Getting WMP10 working under Server 2003

[oddballz19]

Psh... Go back to *nix then. I'm done.

To be honest, I do use *nix for servers. I use Windows Server 2003 as a workstation. It works fine for Solitaire and Bejewelled. I just wouldn't use it for anything mission-critical.

BTW, I even sometimes use Server 2003 as a file server. It's just that it's mostly a workstation, just like XP is. That's what you get when you try to clone a workstation OS (Windows 3.x, then 95) and *nix, blend them together, and try to make both a server and a workstation. You get a workstation with some reasonable server abilities. You're really better off considering Windows a workstation, and coincidentally, use it as a server just to save yourself one more machine being needed.

That's why WiMP is needed on a Server OS. It saves the cost of an extra machine jsut to play your mp3's...

[Joel]

Whoever said TweakNT really changes the OS, try it. When I did it, the only thing that changed was the reg entry that said which OS it was and the boot screen changed. No functionality was added at all, so I was not able to setup my DNS server. Damn them, making different versions of Windows. :rolleyes:

[Jason]

Hey Jason and Gameguy, we know you're both 1337, can you shut the f*** up now and let people debate about the topic?! I mean OMFG, you keep whining and whining about same crap OVER AND OVER again, just like listening to a spoiled 5yo. We know Jason, you run servers in some company, WHOA, really awesome dude, I bet you get a lot of babes by telling that to EVERY DAMN SOUL THERE IS! Gameguy, I dunno who made you MOD, but you are an idiot! You and Jason turn every question about Server 2003 into flames. Ever heard of "live and let live" and "get a f*ckin' life"??? Try listening and following these wise sentances and same goes for Jason. My God, I've never seen bigger retards on any forum anywhere, unbelievable!!!

Haha that is great, thanks for making me laugh.

[Joel]

Hey, that's right. I forgot to tell all the women I saw today that I work with servers!!!!! I had better get busy.

"Hey baby, wanna see some SCSI? You know, I have a key to the server room. ;)"

[cal2002]

That must get you a lot of mileage with the ladies, no? :rofl:

[darkmark327]

Why would you want to install WMP10? It sucks.

[cal2002]

We need a Windows Server FAQ made by jason, gameguy, and Joel (About how its stupid to use it as a workstation or try to install stupid un-needed programs on it) Pin it, then close this, it has nothing to do with WMP 10 anymore.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Great I wil add this to our 2003 Server Domain Controllers tommorow :rolleyes:

Member of the "Windows 2003 isn't a workstation" Alliance

Bullsh**

Windows XP 2003 Edition (for x64) is a Workstation OS. What's wrong with someone installing WMP10 on that?

Windows Longhorn's development began with the 3790 (aka NT 5.2) platform. There's nothing "special" about 3790 that makes it better or worse as a server or as a workstation. It's the same damn microkernel. The only difference near the kernel level (other than the version) between XP 2002 and 2003 is the inclusion of HALs that support different numbers of processors.

The only other changes are bug fixes or performance/security improvements that affect all systems.

Running Windows Server 2003 as a Workstation does make sense in some situations - especially if you're a developer targetting ASP .NET solutions like me. Do you have a problem with me listening to VNV Nation on my development box while I code?

Heck, why do you think Windows Server even comes with Media Player in the first place?

Another thing that bugs me is those of you who say "Anyone who runs Windows Server 2003 as a workstation didn't buy it." Meanwhile, you're probably running a pirated copy of XP or did run a Service Pack beta that you weren't authorized to use.

I run Windows Server completely legally, as it's part of my MSDN license from my job.

Should the average user run WS 2003? Of course not. XP Service Pack 2 is far and away the best choice for home users and most desktop/low-end workstation users. But for high-end workstations, developers, and even some enthusiasts, Windows Server 2003 is a perfectly acceptable option.

[cal2002]

Bullsh**

Windows XP 2003 Edition (for x64) is a Workstation OS.? What's wrong with someone installing WMP10 on that?

<snip>

Owned.

Features Not Supported in Windows XP 64-Bit Edition> (but the x64 is not version 2003)

Digital Media

The following digital media features are not included with Windows XP 64-Bit Edition:

Digital video disc (DVD) video playback

CD Recording

Kodak Imaging Accessory /u>

A subset of Windows Media? Technologies

DirectMusic?

Microsoft TV Technologies for Windows?

Video mixing renderer (VMR)

NetMeeting?

IEEE 1394 audiFeatures Not Supported in Windows XP 64-Bit Editiontion

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documen...ka_fea_tfiu.asp

Edited September 10, 2004 by cal2002

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Umm, Windows XP 2003 Edition x64 is build on Windows NT 5.2 build 3790 (SP1).

It includes Windows Media Player 9, and every other feature you listed there.

That must be the old Itanium version that you referenced.

