• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows 2003 Server Bluetooth Support

Recommended Posts

Toby87    0

Hi,

Does someone know if it is possible to integrate the Windows XP Sp2 Bluetooth support into Windows 2003 Server?

As far as I got, I already managed to install the bluetooth support by pointing to the C:\Windows\ServicePackFiles folder of my windows xp sp2 installatio when windows 2003 asks for drivers when you plug in the bluetooth dogle.

Windows 2003 will then have to install several other drivers. You will have to point to the C:\Windows\ServicePackFiles folder over and over agian. But this was not all, after that you will have to install the Serial Bluetooth connection manually by using hardware inside the system control. You will have to select All Devices and then point after clicking on the Floppy Tab to the C:\Windows\ServicePackFiles folder again. After that select under manufacter Microsoft->Serial Bluetooth Connection and install it.

But in order to get the Bluetooth simbol you will have to set the Bluetooth support to get started automaticly, inside the Adminstrator Tools select the Bluetooth support service and select under properties that it should get started automaticly. But you will also have to set it to get started as local system account.

As far as I got it worked fine, BUT it is not possible to configure it under the Network Connections. It has to be configured inside the registry.

Does someone know how to get it visible under the Network Connections?

Toby

post-106036-1125836861_thumb.jpg

Edited by Toby87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StevenNT    11

As far as i know, Bluetooth is not supported in Windows Server 2003.

Servers dont need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jumungo4    0

Cant you use your driver cd??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toby87    0

Hi,

Regarding these two replies:

As far as i know, Bluetooth is not supported in Windows Server 2003.

585787646[/snapback]

-> That?s why I want to integrate it into Windows 2003 Server. And it even works, execpt the GUI, but if you know how to use regedit. You will do well.

Cant you use your driver cd??

585787649[/snapback]

-> If the driver cd would support Windows 2003 Server, I would?nt even think about installing a part of another OS to Windows 2003 Server, also if they are quite similiar.

Because: NEVER CHANGE A RUNNING SYSTEM!!

Toby :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wejgomi    0

Sorry to revive this topic,

But I 've been trying to get my MSI Bluetooth dongle work on a Windows 2k3 machine for months and recently seen this topic.

When I try to install XP SP2 bluetooth drivers as you mentioned here, I get a "Make sure it is designed to work with Win-32bit systems" error.

I don't have an installed XP SP2 OS but I have extract 'ed and expand 'ed the SP2 files from the MS pack downloaded. I tried everything, copying the inf and sys files to windows\system32 and windows\inf folders and even clicked to install the inf files seperately, but no luck, they don't install..

What should I do ??

Thanks.. wejgomi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
champagne_supernova    0

That would be an interesting tutorial, if one could port the win xp sp2 bluetooth into win 2003. Now I'm using the WIDCOMM driver in win 2003 and it works fine, but I still miss the win xp sp2 driver since for me it has a better third-party software support :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billy.gaitz    0

Sorry guys, but Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition has full IrDA and Bluetooth support!

Enterprise and Datacenter don't have this service, since it is a security risk.

I downgraded from Datacenter to Standard just for this!

I'm using Bluesoleil BT-Stack 1.6 on Server 2003 Standard Edition (V2006) with a running BT-Network.

bests

BG

PS: using cracked Enterprise-edition may be illegal and causes problems....... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
champagne_supernova    0

I believe what is said here is how to port XP SP2 bluetooth into Win2003 :)

FYI, even the Enterprise edition has a full bluetooth support, but (unfortunately) not for the IrDA.

However, there is always a workaround... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toby87    0

Hi!

When I try to install XP SP2 bluetooth drivers as you mentioned here, I get a "Make sure it is designed to work with Win-32bit systems" error.

586406054[/snapback]

->I quiet sure that you accidently downloaded the wrong SP (64bit) or you try to install a 32bit SP on a 64bit 2003 Server OS. If you got the 64bit version of windows server 2003, I can?t help you because the SP2 for the Windows XP 64bit version is not out yet, if it will ever be. Because Microsoft is already working on the next Windows (Vista).

Sorry guys, but Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition has full IrDA and Bluetooth support!

Enterprise and Datacenter don't have this service, since it is a security risk.

586438877[/snapback]

-> Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition might has got full IrDA and Bluetooth support, but the Enterprise and Datacenter hasn?t and thats why I?m trying to solve, If you port these features from Windows XP, you won?t need to care about the support. And it is full supported, expect that you need to change the name of your connection inside the registry.(See the pictures as the Attachments)

FYI, even the Enterprise edition has a full bluetooth support, but (unfortunately) not for the IrDA.

