the previous version installed client, so install the 3.60 client first and then the 2.60 one. :slight_smile:

7

I’ve found in the past that CFront does not tolerate multiple versions between 2.01 & higher (some of the calls were changed between those versions). Not sure if this is the case between 2.60 & later versions. Just putting in my 2 cents worth.