[Jason]

I thing I never tell anyone unless they explicitly ask is what I do for a job, I mostly just say I work for local government, I don't say in what role though.

You should know this but its not really seen as anything good or special when you say you work with I.T.

[theh0g]

Haha that is great, thanks for making me laugh.

Exactly. Only retards laugh at their own stupidity, thanks for backing up my point. Yer such a wannabe :laugh:

[Joel]

Exactly. Only retards laugh at their own stupidity, thanks for backing up my point. Yer such a wannabe :laugh:

...says the member who puts a laugh emot after his statement. :rolleyes:

[Jason]

Exactly. Only retards laugh at their own stupidity, thanks for backing up my point. Yer such a wannabe  :laugh:

No stupidity by me, I am laughing at what you typed because its funny.

I can not see a vaid reason to put Windows Media Player 10 on a Server.

[dougkinzinger]

Nor can I. What cracks me up is this TehHog kid thinking he "owns" us by putting WMP10 on his "server". LOL. That alone is worth the thread. :laugh:

If you ask me, I think the problem's in the parents. :D

[Waxx]

Who the hell cares what someone does with their own hardware and software?? How about these guys MAME for Digita?? WOW.. but it a freakin Camera.. People are always tring to get stuff to work on things that they are not suppose to. What about these guys too?? Getting Media Center on the XBOX.. XBOX is a GAMING CONSOLE.. We all have our opinions on this and we have heard from the other side of the table.. Thanks.. So stop your bitchin and lets get back on topic..

Thanks for the welcome... And glad everything is working for those of you that have tried this out.

Has anyone figured out anything on the DRM part??

Waxx

[cal2002]

Why the hell would you need to strip the DRM parts out? That's stupid.

[semaja2.net]

i would like DRM but anyway im trying to make a msi which installs everything so no playing around

[linuxman111]

Hey, that's right. I forgot to tell all the women I saw today that I work with servers!!!!! I had better get busy.

"Hey baby, wanna see some SCSI? You know, I have a key to the server room. ;)"

Funniest thing I have heard all week. :woot:

[Mattimeo]

Please...whoever said that there are no differences between the kernels of the XP and Server OS's are just ignorant. There are some VERY important kernel level changes in 2003 that are not in XP and it has nothing to do with features. These people have no access to the source so they have no basis for their statement. All I can say about that.

[Joel]

Please...whoever said that there are no differences between the kernels of the XP and Server OS's are just ignorant. There are some VERY important kernel level changes in 2003 that are not in XP and it has nothing to do with features. These people have no access to the source so they have no basis for their statement. All I can say about that.

If you can't back it up, why say it?

[darkmark327]

If you can't back it up, why say it?

I find it funny how someone voting for Bush would accuse others of ignorance.

[jamend]

I've said this in most other threads that were twisted into a "Windows Server 2003 is not a workstation" argument, so I'll say it again. Windows Server 2003 does make a good workstation OS. Here's the reasoning behind this:

1) Web developers can use Visual Studio .Net and run a (proper) web server on the same computer. They won't need to connect to a remote server which usually slows things down quite a bit.

2) Windows Server 2003 has many features that are not present in XP Pro. For ~$100 more (Web Edition), you can get a good web server (yeah we all know about Apache, don't bring it up), a gateway/router (with proper DHCP/NAT/etc. functionality), and a terminal server (even without extra licensing it allows for 3 active sessions vs. 1 active session in XP Pro SP2).

3) Microsoft also thinks that Windows Server 2003 makes a great workstation. For the Visual Studio .Net "live trial", people are given a few days of access (over remote desktop) to a Windows Server 2003 Enteprise virtual server that has Visual Studio .Net installed and a demo web site running in IIS.

The only thing I found that Windows Server 2003 lacks when compared to XP Pro is that there is no fast user switching (obviously), but a quick solution to this is just remote desktoping to yourself =)

[[bear]]

I find it funny how someone voting for Bush would accuse others of ignorance.

that is not a valid reason - Don't make yourself look like a moron. Nobody asked for you to bring political viewpoints into an unrelated issue.

If he wants to install Wmp10 on server2003 let him. He also posted a guide for people who might like it.. Don't ridicule him for that. If you don't have anything relevant to say on the topic then go to another thread.

[Mattimeo]

If you can't back it up, why say it?

People do this all the time. Listen to the people in this thread that say that there are no or very little changes to kernel between XP and 2003. Do they have evidence to back up their claim? Not really. I could really care less whether someone wants to use WMP10 on Server 2003, but if something goes wrong with it and they start complaining, thats when they only have their self to blame. Now i'm not saying that someone here is complaining, but I have seen this elsewhere and it does get boring after awhile. So the point is, many people comment on things without bringing evidence to the conversation, and i'm no different. The only difference here is that I know there are the changes, but MS loves their NDAs. *shakes his head in misery*