IE7 on Server 2003

[sachleen]

Is there any way to install IE7 on Windows Server 2003? I downloaded it from Microsoft's site and it says that my OS isnt supported :(

Is there any way to get around this and install it?(or upgrade)

[Roger H. Veteran]

google it as i know bink.nu had a link or something to get it working. Why you'd want to do that is beyond be well unless you're using 2003 server as a workstation which is also beyond me.

[sachleen]

I just want to try it out again... and yes, I am using server as a workstation... dunno why, got bored one day.

[sachleen]

I found it....

http://blogbybob.com/archive/2005/09/20/2117.aspx

It was a bit odd at first, but after 4 tries, I got it :D

[Jojo81]

Soon they are meant to be releasing an x64 version of IE7. Why does that matter to you? XP x64 run on the Server 2003 core so there is a good chance they'll release it for that OS at the same time.

[vcv]

google it as i know bink.nu had a link or something to get it working. Why you'd want to do that is beyond be well unless you're using 2003 server as a workstation which is also beyond me.

I'll give you some reasons:

1) Comes with everything disabled and locked down, unlike XP. So you just enable what you need, and have a nice quick and slim OS from the start

2) More responsive, partly as a result of #1. It just feels slightly more snappy.

3) Better security

4) Built in web server if you're a web developer and want to make sites locally, without havig to install anything.

What I don't get is why people care what other people run. I don't get the whole "It's a server OS, you're an idiot for using it as a workstation" thing. And yes, I've seen people say that. It works as a workstation OS once you enable a few things, and works very well. Better than XP out of the box I'd say.

[Joel]

Moved here

[garethevans1986]

I'll give you some reasons:

1) Comes with everything disabled and locked down, unlike XP. So you just enable what you need, and have a nice quick and slim OS from the start

2) More responsive, partly as a result of #1. It just feels slightly more snappy.

3) Better security

4) Built in web server if you're a web developer and want to make sites locally, without havig to install anything.

What I don't get is why people care what other people run. I don't get the whole "It's a server OS, you're an idiot for using it as a workstation" thing. And yes, I've seen people say that. It works as a workstation OS once you enable a few things, and works very well. Better than XP out of the box I'd say.

From that point of view, that is a damn good reason but its people who want to plays games and crap on it that I dont understand.

ChocIST

[Windows X]

And you will never understand it since you never try it.

[andy2004]

hey take this discussion to that other thread will ya :p

[John Veteran]

I'll give you some reasons:

1) Comes with everything disabled and locked down, unlike XP. So you just enable what you need, and have a nice quick and slim OS from the start

2) More responsive, partly as a result of #1. It just feels slightly more snappy.

3) Better security

4) Built in web server if you're a web developer and want to make sites locally, without havig to install anything.

1. What exactly is disabled and locked down when compared to XP?

2. It's not more responsive. Benchmarks with < 1% differences don't constitute being "more responsive" in my book.

3. It's the same security as XP by default. Check it yourself.

4. XP has a web server for developers/power users too. On both XP Pro and Server 2003, IIS must be installed before you can host websites.

[MazX_Napalm]

You forgot point 5

5) XP doesn't compensate for that "big man, little ......" syndrome

[Jeremy1]

5) XP doesn't compensate for that "big man, little ......" syndrome

Neither does Server 2003. If you tell a girl that you run Server 2003 instead of XP, you're actually reducing your chances of getting laid. It's a scientific fact, studies have been done.

[garethevans1986]

lol

ChocIST

[omfg]

My apologies for bringing this thread back on topic, all...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/default.mspx

MS have a native version of Beta2 which works on Server 2003 SP1.

As far as the XP vs. Server 2003 argument goes - I believe that the core OS is built off the same codebase, but using Server2003 Build 3790 will give you a newer build of the kernel.

3790 was used as the basis for Vista, not the XP codebase... hence many of the delays.

[Victor V.]

My apologies for bringing this thread back on topic, all...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/default.mspx

MS have a native version of Beta2 which works on Server 2003 SP1.

As far as the XP vs. Server 2003 argument goes - I believe that the core OS is built off the same codebase, but using Server2003 Build 3790 will give you a newer build of the kernel.

3790 was used as the basis for Vista, not the XP codebase... hence many of the delays.

When they started the thread there was no IE7 for 2003. I think now this should be closed.