Has anyone succeeded installing Video driver on Windows 2000, Server 2003, or 2008?

[cheez]

This is real tough question guys.

We know installing recent drivers for your new video card in Windows Vista or Windows 7 is easy as cup cake. Has any of you succeeded installing video driver on Windows 2000, Server 2003, or Server 2008?

If you succeeded, please include following detail:

- Motherboard brand / model
- Does it have onboard video?
- Name of Operating System and what version
- 32 or 64bit OS?
- What video card?

And please explain what software you had to install prior to installing the driver for your video card.


Lately, installing video driver on Server 2003 and 2008 has been impossible. There were no problems back several years ago (older driver, and older video card obviously).. as I'm used to configuring server OSes. If I try to do it today it's no go. What the hell is the problem.

It says "The wizard could not find a better match for your hardware than the software you currently have installed." and yet it is a Standard VGA Graphics Adapter in device manager and the device cannot start because there is a problem with the hardware. You get an exclamation mark next to the device in device manager. In Windows 7 it installs driver fine, no problem.

Anyone has some cool magic to override this? Super magic please!!

 

[Dahak]

real question is what video card and os are you using?
I had just done up a lenovo server and hp server and video drivers installed fine with sbs 2008. just pointed to the driver folder, checked include subfolders and voila, it found it.

Most of the time why would you need more than the standard vga driver anyway?

 

[cheez]

real question is what video card and os are you using?
I had just done up a lenovo server and hp server and video drivers installed fine with sbs 2008. just pointed to the driver folder, checked include subfolders and voila, it found it.

Most of the time why would you need more than the standard vga driver anyway?

It's a Windows Server 2008 Enterprise and ATi Radeon HD6870.

I don't want Standard VGA. I want the system to play video with hardware acceleration, plus the gaming.


And you see, I did it the same way as you did by pointing to the folder and sub folders but the driver won't install...

For more info, I had no problem installing ATi HD4650 on the same machine on Windows Server 2003 about a year or year and half ago. It was a piece of cake, BUT when I tried with Server 2008 a few days ago it would not work... same damn problem as I mentioned earlier.:twisted:

To quickly review:

- Server 2003 Enterprise + ATi HD4650 + old vid driver = WORKS
- Server 2003 Enterprise + ATi HD4650 + current vid driver = NO WORKY
- Server 2003 Enterprise + ATi HD6870 + driver came with CD = NO WORKY
- Server 2003 Enterprise + ATi HD6870 + current vid driver = NO WORKY

- Server 2008 Enterprise + ATi HD4650 + current vid driver = NO WORKY


I smell compatibility issues.:twisted:

I haven't tried Server 2008 + HD6870 yet though...


()

 

[Nothinman]

It's a Windows Server 2008 Enterprise and ATi Radeon HD6870.

I don't want Standard VGA. I want the system to play video with hardware acceleration, plus the gaming.

Why? Since you're using this for a desktop just use Win7 like you're supposed to.

 

[cheez]

Why? Since you're using this for a desktop just use Win7 like you're supposed to.

I don't use Windows 7, Vista, XP (not as bad, but still not good enough), or any of that crap. Those are gay operating systems, sorry.

Which is why I use Server OSes.

Instead of asking why I want to use servers can you stay on topic and try to resolve the problem I'm facing please?



Anyways, I'm gonna try this combo tonight:

- Server 2008 Enterprise 64bit + ATi HD6870 + vid driver from CD. I have already downloaded all necessary components i.e. Service Packs, Net Framework 2.0, 3.5, Windows Installer 3.1, & 4.5. I don't recall what other stuff I may need... anything else to add?


If this doesn't work and if you guys are out of ideas then I'm gonna try Windows 2000, the king of the operating system! Uhh.. I think I heard somewhere that nVidia and ATi stopped supporting that with newer drivers so I wonder if I'm gonna run into problems again. Or if nothing else I'm gonna have to try Windows XP Pro!


.

 

[lxskllr]

Server O/Ss are "gay" if you aren't using them as a server. What you're doing is unsupported, so you're on your own.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't use Windows 7, Vista, XP (not as bad, but still not good enough), or any of that crap. Those are gay operating systems, sorry.

Which is why I use Server OSes.

Instead of asking why I want to use servers can you stay on topic and try to resolve the problem I'm facing please?

Except that they're practically the same OS, the only difference is licensing. If you think paying for a server license makes the system non-gay, then you're more confused than you first seemed. You created the problems you're facing all on your own. If you would just run the appropriate operating system you'd be fine.

If this doesn't work and if you guys are out of ideas then I'm gonna try Windows 2000, the king of the operating system! Uhh.. I think I heard somewhere that nVidia and ATi stopped supporting that with newer drivers so I wonder if I'm gonna run into problems again. Or if nothing else I'm gonna have to try Windows XP Pro!
.

