System Requirements Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows ME, Windows XP

i think you are wrong michael..
the problem is that directx is disabled in the os.. i can install it, but i cant run directx applications, like dvds and games..

i cant enable it because its as simple as it gets: DirectX is disabled.

when opening dxdiag.exe i get some error that direct3d and ddraw cant be loaded..

posting the errors later, are running windows xp now and cant restart the computer before later..

So what do you say about this..

it have to be a problem with directx

i wouldn't want to enable it on a server computer unless you have a really good graphics card

im not using it as a server.. only a personal testing server.. and i cant enable it, but if i could, i think an msi starforce graphics card with nvidia ti 4800 se gpu and 128 mb ddr is good enough..

Mmm, that's quite a good graphics card. Why on earth do you have Windows 2003 Server installed? It's not build for 'usuall' applications at all, it's tuned for server applications and background services.

I'd create a little test server with Windows Server, WITHOUT that graphics card, and which you don't use for DirectX applications and other applications (like VS.NET, Office, etc.)

ive just used windows 2003 for development of my own site.. its not used as a server, only a personal testing server with me and my fathers web sites.. its easier to use a local server when developing and testing than upload to a remote server every time ive changed something.. at least when im on dialup! expensive and slow..

i have used windows xp before, and are using it now, but it doesnt have the pop3 mail function..

I have a local server, four actually, which I use for game hosting & storage, DNS, FTP & WWW and a LAN server, for Printing etc.

I don't use these servers for anything else but servers or services. This works fine, I always have a local dedicated server online, and I can turn of my workstation, and just continue working afterwards (quite logic actually).

I don't really like remote servers, because they're a bit slow. I happen to save everything I do, so when I edit a tiny bit of code (2 lines), I press Ctrl + S, just to be sure. My connection is fast, 8096 downstream, 2048 upstream.

Bit of a useless post, but who cares.

Windows Server 2003 is indeed not meant to have DirectX, even if it's possible to enable it, it would most likely not be stable on a server operating system, as Diep said optimized for background processes, even having Hardware Acceleration enabled in your graphic card could distabilize the server.

I also have 2 servers and one workstation at home, one server is always on and serving HTTP/FTP/MAIL/DNS and the rest of it, and I wouldn't go near anything that could distabilize the system, all drivers I use are WS2k3 approved and it runs like a beauty for months and months on end without a restart, and I do hosting, that's quite good for a Windows server.

If you want DirectX, use a desktop/workstation operating system like XP or 2000 Pro.

BTW: Diep that's a fine connection you have, what is it SDSL? Expenssive?

[QUOTE theSCIENTIST]

[/QUOTE]

Infact, all the ISP's in Holland are lowering their prices to get more client's, so the price dropped from 120 EUR to 75 EUR/month. SDSL is way more expansice, usually about 400 - 500 EUR/month.

Also, the ISP's have increased the connection speed, my old upstream was about 1500, and they just added 500 kb/s to it, so I'm quite happy now!

Humm, how's the house prices in Holland? :)

You are using ADSL, and I though ADSL couldn't have that much upstream, I guess some countries are changing the ATM's to allow it..

Over here in the UK the maximum ADSL upstream you get is 512Mbits, if you want more you need SDSL, alot more expenssive.

Again the UK riding at the back tale of Europe.

theSCIENTIST wrote: Over here in the UK the maximum ADSL upstream you get is 512Mbits

Thats fast, REAL fast.. you meant kbits right?

Idd, that's more like transatlantic pipelines or something. BTW, it is 1024 (???).. Looked at the wrong section in the telnet router configuration.

That makes 8096 Down, 1024 Up (2048 is is the max router up)

AnthraX wrote: Thats fast, REAL fast.. you meant kbits right?

Yeah, the upstream I mentioned translates to +- 60Kps, it's not fast at all  but enough for low traffic.

Kps? Anyway, 8096/8 = 1012 Kilo Bytes/Sec, 1024/8 = 128 Kilo Bytes/Sec

That's basicly what it is, since 8 bit = 1 byte right? Anyway, this is a bit offtopic

Off topic indeed.. I usually use kps's because that's what people see in IE's download box, so it's easier for them to relate to the diff speeds, anyway you seem to know about it.

That does not mean it will work in 2K3 as the drivers are not the same. The official FAQ says some of the old xp drivers are not shipped with 2k3 as they were not good enough a server normally does not need directx so check the microsoft site if your video crad is supported

I hope this clarifies what i meant. it is not becuase it works under Xp that it will in 2k3.

Cheers

Anthrax: Why is it that those features are disabled? Could it be that those features have no place on a server OS? There is no such thing as Windows 2003, but Windows Server 2003, spot the difference? That's right a server OS, maybe you should use XP.

Clients (normal desktop users) are upgrading to srv 2003 as if it was the lastest client OS, the name Windows Server 2003 says it all, but people don't get it somehow.

Hi again,

All of you, I am getting a little bit frustrated  when I see all these questions. Let me explain.

First, I would like to suggest that any of you whom would like to tweak their Server visit this website: http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/ - http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/ , which gives detailed instructions and background information on how to do this and the issues and problems this might or might not cause. I know why so many people want to do this and will try to explain it below.

Server 2003 is the latest OS from Microsoft and as so many other people, I like new things and like to keep up with the evolution of new security enhancements and capabilities which are offered by this OS. Isn▓t it normal for people to want to use things like shadow copies, .... etc, just watch the latest TV advert from Microsoft a little bit more attentive and you will understand why this latest OS is better then the ones before. Moreover, the core of the Server 2003 is similar to XP. Therefore, many of the drivers will work, however, Microsoft did not approve all of the old drivers as in certain cases like even with DirectX this opened security threats on this type of servers or machines, which they wanted to prevent. This OS has been developed with security in mind especially when it concerns the web services such as FTP, .NET, HTTP and HTTPS. The server installs in a locked down version simply meaning most things have been disabled and closed to ensure maximum security is achieved (even your browser is locked down ), this because MS has been blamed for not paying enough attention to security in the past, which is true. Just have a look or read through some of the more security related communities.

I also want to explain that Microsoft promised Windows 2003 Professional, but never delivered on this promise, do not ask me why?

This has put a lot of people like myself in the position where if you program or build MS orientated software then you are not left with any other choices then to install a Windows Server 2003 in your network as new staging and development platform for this type of OS, without that you would not be able to test anything with this OS as a platform.

This also means you would lose a workstation, where in the past you would have installed MS Windows 2000 Professional or Windows XP Professional, due to MS not releasing MS Windows 2003 Pro we were not left with any other choices. Even the MS boys like myself will tell you they did not expect this and many beta testers where waiting for a copy, which never came. Neither was it distributed through the MSDN Universal subscription. All this so I can explain why people are doing this. Moreover, when reading the site above in terms of how to achieve this you will understand that creating a so said Windows 2003 Professional workstation is still possible and definitely does not make this OS unstable as some people in here were suggesting do not believe them this is bullsh*t and clearly demonstrates they do not know what they are talking about !!!!

It all depend how knowledgeable you are or familiar with the OS itself. My machine has not been down once since I set it up except for the occasional maintenance boot after installing or changing settings. Even tweaked it is more stable then any XP pro or even Windows 2000 Server I have seen out there.

Mine is being used as a workstation just make sure you have enough RAM, I use 1GB to insure that all my background services still have enough resources when I am using a lot of programs in a multi-tasking style, as we all probably do.

My server also runs Microsoft SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2003. My server is sitting behind a firewall-ADSL modem-router (Netgear DG814). With some nifty NAT and port forwarding combined with my UPnP enabled router, I can even play and host games likes Warcraft III, Ages of Empires II Conquerors ( http://www.zone.com/ - www.zone.com ) and so many other ones and all this without having to change any settings what so ever, once tweaked and DirectX enabled. DirectX is UPnP compliant, so I can host games and join games form any workstation or server in my network all connected through one very fast ADSL line. All of them can also use things like MSN Messenger 6.1 and not just the text chat, but also voice, remote desktop, VPN (unlimited user incoming connection, where XP Pro can only accept 10 as a max.), FTP, Skype ( http://www.skype.com/ - www.skype.com ), AIM 5.1 and the list keeps going on.  All this while most of my workstations obtain their IP▓s automatically form my router▓s DHCP server. Meaning the inexperienced user would have to know anything about all this they can just use any application on my networks as they will work fine out of the box with standard settings. I hope this helps clarifying some of the issues raised and helps some of the people in here understand why people do this and why you should not just say this is stupid even Microsoft themselves had plans to release this type of OS. Therefore, the core an drivers are there, however, they are hidden and hard to find or understand for inexperienced users, like most people in here, sorry for saying so.

Good Luck to all of you building Windows 2003 Professional workstations as this is what we are doing here nothing more nothing less. The job has been made even more difficult because MS does not support it. However, there are some unofficial MS FAQ, which can help you a long way in achieving this goal.

Hoping to have helped,

Cheers,

Charlie

PS. I even run a VB component in memory so I do not have to register this DLL before it can be used by the web server while I am developing it, meaning my VB apps is always running, and yes this is possible. Combined with Visual Source Safe 6.0 and Source Off Site giving me source and version control even for off site collaboration. Yes I know all this stuff is not cheap, but so wonderfull.

theSCIENTIST

im not using 2003 to other things than a testing server for my work, but sometimes i fell like watcing a dvd, then i need direct draw i think it is, and if i could enable that i 2003 that would be much easier when developing with 5-10 pages open and 4-5 folders than restarting the computer and run xp..