If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Graphic card for Windows Server 2003
"Augustus" wrote in message
news:nIyzj.66096$w57.8103@edtnps90... Have you ever /developped/ SERVER software ? Have ever had to debug your software in a real situation, that is using the same OS as the customer will use it ? Have you ever considered working confortably on a server ? Yes. I have, and continue to do so actually. Every day. I work in the IT department where the primary server OS used Windows Server 2003 and SQL server. Not that you'll likely believe that anyway, however...if your're trying to emulate end user and client servers to debug your code by installing Windows Server 2003 ask yourself this question: How many clients / businesses have you ever seen in your life that run Windows Server 2003 on a non-dedicated server? And how many clients have you got that use non-m/b embedded video cards in their servers? And if client emulation is your goal, why are not running your OS on an actual server and server board? The board you mention has no RAID, no ECC memory, no Xeon support, etc. The embedded IGMA 950 graphics supports up to 2048x1536. I've lost count of the number of Windows Server 2000 and 2003 reisntalls I've done, and finding a proper graphics driver has never been an issue. Honestly, this is one of the stupidest and most short-sighted posts I have read. Why is it manufacturers of video cards think that there is some federal law that mandates end users to use the lowest common denominator software? EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER IN OUR COMPANY RUNS WINDOWS SERVER AS THEIR DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEM. They all INSIST on this because they WANT the ADDITIONAL CAPABILITY in the server version of the software. Examples of such capabilities are the ability to terminal service into another developer's computer WHILE THAT COMPUTER HAS A DIFFERENT USER ON ITS CONSOLE. You cannot do this with Windows XP or Windows 7. Instead of trying to browbeat people like the original poster, why not start listening to customers and what they are telling you? Some of us WANT a SERVER operating system on our DESKTOP COMPUTERs and YES WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT VERY VERY CAREFULLY AND MADE A GOOD DECISION. Didn't Sun Microsystems create a pretty big company by putting a server operating system - UNIX - onto the desktops of engineers and programmers? Why is it no one can think clearly about the reasons why people would want to do the same thing with Windows Server? Absolutely frustrating to read nonsense like the above post. My response is five years too late, but I'm facing the same problem now of upgrading video cards on workstations running server, and I'm seeing that nVidia in its infinite stupidity wants to dumb down all of its users to use the worst common denominator software possible. -- W |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Graphic card for Windows Server 2003
My favorite story about the idiocy of software manufacturers who
deliberately sabotage their software working on Windows Server, and force users to use Windows XP or Windows 7/8: I was trying to install an Adobe product on a user's personal workstation, which was running Windows Server. We had a requirement for that user that other people be able to login to her computer remotely via Terminal Services, so there wasn't really a better choice. In any case, the support staff at Adobe went through the same flawed thinking process as displayed by the user below feeding nonsense about how Windows Server was a "Server Operating System" and no end user should ever want to use it. Jump forward two weeks: I contacted a friend who works in engineering at Adobe. I complained to him about this. He started laughing. What's funny, I asked? "All of our developers of that product run Windows Server as the operating system on their development machines." So the developers in the company were all using Windows Server, because they wanted the FEATURES in the server product on their personal desktop, but the geniuses who run the marketing department made the decision that no one else should ever use a Server OS. Brilliant!!! nVidia's marketing department is apparently filled to the brim with such geniuses. -- W "W" wrote in message ... "Augustus" wrote in message news:nIyzj.66096$w57.8103@edtnps90... Have you ever /developped/ SERVER software ? Have ever had to debug your software in a real situation, that is using the same OS as the customer will use it ? Have you ever considered working confortably on a server ? Yes. I have, and continue to do so actually. Every day. I work in the IT department where the primary server OS used Windows Server 2003 and SQL server. Not that you'll likely believe that anyway, however...if your're trying to emulate end user and client servers to debug your code by installing Windows Server 2003 ask yourself this question: How many clients / businesses have you ever seen in your life that run Windows Server 2003 on a non-dedicated server? And how many clients have you got that use non-m/b embedded video cards in their servers? And if client emulation is your goal, why are not running your OS on an actual server and server board? The board you mention has no RAID, no ECC memory, no Xeon support, etc. The embedded IGMA 950 graphics supports up to 2048x1536. I've lost count of the number of Windows Server 2000 and 2003 reisntalls I've done, and finding a proper graphics driver has never been an issue. Honestly, this is one of the stupidest and most short-sighted posts I have read. Why is it manufacturers of video cards think that there is some federal law that mandates end users to use the lowest common denominator software? EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER IN OUR COMPANY RUNS WINDOWS SERVER AS THEIR DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEM. They all INSIST on this because they WANT the ADDITIONAL CAPABILITY in the server version of the software. Examples of such capabilities are the ability to terminal service into another developer's computer WHILE THAT COMPUTER HAS A DIFFERENT USER ON ITS CONSOLE. You cannot do this with Windows XP or Windows 7. Instead of trying to browbeat people like the original poster, why not start listening to customers and what they are telling you? Some of us WANT a SERVER operating system on our DESKTOP COMPUTERs and YES WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT VERY VERY CAREFULLY AND MADE A GOOD DECISION. Didn't Sun Microsystems create a pretty big company by putting a server operating system - UNIX - onto the desktops of engineers and programmers? Why is it no one can think clearly about the reasons why people would want to do the same thing with Windows Server? Absolutely frustrating to read nonsense like the above post. My response is five years too late, but I'm facing the same problem now of upgrading video cards on workstations running server, and I'm seeing that nVidia in its infinite stupidity wants to dumb down all of its users to use the worst common denominator software possible. -- W |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows 2003 Server | Kernel Dump | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | December 11th 05 11:20 AM |
looking for server 2003 SATA mass storage drivers for windows server 2003 | RobR | Dell Computers | 2 | November 22nd 05 07:04 PM |
K8N Ultra 9 Drivedrs for Sil3114 and Windows XP 64 and Windows Server 2003 64 | John | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | May 30th 05 02:30 PM |
Making SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 work on Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 | Sytelus | Creative Sound Blaster Cards | 0 | October 19th 04 05:30 PM |
Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2003 Server on new Dell laptops? | celtsfan44 | Dell Computers | 0 | November 14th 03 06:15 AM |