Yea, you're very confused. WIn2K has been out of support for a while now and XP is about to be completely abandoned. Neither of them should even be a consideration these days.

 

[cheez]

Except that they're practically the same OS, the only difference is licensing.

No they are not. The operating instruction sets in the OSes are different between the servers and non-servers. Nope, not only the servers have less number of services running but also the memory management is better on the server. It's more stable too. And ultimately, it's faster. I have been using servers for many many years and as well as XP's and Vista. For benchmarks, gaming, file server, the server OSes are better. it's stupid to claim that non-server is equal to server OS. You need to be embarrassed considering you have all those post counts in this forum. I have been in computing world since 1997. Anyways, stop with this B.S going off topic. If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic in hand please don't reply... I need people that actually are experienced in servers and that have done such configuration with success. Thanks.



.

 

[Nothinman]

No they are not. The operating instruction sets in the OSes are different between the servers and non-servers. Nope, not only the servers have less number of services but also the memory management is better on the server. It's more stable too. And ultimately, it's faster. I have been using servers for many many years and as well as XP's and Vista. For benchmarks, gaming, file server, the server OSes are better. it's stupid to claim that non-server is equal to server OS. You need to be embarrassed consider you have all those post counts. I have been in computing world since 1997. Andyways, stop witht his B.S going off topic. If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic in hand please don't reply... I need people that actually are experienced in servers and that have done such configuration. Thanks.

The differences between them are so minor that I can't believe you can actually perceive a difference. I guess placebos come in all forms. The contribution is that you're doing it wrong, it's that simple. Continue to try and push that water up hill if you must, it's your time and money to waste.

 

[RebateMonger]

You need to be embarrassed considering you have all those post counts in this forum.

Good job of insulting people on your second thread here.

And insulting somebody who is responding to your request for free help, whether you like the response or not, is in particularly bad taste. If you don't like a response, consider just ignoring it.

 

[Maximilian]

I smell a troll

 

[Steltek]

I smell a troll

He's posted this same question in at least one other forum that I know of, so I suspect he's quite serious on top of being a jackass. His big mistake was not posting his query in a forum with others who share his mental...excuse me, mindset. They are out there, obviously - I vaguely recall there is a website where you can even download a tool to partially automate configuration of Server 2008 and Server 2008R2 into a desktop OS in just a short time. I personally know one guy that does it, but for a valid reason: to have Win7 features while also being able to run Hyper-V on his laptop for demonstrations.

In terms of using Server 2003 as a desktop OS, I could understand that -- several years ago, anyway. Server 2003 was built upon what was actually at the time an updated OS kernel (one that was also used to create WinXP-64 and probably also would have been used to create WinXP Second Edition had Microsoft had the guts to finally admit to itself what a dog Vista development was turning out to be and that it wasn't going to be released like any time soon).

However, Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 are totally different animals. They are based off the exact same OS kernels as Vista and Win7, respectively (just like in the 90's when it was discovered Windows NT Workstation and NT Server were the same product less two registry keys, a web server, a license change, and a price tag hundreds more for Server). The only real difference is the software and configuration. In short, like Nothinman essentially said, reconfiguring Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 pretty much gets you, wow, Vista and Win7 respectively.

Big waste of time, as far as I am concerned. But, hey, the value of time is obviously relative to folks -- I also think my touched-in-the-head friends who spend hour upon hour obsessing over tweaking an extra 1/2 frame per second out of a computer just so they can brag about it are a few fries short of a happy meal, too. To each his own....

Besides, I suspect his problem is that he has either disabled something he shouldn't have in his quest for the absolute-ultimate-never-to-be-equaled-end-all-benchmark tweak or that ATI has removed driver support for server OSes (the second would make more sense - present drivers not working in either Server 2003 or 2008, and AMD ain't exactly rolling in cash now. Why would ATI waste time/money including support for functionality in an OS when such functionality isn't supported by Microsoft?). His obvious test would be to try an Nvidia card and see if it works.

 

[HAL9000]

This is a bizzare idea, I'm a network admin, and I use Windows server all the time, and I can conclusively say that using a server OS on a desktop is a waste of time, and effort, and it will probably run worse without support for things like graphics hardware acceleration for certain cards, I can't see a single benefit, like it was mentioned above the benefits of things like memory allocation etc. are so minute the chance of it being noticeable is virtually nill. Even benchmarking wont show a notable improvement. So give up on using an inappropriate OS for your set up, install a desktop OS on your desktop and stop thinking that for some reason a desktop OS is more "homosexual" than the server OS's your'e used to. It's a waste of time and effort to get a Server OS to run like a desktop OS when Microsoft employ far more intelligent people to do it for you, resulting in Windows 7 etc.

 

[RebateMonger]

In terms of using Server 2003 as a desktop OS, I could understand that -- several years ago, anyway. Server 2003 was built upon what was actually at the time an updated OS kernel (one that was also used to create WinXP-64 and probably also would have been used to create WinXP Second Edition had Microsoft had the guts to finally admit to itself what a dog Vista development was turning out to be and that it wasn't going to be released like any time soon).

Certainly possible. But the main reason that people wanted to run Server 2003 for gaming was because Microsoft used to give away VAST numbers of Server 2003 Not-For-Resale packages while giving away very few free copies of XP. Over a couple of years of attending numerous MS seminars, I was given a dozen copies of Server 2003 and only ONE copy of XP.

 

[cheez]

I vaguely recall there is a website where you can even download a tool to partially automate configuration of Server 2008 and Server 2008R2 into a desktop OS in just a short time. I personally know one guy that does it, but for a valid reason: to have Win7 features while also being able to run Hyper-V on his laptop for demonstrations.

That's pointless. Why take an server OS and turn it into Windows 7? That'll slow down the server performance. If you are one of those that like extra features and want pretty eye-candy just get the Windows 7! You don't fall under our class of people that are server geeks. Don't try to convince me to go Win7 route *because* you are using it. I am unique type of person and I find Win Vista and 7 very girly.. They are made for women. I'm a MAN, with passion.

Btw, what is your username at xtremesystems.org forum? Tell me, don't be shy.



Oh and guys (and girls), I got the Server 2008 Standard 32bit and Server 2003 Enterprise 64 bit OS to work. All drivers have been successfully installed as well as the Catalyst Control Center for video tweaks. Damn I'm good... nobody was able to help me with the problems so I fixed them all on my own. I haven't tried other Server OSes yet..... Still testing for other apps.


.

 

[Maximilian]

up down left right A+start together at the windows logo, thatll make it work for you

 

[Nothinman]

That's pointless. Why take an server OS and turn it into Windows 7? That'll slow down the server performance. If you are one of those that like extra features and want pretty eye-candy just get the Windows 7! You don't fall under our class of people that are server geeks. Don't try to convince me to go Win7 route *because* you are using it. I am unique type of person and I find Win Vista and 7 very girly.. They are made for women. I'm a MAN, with passion.

They are the f'ing same, if you want to make Win7 look more like Win2k8 R2 just set it to use the classic theme. The differences are pretty much all in your head so calling one gay or girlie also applies to the other.

 

[SimMike2]

Servers are meant to be extremely stable. Since one of the areas where computers become unstable is with new video hardware and drivers, Windows server probably doesn't even want to let that element of instability even enter the equation.

 

[cheez]

They are the f'ing same, if you want to make Win7 look more like Win2k8 R2 just set it to use the classic theme. The differences are pretty much all in your head so calling one gay or girlie also applies to the other.

They are NOT the f'ing same. Btw, watch your damn mouth... I'm probably older than you too, and smarter, and more experienced.

Even if you add on components to make the Server 2008 "look" like Vista it'll still run a little faster than the 7. Speed wise, they are not the same. You are not going to win me by keep saying "they are the f'ing same"... There is no way in hell you are going to make me convinced, I guarantee it.



Guys (and girls), I got the FINAL result. LISTEN UP, damn I'm good.

I have succeeded installing all drivers including video drivers and CCC and video applications EXCEPT for ArcSoft TotalMedia Theatre on the following Operating Systems:

- Windows Server 2003 Enterprise 64 Bit
- Windows Server 2008 Standard 32 Bit


Since I absolutely need TotalMedia Theatre to work I tried the following cute Operating System:

- Windows XP Pro w/ Service Pack 2

It was smooth as better and got EVERYTHING to work. This is for my family PC, not mine.... I have my own HTPC (with ATi Radeon X1950XTX) that has Server 2003 Enterprise (With NO SPERVICE PACK)that is *fine-tuned* and **perfectly** configured for viewing Blu-ray, uncompressed HD files, SD files, etc. And a small percentage of gaming. That system is about 4.5 years old and it's fast as f***. A while back one of my modules in dual channel had failed so I've been running half the ram, 512MB that is, and it feels faster than some today's average joe computer that has 2 or 4GB of RAM. Not only do I *feel* faster but also shown proof in the benchmarks. Of course not only because of my God-like "stripped-down" "tweaked" Server operating systems but also triple raid0 10k rpm hard drive system is making the serious boost, also my page files reside in separate drives for optimal performance. My system is extremely complicated, not the way some average joe or some end users do... I laugh my ass off giggling and sh#t caue my system is flying with only 512MB of RAM... One day I asked one of my guests at home try running my PC and asked him "how much RAM do you think I have in my system?" He said 4 GB of ram, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA


Damn I'm good. I'm smart.

Anyways, the problem was the incompatibility between the given Operating System and current Video drivers and software.. If you still have some old driver saved up you can get it to work on Server operating systems.

The verdict???

Windows Server 2003 is the KING of the Operating System.
Windows XP Pro is the QUEEN of the Operating System.
Windows 2000 unknown.... yet, cause I haven't spent time working on it with my HTPC setup.

The following are the gay Operating Systems:

- Windows Vista
- Windows 7


Case closed cute kids.

 

[cheez]

Servers are meant to be extremely stable. Since one of the areas where computers become unstable is with new video hardware and drivers, Windows server probably doesn't even want to let that element of instability even enter the equation.

Good post. Yes, the server OSes are VERY stable..... no matter how hard I beat it to death (in terms of work load and multi-tasks) it never crashed on me nor lock up... I gave WinXP "Queen" of the operating system because of performance and compatiblity. That is thing really matured... and 2D video quality is deal equal to my "perfectly-setup" Server 2003. Vista and 7 gave me a "degrade" in PQ. And it runs slower... responds slowly and too much sh#t wasting memory resource.


.

 

[lxskllr]

Congratulations. I don't think I've met a bigger dickhead anywhere, either online or in person. That's a special achievement when counting the OT and P&N boards here :^S

 

[Nothinman]

There is no way in hell you are going to make me convinced, I guarantee it.

Apparently age hasn't brought you wisdom or humility, your loss.

 

[HAL9000]

They are NOT the f'ing same. Btw, watch your damn mouth... I'm probably older than you too, and smarter, and more experienced.

Even if you add on components to make the Server 2008 "look" like Vista it'll still run a little faster than the 7. Speed wise, they are not the same. You are not going to win me by keep saying "they are the f'ing same"... There is no way in hell you are going to make me convinced, I guarantee it.



Guys (and girls), I got the FINAL result. LISTEN UP, damn I'm good.

I have succeeded installing all drivers including video drivers and CCC and video applications EXCEPT for ArcSoft TotalMedia Theatre on the following Operating Systems:

- Windows Server 2003 Enterprise 64 Bit
- Windows Server 2008 Standard 32 Bit


Since I absolutely need TotalMedia Theatre to work I tried the following cute Operating System:

- Windows XP Pro w/ Service Pack 2

It was smooth as better and got EVERYTHING to work. This is for my family PC, not mine.... I have my own HTPC (with ATi Radeon X1950XTX) that has Server 2003 Enterprise (With NO SPERVICE PACK)that is *fine-tuned* and **perfectly** configured for viewing Blu-ray, uncompressed HD files, SD files, etc. And a small percentage of gaming. That system is about 4.5 years old and it's fast as f***. A while back one of my modules in dual channel had failed so I've been running half the ram, 512MB that is, and it feels faster than some today's average joe computer that has 2 or 4GB of RAM. Not only do I *feel* faster but also shown proof in the benchmarks. Of course not only because of my God-like "stripped-down" "tweaked" Server operating systems but also triple raid0 10k rpm hard drive system is making the serious boost, also my page files reside in separate drives for optimal performance. My system is extremely complicated, not the way some average joe or some end users do... I laugh my ass off giggling and sh#t caue my system is flying with only 512MB of RAM... One day I asked one of my guests at home try running my PC and asked him "how much RAM do you think I have in my system?" He said 4 GB of ram, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA


Damn I'm good. I'm smart.

Anyways, the problem was the incompatibility between the given Operating System and current Video drivers and software.. If you still have some old driver saved up you can get it to work on Server operating systems.

The verdict???

Windows Server 2003 is the KING of the Operating System.
Windows XP Pro is the QUEEN of the Operating System.
Windows 2000 unknown.... yet, cause I haven't spent time working on it with my HTPC setup.

The following are the gay Operating Systems:

- Windows Vista
- Windows 7


Case closed cute kids.

I love the "damn I'm smart" comments. If you were smart you wouldn't waste your time doing all this crap, when windows 7 is as fast as windows server OS's on desktops.

I've got a degree in Computer Networking, and I've been a system admin for a few years now I can say conclusively, that for what you are doing a server OS has no benefit.

Judging by the facts that you refer to pieces of software as "gay" I peg you at 16, maybe 17 at a push.

//End waste of time.

 

[JackMDS]

This thread lost its technical value many posts ago.

Closed to "save" Bandwidth.