I've been looking for a pci xpress16 graphics card with dual monitor support for use on Windows Server 2003. Both NVidia and ATI say that they don't support Server 2003. They say try the XP drivers if you want, but no guarantees. Does anybody out there actually support a good card with good drivers for 2003?
runswindows95
Distinguished
- Dec 24, 2005
- 2,715
- 0
- 21,160
I've ran an FX5200 and an X300 on Server 2K3 using XP drivers with no issues. You're pretty much looking at a $100-$125 card for what you need it to do.
NewbieTechGodII
Distinguished
- Aug 29, 2006
- 534
- 0
- 18,990
emp
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2004
- 2,593
- 0
- 20,780
nvidia Geforce Windows 2003 server drivers:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_163.75.html
nvidia Quadro Windows 2003 Server drivers:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_162.65.html
Pick any of the supported list cards that support dual monitors (most of them).
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_163.75.html
nvidia Quadro Windows 2003 Server drivers:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_162.65.html
Pick any of the supported list cards that support dual monitors (most of them).
NewbieTechGodII
Distinguished
- Aug 29, 2006
- 534
- 0
- 18,990
emp
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2004
- 2,593
- 0
- 20,780
Sorry to say this, but who in their right mind utilizes a 32-bit version of a SERVER OS intended for servers and workstations that benefit greatly from ram? If I were nvidia/ati I wouldn't support that OS either, it's just not worth it programming for an OS like that.
Even enthusiasts are finally starting to see the light and moving to the 64-bit arena, microsoft will stop making 32-bit OS altogether after Vista (which was only made to support legacy hardware). I believe it's time you step up to the 64-bit arena to be quite honest, otherwise you're pretty much screwed.
Even enthusiasts are finally starting to see the light and moving to the 64-bit arena, microsoft will stop making 32-bit OS altogether after Vista (which was only made to support legacy hardware). I believe it's time you step up to the 64-bit arena to be quite honest, otherwise you're pretty much screwed.
The five 2003 servers I support have 4GB of RAM; none of them use more than 3GB, and most are also running exchange 2003, Symantec Antivirus for Exchange, Ninja Server Spam filtering, Microsoft Sharepoint, and Backup Exec 11d, all memory hogs. They all run fast and have been extremely reliable.
Using a 32-bit Server OS is fine unless you will actually need more than 4GB RAM before your next upgrade cycle (or Microsoft discontinues mainstream support for the OS).
Was curious whether this straighforward question was ever answered with a straighforward solution.
Whilst I fully appreciate the reasoning concerning MS / ATI / NViDiA eventually discontining support of 2003 x32, I don't need to be made aware of this all nor feel like having to explain such responses?
We too are a development team working in W2K3 x32 (For good reasons we too have not gone up to a 64 bit platform - We use a variety of software that are licensed as x32 - And similarly it runs smoothly without any requirement for using more than 4GB RAM (Not even with VMware virtualization running side-by-side).
Yes, we can install x64 W2K3 (But why if all we need it dual display to work properly without flakiness, and why if it will just result in licensing costs?)
Yes, we can install 2008 (x32 or x64), but these OS's are have heavier RAM requirments, again have licensing costs accociated (not just for the OS, but also apps licensed to work under certain OS). They work stunning as servers for production, but are overkill for development purposes.
Man, we could even go instaling 2008 R2...
Point is NO... Why? Yes, better and faster, more efficient utilization of underlying hardware... I get all that! That's why we have these in production... But not for development servers.
Does someone out there have an answer to this? Can't believe for one second that there is absolutely not ONE SINGLE graphics card out there, whether it be PCI or PCI-e, which will work in W2K3 32bit. It doesn't have to perform at Usain Bolt speeds, it just needs to work properly! It can have DVI or VGA or HDMI output... Not fussed. Just one!?
Whilst I fully appreciate the reasoning concerning MS / ATI / NViDiA eventually discontining support of 2003 x32, I don't need to be made aware of this all nor feel like having to explain such responses?
We too are a development team working in W2K3 x32 (For good reasons we too have not gone up to a 64 bit platform - We use a variety of software that are licensed as x32 - And similarly it runs smoothly without any requirement for using more than 4GB RAM (Not even with VMware virtualization running side-by-side).
Yes, we can install x64 W2K3 (But why if all we need it dual display to work properly without flakiness, and why if it will just result in licensing costs?)
Yes, we can install 2008 (x32 or x64), but these OS's are have heavier RAM requirments, again have licensing costs accociated (not just for the OS, but also apps licensed to work under certain OS). They work stunning as servers for production, but are overkill for development purposes.
Man, we could even go instaling 2008 R2...
Point is NO... Why? Yes, better and faster, more efficient utilization of underlying hardware... I get all that! That's why we have these in production... But not for development servers.
Does someone out there have an answer to this? Can't believe for one second that there is absolutely not ONE SINGLE graphics card out there, whether it be PCI or PCI-e, which will work in W2K3 32bit. It doesn't have to perform at Usain Bolt speeds, it just needs to work properly! It can have DVI or VGA or HDMI output... Not fussed. Just one!?
I am building a new server that will be a backup and a development system (and my office computer) running Windows 2003 (32 bit, standard edition). I wanted to drive an LCD having 1920 x 1200 resolution using a GeForce 9800 GTX but I cannot find a driver for 2003. At the moment, I cannot find any graphics card that can support the LCD. Help!!!
BrianOliver
Distinguished
- Apr 15, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
I found this thread because I too have been looking for a graphics card that will support two monitors under Windows Server 2003. I am also using it for development as other on here have said. I also don't wish (cannot afford to) upgrade to the latest all-singing-all-dancing OS.
Anyway, the point of my post is that I have found a card that does what I want. It is a Matrox G550. It is available in two incarnations, one a full height card with two DVI outputs, and one a low profile card with a single output but supplied with a splitter cable.
They are about £100 to £130+ to buy new but I just got one off eBay for £31 and it works fine after downloading and installing the drivers for Win 2003 server off the Matrox website. Have a look on eBay there are quite a few on there but watch out if you need a PCI or PCIe as quite a few are AGP.
I hope this info proves useful to anyone still looking for a solution to this problem.
regards
Brian
Anyway, the point of my post is that I have found a card that does what I want. It is a Matrox G550. It is available in two incarnations, one a full height card with two DVI outputs, and one a low profile card with a single output but supplied with a splitter cable.
They are about £100 to £130+ to buy new but I just got one off eBay for £31 and it works fine after downloading and installing the drivers for Win 2003 server off the Matrox website. Have a look on eBay there are quite a few on there but watch out if you need a PCI or PCIe as quite a few are AGP.
I hope this info proves useful to anyone still looking for a solution to this problem.
regards
Brian
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question What Cat6 Ethernet Cable Should I Get? I'm From The UK
- Started by legendairyjoe
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram