Getting WMP10 working under Server 2003

By Waxx
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Neowinian

Waxx

Posted
Posted

Ok, here is what I did to get it to work, maybe someone can help me with the DRM part.

1. Extract MP10setup.exe

2. Edit all INF files and REM out the following line by adding ;; in front:

ClassGUID = {F5776D81-AE53-4935-8E84-B0B283D8BCEF}

3. Extract Attached Zip in to same directory.

4. Run included Bat file (replaces needed protected files)

5. Highlight all except WMP10.inf, Right click and Install. (Cancel the Windows File Protection Dialog)

6. Select WMP10.inf, Right click and Install. (Cancel the Windows File Protection Dialog)

7. Run included reg file (updates file version in registry)

You might have to reboot along the way I did it after I was all done with the above steps.

Enjoy WMP10 (except for the DRM Part)

Anyone have a clue on DRM?? Thats all that seems to be missing.

WMP10fix.zip

Veteran

XP_01

Posted
Posted
People who whinge about "Ohnos you can't install it on a server it's a server oS!!!11111omglolzzzz" need to look outside, there's a sun! There's people! Stop whinging!

Maybe you should follow your own advice and look outside instead of posting crap like this. Thanks for the mod, it works for me :laugh: But the DRM part is a problem :(

Grand Master

OptiPlex

Posted
Posted
Ok, here is what I did to get it to work, maybe someone can help me with the DRM part.

1. Extract MP10setup.exe

2. Edit all INF files and REM out the following line by adding ;; in front:

ClassGUID = {F5776D81-AE53-4935-8E84-B0B283D8BCEF}

3. Extract Attached Zip in to same directory.

4. Run included Bat file (replaces needed protected files)

5. Highlight all except WMP10.inf, Right click and Install. (Cancel the Windows File Protection Dialog)

6. Select WMP10.inf, Right click and Install. (Cancel the Windows File Protection Dialog)

7. Run included reg file (updates file version in registry)

You might have to reboot along the way I did it after I was all done with the above steps.

Enjoy WMP10 (except for the DRM Part)

Anyone have a clue on DRM?? Thats all that seems to be missing.

WHY MUST YOU USE WMP10 ON A SERVER

Oh look, the sun! :blink:

Neowinian

Waxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

How many times have you done something that someone said you couldn't do?

I figured it out on our development testing PC running Virtual PC, loaded up the 2003 image and kept trying different things till I got to this point.

Rules are meant to be broken, getting this to work was purely for the sport of it.

Grand Master

Joel

Posted
Posted
How many times have you done something that someone said you couldn't do?

Once again, the capability is not the issue. The reasoning behind it and the cost of obtaining 2003 to do it is. All this energy learning about how to listen to mp3's on a server when you could have spend it learning about AD, DNS, IIS, DHCP, DFS and network design. What a waste of time.

Community Regular

linuxman111

Posted
Posted

Blah blah blah......what a waste.....wah wah wah......

How many people have windows XP Pro just to surf the net, check their email, and play games.

You know, linux is really a server. Just because they add all the cool desktop stuff on top, it still is really a server OS, with all the server OS stuff still on there, even though its used as a desktop. All these things you say you could say to a person who uses linux on their desktop.....network design, dhcp, apache, dns....etc....

I still remember people using linux as a desktop when it took a week just to get a useable system up. When dependency hell was a fact of life, and when there really were NO companies making drivers for linux. But you know what, people still used it as a desktop, played with it, toyed with it, and eventually, we now have a great desktop system, that is really still.......get this.....a server OS. Just with a bunch of, in your thinking, "crap" being used on it.

My god, why the heck would someone run XMMS on a server OS? Its a server. :-)

Community Regular

linuxman111

Posted
Posted
Ok, here is what I did to get it to work, maybe someone can help me with the DRM part.

1. Extract MP10setup.exe

2. Edit all INF files and REM out the following line by adding ;; in front:

ClassGUID = {F5776D81-AE53-4935-8E84-B0B283D8BCEF}

3. Extract Attached Zip in to same directory.

4. Run included Bat file (replaces needed protected files)

5. Highlight all except WMP10.inf, Right click and Install. (Cancel the Windows File Protection Dialog)

6. Select WMP10.inf, Right click and Install. (Cancel the Windows File Protection Dialog)

7. Run included reg file (updates file version in registry)

You might have to reboot along the way I did it after I was all done with the above steps.

Enjoy WMP10 (except for the DRM Part)

Anyone have a clue on DRM?? Thats all that seems to be missing.

I got WMP10 to work great, but did anyone else have to do it in safe mode? Everytime I ran the installers, the files just went back to the WMP9 ones.

Havn't checked out the DRM issue though. When I get to my office tomorrow, I'll take a look.

Grand Master

dougkinzinger

Posted
Posted
Once again, the capability is not the issue. The reasoning behind it and the cost of obtaining 2003 to do it is. All this energy learning about how to listen to mp3's on a server when you could have spend it learning about AD, DNS, IIS, DHCP, DFS and network design. What a waste of time.

:yes: Well said. Couldn't have said it better. :yes:

Contributor

Quran wa'Sunnah

Posted
Posted

Something I did notice. On my winxp sp2 the butterfly icon on wmp10 was just an X (I know allot of people had this problem). On windows 2003, the butterfly is actually there and works great.

And Joel, my wife would say the same thing about 90% of the things us posters talk about here on Neowin. What a waste to spend hours customizing your desktop. What a waste to post pictures of our setups. You could say that about anything. Ya, I could be back in school to finish my masters, but instead, here I am trying to figure out how to get WMP10 on windows 2003, just as there are those who are trying to figure out how to get winxp to install on an external HD or about creating a windows xp install disk slipstreamed with everything under the sun already on it. Could all be classified as a waste of time, but times value is inherantly tied to the individual wasting it and on what. Value is objective.

Grand Master

John Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
You know, linux is really a server.? Just because they add all the cool desktop stuff on top, it still is really a server OS, with all the server OS stuff still on there, even though its used as a desktop.? All these things you say you could say to a person who uses linux on their desktop.....network design, dhcp, apache, dns....etc....

The components of linux aren't set up like the components of Windows; saying "linux is a server OS" is true and it's not true.

For ease of explanation, let's say linux doesn't have "modes" like NT does; there's no "workstation" or "server" or "datacenter" mode of linux. Linux is linux, while Windows could be one of several different things (XP Home, Pro, Web Server, Enterprise Server, MCE, Tablet PC, etc.)... Therefore, it's not unheard of for people to run DNS servers on their desktop (linux) PCs. Saying that their desktop PC is a "server OS" is just being ignorant; linux isn't any specific type of OS. Linux may run server apps, just like Windows (such as IIS) but the OS itself doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that the DNS, DHCP, WMS, and other servercouldi> run under XP Pro (or even Home) if Microsoft wanted them to. However, Microsoft is a corporation that stays in business by selling products. Some of those products require additionabase OS functionality that XP Pro just doesn't haveb> (or need). This is where the Windows Server line of products come in; the Microsoft DNS, DHCP, and other servers will only run on these "server versions" of Windows because of the extra time and resources Microsoft puts into them.

This is (I think) the main argument behind everyone saying you shouldn't do things like that to Server 2003. The extra OS functionality (such as an improved kernel) in Server 2003 serves little or no purpose for workstation users (let alone home users...) and <that'sb> why there's no point in running it on your home PC.

Contributor

oddballz19

Posted
Posted
The fact of the matter is that the DNS, DHCP, WMS, and other servers could run under XP Pro (or even Home) if Microsoft wanted them to. However, Microsoft is a corporation that stays in business by selling products. Some of those products require additional base OS functionality that XP Pro just doesn't have (or need).

Excuse me? The only real difference between the workstation versions of the Windows NT kernel and the server versions (such as those in XP or 2k3) is, besides version numbers, entirely present in the registry. The registry entry that changes Windows between server and workstation modes merely sets some kernel tuning parameters; it does not enable any significant additional functionality. This can be attested to by the fact that other venders sell, or at least used to sell, alternatives to Microsoft's DNS, DHCP, and other servers for the workstation version of the OS. They do not really need new base OS functionality. They just check the registry to see if they're on the server version before installation. The underlying OS is virtually the same, they just crippled the installer in order to protect their profit scheme.

The fact is, if XP is a workstation OS, then so is Server 2k3. They use virtually the same kernel, just a few slight modifications were made for the server OS which could be easily made to the workstation version as well. Witness the people that used TweakNT to make Windows XP build 3790. It used the same kernel as 2k3, but was really the workstation version of the OS. Don't try this BS that there's additional functionality in the server version. Maybe a few DLLs are there that aren't in the workstation, but they could be copied over. The OS is the SAME.

In other words, Windows Server 2003 IS a workstation OS, just tuned a little for server tasks. Got it?

Grand Master

John Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
The only real difference between the workstation versions of the Windows NT kernel and the server versions (such as those in XP or 2k3) is, besides version numbers, entirely present in the registry. The registry entry that changes Windows between server and workstation modes merely sets some kernel tuning parameters; it does not enable any significant additional functionality.

I'm not comparing the server/workstation modes of Windows NT, I'm comparing two different products; XP and Server 2003.

They use virtually the same kernel, just a few slight modifications were made for the server OS which could be easily made to the workstation version as well. Witness the people that used TweakNT to make Windows XP build 3790. It used the same kernel as 2k3, but was really the workstation version of the OS.

Using TweakNT on XP, you would not get NT 5.2 build 3790, you would get NT 5.1 build 2600, an old beta of Whistler server. Try it. If you're talking about "converting" Server 2003 into a workstation, then yes, you would get NT 5.2 Professional, a product that isn't for sale. Everyone knows this, what's you're point? That these two modes are the same OS? Technically, I guess you could say that, but logically they are totally different.

Contributor

oddballz19

Posted
Posted
I'm not comparing the server/workstation modes of Windows NT, I'm comparing two different products; XP and Server 2003.

Using TweakNT on XP, you would not get NT 5.2 build 3790, you would get NT 5.1 build 2600, an old beta of Whistler server. