From Server7/nt4 To New Server2000/windows2000

Hello,
Can anyone please tell me the best way to upgrade server1 with SERVER7 and OS of NT to a new server2 with SERVER2000 AND WINDOWS 2000 ?
The data in the old server is very important.
ThanksGenerate a script of the SQL 7 database, and recreate the database on the SQL 2000 server and use DTS to transfer the data.|||That's one way of getting stuck with reconstructing the prod environment for a couple of days, if not weeks.

Another would be to start here:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;246133

Fragmentation of Table Differs Between 2000 and 2005 Client on 200

I'm examining the logical fragmentation for a table running on SQL Server
2000. If i run dbcc showcontig the fragmentation appears as 0.21% however if
i examine the same index in SQL Management Studio 2005 it's 20.64%. So which
one should I believe?
=============
VB .NET Developer
http://www.rocketscience.uk.com
Exactly which fragmentation figure are you referring to?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"JumpingMattFlash" <JumpingMattFlash@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BABBC08C-B9B4-487F-BC56-5CDFF5F9D1AB@.microsoft.com...
> I'm examining the logical fragmentation for a table running on SQL Server
> 2000. If i run dbcc showcontig the fragmentation appears as 0.21% however if
> i examine the same index in SQL Management Studio 2005 it's 20.64%. So which
> one should I believe?
> --
> =============
> VB .NET Developer
> http://www.rocketscience.uk.com
|||The algorithm for calculating fragmentation is different in SQL Server 2005.
The new algorithm is more precise, so the fragmentation values appear higher
in SQL Server 2005 than in SQL Server 2000. For example, in SQL Server 2000,
if a table has page 11 and page 13 in the same extent, it isn't counted as
fragmented. However these two pages will cause two physical IOs , so in SQL
Server 2005, this is counted as fragmentation.
Gail Erickson [MS]
SQL Server Documentation Team
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
"JumpingMattFlash" <JumpingMattFlash@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:BABBC08C-B9B4-487F-BC56-5CDFF5F9D1AB@.microsoft.com...
> I'm examining the logical fragmentation for a table running on SQL Server
> 2000. If i run dbcc showcontig the fragmentation appears as 0.21% however
> if
> i examine the same index in SQL Management Studio 2005 it's 20.64%. So
> which
> one should I believe?
> --
> =============
> VB .NET Developer
> http://www.rocketscience.uk.com

Fragmentation of Table Differs Between 2000 and 2005 Client on 200

I'm examining the logical fragmentation for a table running on SQL Server
2000. If i run dbcc showcontig the fragmentation appears as 0.21% however if
i examine the same index in SQL Management Studio 2005 it's 20.64%. So which
one should I believe?
--
=============
VB .NET Developer
http://www.rocketscience.uk.comExactly which fragmentation figure are you referring to?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"JumpingMattFlash" <JumpingMattFlash@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in mes
sage
news:BABBC08C-B9B4-487F-BC56-5CDFF5F9D1AB@.microsoft.com...
> I'm examining the logical fragmentation for a table running on SQL Server
> 2000. If i run dbcc showcontig the fragmentation appears as 0.21% however
if
> i examine the same index in SQL Management Studio 2005 it's 20.64%. So whi
ch
> one should I believe?
> --
> =============
> VB .NET Developer
> http://www.rocketscience.uk.com|||The algorithm for calculating fragmentation is different in SQL Server 2005.
The new algorithm is more precise, so the fragmentation values appear higher
in SQL Server 2005 than in SQL Server 2000. For example, in SQL Server 2000,
if a table has page 11 and page 13 in the same extent, it isn't counted as
fragmented. However these two pages will cause two physical IOs , so in SQL
Server 2005, this is counted as fragmentation.
Gail Erickson [MS]
SQL Server Documentation Team
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
"JumpingMattFlash" <JumpingMattFlash@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:BABBC08C-B9B4-487F-BC56-5CDFF5F9D1AB@.microsoft.com...
> I'm examining the logical fragmentation for a table running on SQL Server
> 2000. If i run dbcc showcontig the fragmentation appears as 0.21% however
> if
> i examine the same index in SQL Management Studio 2005 it's 20.64%. So
> which
> one should I believe?
> --
> =============
> VB .NET Developer
> http://www.rocketscience.uk.com