586451644[/snapback]

->I think it?s the other way around: WS2003 ?nterprise Edition hasn?t got Bluetooth support even with installed SP1. And instead support for IrDA, but I don?t know much about this feature. But it must also be so easy to port IrDA as Bluetooth is.

If it is correct that the Standard Edition has full Bluetooth it must be even easier to port the Bluetooth support!!

Toby

post-106036-1125835181_thumb.jpg

post-106036-1125835217.jpg

Edited by Toby87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
champagne_supernova    0
->I think it?s the other way around: WS2003 ?nterprise Edition hasn?t got Bluetooth support even with installed SP1. And instead support for IrDA, but I don?t know much about this feature. But it must also be so easy to port IrDA as Bluetooth is.

586477585[/snapback]

See Windows help for an exact information. Win2K3 Enterprise edition does have a full support of bluetooth networking, but not with infrared networking.

cheers,

C.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueFang    0

Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition~~

哈哈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattimeo    0

Good lord...Bluetooth support in Server 2003 would be such an security issue...wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MazX_Napalm    0

Yeh, we all know that. Read between the lines and its one of those "Server as a workstation" posts. I actually can only think of one legitimate use. You have your server in a rack, but your kvm on a shelf or table near the rack. The monitor (v) is fed by a long cable, mouse (m) and keyboard (k) are fed by BT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pilsbury    0
PS: using cracked Enterprise-edition may be illegal and  causes problems....... :yes:

586438877[/snapback]

And your DataCenter version was 100% legal, based on the fact that you were able to go to standard on the same hardware, you either got a sales person who milked you for something you didn't need, or, it wasn't legal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman    761

More importantly, lets get Microsoft to support their own damn bluetooth systems in Windows XP x64, which is Win2k3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toby87    0

Hi!

I am sorry, but I?ve got to correct myself:

The Registry Key for the name of the bluetooth device is not in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001, as described and shown in my attachmed, instead it?s HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlControlSet. (The other is just a hardware profile)

Toby

PS:

If people don?t like my idea or solution, because it could cause a security issue, they can of course argue about the possibilities. BUT what I can?t stand is the fact that some people just say WS2k3 is not a Desktop OS and therefore we don?t even have to respect the opinion of the some people who have got the OS and try to get their Hardware working.

And that all these people got cracked and copied versions of WS2k3, is just wrong, there are also people who have got the money, to pay some more for getting a saver and securer version of windows instead of the windows xp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COERCITAS    0

Not to mention there are so many advantages with 2003 that still considering XP as a valid OS, even for playing is plain stupid (ok, there are some retarded companies that still prevent some games to install on 2003 just because...well, there is no real reason, they just check the OS).

For the most part, XP and 2003 are the same OS, some DLLs and stuff are just "more robust and/or secure" but it is almost the exact same thing.

Now, consider it as an OS for work and XP is far behind 2003.

Of course, price isn't the same...but since almost nobody really paid all the licences they use (don't even try to argue anything else, I'm sure I can find some Divx or MP3 on your system, which is way more sad than not paying for an OS, especially when you realise that this OS came from a company that owns almost everything).

Now, bluetooth isn't that unsecure...if yours is, don't blame on BT, just check your setting and enhance your skills before you post such a thing.

BT on 2003 isn't stupid at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
Not to mention there are so many advantages with 2003 that still considering XP as a valid OS, even for playing is plain stupid (ok, there are some retarded companies that still prevent some games to install on 2003 just because...well, there is no real reason, they just check the OS).

For the most part, XP and 2003 are the same OS, some DLLs and stuff are just "more robust and/or secure" but it is almost the exact same thing.

Now, consider it as an OS for work and XP is far behind 2003.

Of course, price isn't the same...but since almost nobody really paid all the licences they use (don't even try to argue anything else, I'm sure I can find some Divx or MP3 on your system, which is way more sad than not paying for an OS, especially when you realise that this OS came from a company that owns almost everything).

Now, bluetooth isn't that unsecure...if yours is, don't blame on BT, just check your setting and enhance your skills before you post such a thing.

BT on 2003 isn't stupid at all.

586767077[/snapback]

Ever heard of bluesnarfing?

Your post is absolutely ridiculous. This is pure opinion. Show me some hard evidence that 2003 is "better" than Xp. Oh and BTW, I paid for Windows Xp Pro. Don't assume everybody is in the warez monkey category, n00b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COERCITAS    0
Ever heard of bluesnarfing?

Your post is absolutely ridiculous.  This is pure opinion.  Show me some hard evidence that 2003 is "better" than Xp.  Oh and BTW, I paid for Windows Xp Pro.  Don't assume everybody is in the warez monkey category, n00b.

586767083[/snapback]

My post is ridiculous if you want, I clearly don't care about that kind of thought. Yours is perfect, hands down. FYI, it is much more than "pure opinion", it is just "pure experience", I won't assume you have no clue about that, I just think that if you don't see the point, you just never tried.

Some evidence ? Without doing anything, just try to leave your XP box up for more than 3 weeks without any reboot, you'll enjoy the test. Memory by itself it just enought : 4 Go max for XP, my boxes (I have 15) have 8 Go average (2 to 16 Go). Not to mention 2003 is much better when dealing with memory (it swaps way less).

I won't describe everything, I think there are so many informations on the web that your argue is simply laughable.

For the "licence" point, I'm proud to reply to the only person I once heard of that have absolutely NO UNPAID STUFF on his box. You're the man.

Don't waste your time with a superb reply, you said it yourself : my posts are ridiculous :) (well, 100% of my posts are on this forum btw, aren't they ?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COERCITAS    0

More seriously : I succesfully installed bluetooth on 2003 x64 (enterprise) with XP x64 drivers.

Box is a Ferrari 4005 (hardware easily checkable), method is kinda difficult (so I don't have any "how-to" yet) but the steps are :

- Install XP x64 and 2003 x64 on the box (yeah I know, not really a good thing but it has a single purpose : identifying required files).

- when booting XP, check for drivers files used by your hardware (you'll need some other files)

- boot 2003, try to "upgrade" drivers for unmanaged devices with files identified previously. If a special file is missing, just copy it from your XP directory (don't just use since you'll need it for a clean install later). Some .cpl files will be needed for example.

After some efforts, you'll be able to identify all required files and thus, copy them somewhere. All you have to do then is installing a fresh 2003 and install devices with those files. You can even use some nlite like tool to build your own CD with drivers.

Another way is to use CABs from one version to another but can lead in some headhaches...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
My post is ridiculous if you want, I clearly don't care about that kind of thought. Yours is perfect, hands down. FYI, it is much more than "pure opinion", it is just "pure experience", I won't assume you have no clue about that, I just think that if you don't see the point, you just never tried.

Some evidence ? Without doing anything, just try to leave your XP box up for more than 3 weeks without any reboot, you'll enjoy the test. Memory by itself it just enought : 4 Go max for XP, my boxes (I have 15) have 8 Go average (2 to 16 Go). Not to mention 2003 is much better when dealing with memory (it swaps way less).

I won't describe everything, I think there are so many informations on the web that your argue is simply laughable.

For the "licence" point, I'm proud to reply to the only person I once heard of that have absolutely NO UNPAID STUFF on his box. You're the man.

Don't waste your time with a superb reply, you said it yourself : my posts are ridiculous :) (well, 100% of my posts are on this forum btw, aren't they ?).

586767298[/snapback]

...and amongst all this broken English I still cannot find one valid point. When you say, "4 Go max for XP..." is that supposed to mean 4 Gigabytes max? In any case, that is not a limitation of the OS, it is a limitation of the x86 instruction set.

"2003 is much better when dealing with memory (it swaps way less)." Got a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COERCITAS    0

You're bothering me Raskren, you know ? I told you I won't debate any longer, I'm not your teacher or dunno what, if you don't know how nor why 2003 is better than XP for ALMOST anything, why do we only reply each other ?

Oh, and for my poor english you mentionned, I am sorry. I'm not american nor english nor anything related, I'm just french. Since your insulting me on that point, we can keep on in french if you dare. Unless you don't speak french at all, in that case, you should MAYBE show more respect. I'm not insulting you if I remember well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
You're bothering me Raskren, you know ? I told you I won't debate any longer, I'm not your teacher or dunno what, if you don't know how nor why 2003 is better than XP for ALMOST anything, why do we only reply each other ?

Oh, and for my poor english you mentionned, I am sorry. I'm not american nor english nor anything related, I'm just french. Since your insulting me on that point, we can keep on in french if you dare. Unless you don't speak french at all, in that case, you should MAYBE show more respect. I'm not insulting you if I remember well.

586767415[/snapback]

Oh gosh, I had better stop then because I wouldn't want to offend the great French COERCITAS. I shouldn't be questioning anything you say because with a whopping 3 posts you have already established yourself as a reputable source of information.

Your original argument is of no value. You cannot back it up and apparently are too lazy to do so. Therefore, my respect for you and your opinions is nil. The fact that I am merely questioning your opinions and it somehow bothers you is also an issue.

If you want me to shutup, prove yourself! That's all I ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COERCITAS    0

Well, beside the fact your only inputs here (I mean this post, reputation only insterests you, therefore I didn't even tried to search the single other wisdom pearl you seem capable of) are only "I disagree" (without any argue as well but since you have many posts, I assume you already proved your skills, don't you ?) and of course, occulting the other fact that I have way more fun stuff to do (like cooking, do the dishes, housework, etc...) than replying you, I will try to bring some light in your poor comprehension of the world.

I already dealt with memory (without any number, test lab or dunno what you are waiting for but hey, you surely know how to use google, don't you ?)

Terminal Server by itself is enought (my own point of view man) : with XP you only have a single session, with 2003, you have 3 (console and 2 others). Enought said for this point, isn't it ? Oh, why is it something useful ? Just being able to log 2 different users and seing what happens when you test something (don't ask for examples please, I know you have your own things to try from time to time).

Ok, TS isn't a big issue...let's talk about IIS (yeah, you still can use apache) : did you ever tried IIS ? You REALLY don't see any difference between 2003 and XP ?

Ok, I can enumerate every SERVER stuff (there so many it isn't even funny) XP won't in your hottest dreams realise but it is the core system that allows this, ot really something 2003 do better than XP. Let's talk about stuff they both can do (still many stuff since everything XP can do, 2003 can as well).

Let's talk about games. Name me a single good game (I mean a game that wasn't coded with feet) that doesn't work on 2003 and you'll win the point...good luck. Now, do the games work better in 2003 thant in XP ? No, for the most part of them...but there are still games that require much more resources than XP can handle (memory stuff, remember ?). Need an example ? Just try a game like EVERQUEST 2, requiring HUGE amount of memory and thus (since XP can't handle more than 4 Go - YES MAN, "Go" stands for "Giga Octet") need the system to swap like hell while playing...still not a big issue ? Ok, you're right.

TCP/IP is another example. Do you really think both systems have the exact same capabilities just dealing with a single tiny (but still important) network protocol ? Check Microsoft's website just to see how many registry entries are available on 2003 when compared to XP. TCP/IP isn't a "rare example", everything can be tuned wau more precisely in 2003 but who cares, your questions are simple (very surprising btw) : can I prove myself ? (no kidding, with your inputs, you ask somebody to "prove himself" ?).

So, beside the evident fact 2003 is way more secured than XP (I have the weakness to assume you don't deny that point), the fact that 2003 can handle much more critical stuff (it is designed for, XP isn't) and of course, the obvious fact that 2003 is way way way way more stable (not important since you surely boot your system 3 times a day), 2003 with the very things I pointed out is clearly a better "every day use" OS. Once again, if you need test labs, just check the web (you said I'm lazy but in 10 seconds I found many sites dealing with those differences).

Me being still very lazy, I had no problem tooking time to set 2003 just to fit my needs. You being super clever don't seem to only try to compare by yourself. You surely an admin thinking that 2003 is here to share its drives ?

Native support for personnal stuff isn't present in 2003 but the core kernell is almost the exact same, therefore you can install it and make it work...you still don't see the light ? This OS is more robust, more secured, more stable and still as fast (and even in many circumstances, faster) and you still need CLUES just to allow me to say that if you can install any of them, you'd better chose the best one ? Who do you think you are kid ?

The single language thing is enought said, if you ask me. Pointing this out when you are totally unable to make the tiniest sentence in another language than yours is the attitude of someone who "listens his own words".

Oh, and btw, I'm "great"...in a particular sence (7 feet tall, don't cry, Mum can soothe you).

I won't check for your replies, I think I already disgrace myself enought just by replying you. You obviously have no clue about so many things I just don't know what to explain first just to discuss with you. You can keep your respect for me and / or my opinions, I simply just don't care, I even wonder if YOU care.

PS : sorry for those who will read this post, I'm not someone who flee conflicts usually...I even am able to agree Raskren and support him if needed (...) but I clearly don't like people when they use feeble argues to grief others.

Edited by COERCITAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.