--==--Official--==--List the programs in Windows2k3 that dont work so far..--==--

[BmXStuD]

Well i have two which dont work so far! Also list the Substitute programs we could use.

Norton AntiVirus 2003 Professional Edition So far im not sure what program to use as i am still testing this. (Good thing they have a built in FIREWALL like xp b/c norton firewall or lots others may not work.)

Partition Magic! ( Good thing they have a built partiton magic in admin tools which i had to use because my last hdd wasnt registing a letter meaning it wasn't showing in "My Computer"

 

[bozo1]

Well, NAV 2003 didn't work on W2K server either so it's no surprise it doesn't work on 2003.

 

[Budman]

Yes it's a server os so you need server AV for it.

As for partition magic it doesnt really matter since you can use the boot disks to run it,i never use it from windows anyways.

 

[Lenine]

Do most games / im programs work on this? I'm downloading it right now since i cant get xp working :/

 

[BmXStuD]

I dont think really since its a SERVER os not regular home operating system. Umm my quake3 works so most or all newer games that work on xp/2k should work. Old windows 95/98 old wont work as the same in windows xp/2k.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: BmXStuD
I dont think really since its a SERVER os not regular home operating system. Umm my quake3 works so must or all newer games that work on xp/2k should work. Old windows 95/98 old wont work as in windows xp/2k.

Uh, could you please be clearer in indicating which post you're replying to? That's the whole point of the quote button. Also, a basic knowledge of English grammar helps as well.

Anyway, I'm getting Windows 2003 server sooner or later, but don't have any results at this time. I didn't have any trouble with the RCs, but then I was using them as a (RRAS) server, not as a poor substitute for a home & workstation OS.

 

[BmXStuD]

"but then I was using them as a (RRAS) server, not as a poor substitute for a home & workstation OS."



Umm its not really a poor sub. if you can fix it up to run like a desktop it is actually nice. Only thing i have to work out is the preess CTRL ACT ALT @ bootup to make it go to log in screen.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: BmXStuD
"but then I was using them as a (RRAS) server, not as a poor substitute for a home & workstation OS."

Umm its not really a poor sub. if you can fix it up to run like a desktop it is actually nice. Only thing i have to work out is the preess CTRL ACT ALT @ bootup to make it go to log in screen.

If you were running XP you would get at least as good, if not better, performance without any of the annoyances, and without having to spend nearly as much time "fixing" it. Yes, I realize there is a "just because you can" factor involved, but there is no reason whatsoever to waste time trying to get Win2k3 Server to work as a desktop machine. You get no benefits at all from doing that, unless you also engage in web development or some other practice that is made more convenient by having a server setup for your desktop machine.

 

[pac1085]

Originally posted by: BmXStuD
"but then I was using them as a (RRAS) server, not as a poor substitute for a home & workstation OS."



Umm its not really a poor sub. if you can fix it up to run like a desktop it is actually nice. Only thing i have to work out is the preess CTRL ACT ALT @ bootup to make it go to log in screen.

You can turn off the CTRL-ALT-DEL requirement just like you can in Windows 2k (maybe NT?). Google.com is your friend. I still dont understand why people are wanting to use a server os an a gaming os though. I dont know who is crazy enough to pay the $700 for it to use it on a desktop either.

 

[igiveup]

I dont know who is crazy enough to pay the $700 for it to use it on a desktop either.

I don't think most ARE planning on coughing up $700 or more for it.

Seeing as how 2003 Server is a SERVER OS, I don't really see the point of doing threads like this for desktop apps. If we were talking server apps then you could add...

SQL Server 2000 (kinda works with patch)
SQL Server 6 & 7
Exchange 2000
Exchange 5.5

For the rest, why bother? There is a constantly updated list at NTCompatible that updates this. Here is the actual section for 2003.

 

[bsobel]

Good thing they have a built in FIREWALL like xp b/c norton firewall or lots others may not work.

The builtin in firewall is incoming only (same limitations as, surprise surprise the XP one )
Bill

 

[BmXStuD]

Ok, Win2k3 server is actualyl nice even know its dumb of me to using a server os on my desktop, but i have it just like Windows xp now Auto logon, no ctrl, theme, feel. The programs i need are working and you know what w/ a regular OS i usally f it up within a month but since this one is all locked down meaning i cant downloaded and install useless programs like i did b4! So imma keep this os for free haha.

 

[igiveup]

Locked Down? As in how, and how does that exactly translate to being free?

 

[BmXStuD]

Originally posted by: igiveup
Locked Down? As in how, and how does that exactly translate to being free?

nm off that subject now! Im going back to my windows xp whenever it works

 

[PowerMacG5]

The Microsoft Wireless Optical Desktop for Bluetooth Drivers and software will not install and work properly.

 

[spyordie007]

The Microsoft Wireless Optical Desktop for Bluetooth Drivers and software will not install and work properly.

Again though this is really designed for desktop use, not server useage.

SQL Server 2000 (kinda works with patch)
SQL Server 6 & 7
Exchange 2000
Exchange 5.5

Since this is a SERVER OS this is the only thing in this thread that matters. Plenty of the listed Desktop Software that wont run under Windows 2003 Server will not run under Windows 2000 Server either, if you want to talk about things that dont run under Windows 2003 Server your list should only contain Server Software that is designed to work under Windows 2000 Server because that would be the only "fair" comparison.

-Spy

 

[Thor86]

ISAserver 2000 with a patch.

 

[Vernor]

If you were running XP you would get at least as good, if not better, performance without any of the annoyances, and without having to spend nearly as much time "fixing" it. Yes, I realize there is a "just because you can" factor involved, but there is no reason whatsoever to waste time trying to get Win2k3 Server to work as a desktop machine. You get no benefits at all from doing that, unless you also engage in web development or some other practice that is made more convenient by having a server setup for your desktop machine.

There we go again.

 

[xchangx]

Are there any known sercurity problems with 2k3?

We have an acedemic alliance with MSDN so I get to play with this stuff for free. Wahoo!

I'm going to upgrade our file server in a month (Someone installed XP which has a 10 user limit) and want to make sure all of our files will be secure.

However I agree with everyone else in that this is a server os and probably should be used accordingly.


Thanks!

Michael Chang

 

[spyordie007]

I'm sure somebody somewhere knows of a security problem or two, some of them are probably already getting worked on too...

I would reccommend putting off your upgrade for a little while as a form of a "shake down" period, but than again you are running XP so I doubt it would be worse off.

-Spy

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
I'm sure somebody somewhere knows of a security problem or two, some of them are probably already getting worked on too... I would reccommend putting off your upgrade for a little while as a form of a "shake down" period, but than again you are running XP so I doubt it would be worse off. -Spy

I don't really agree with you. Windoews Server 2003 has been in production testing for months in beta and final code. For example, Jey Blue was using it months before the release. I think that during that time, Windows Server 2003 has been put through it's paces, and many tests were run on it. I feel comfortable with the security level of Windows Server 2003.

 

[spyordie007]

that's just wishful thinking

I've got it on a test server to play around with now, but I dont plan on putting it on any of my production servers for at least another 6 months. For my production servers I like to "look before I leap" and a server OS is something that requires some hard looking before it's to be trusted. After all it did take me a full year before I used Windows 2000 Server for the same reason, and if I remember correctly just a week or two after it came out there was 70 some odd MB worth of critical updates that needed to be applied.

My 2 cents

-Spy

 

[EeyoreX]

...and how does that exactly translate to being free?

<cough>Kazzaa, et al.<cough>

... w(ith) a regular OS i usally f it up within a month but since this one is all locked down meaning i cant downloaded and install useless programs like i did b4!

Funy thing is that you can "lock down" a non server OS too. In your case it is simply called "restraint and self control". Simply don't "download and install useless programs" and you won't "f up" your system. Problem solved, simply and easily. And no methods of questionable legallity to content with!

Seeing as how 2003 Server is a SERVER OS, I don't really see the point of doing threads like this for desktop apps.

Word.

\Dan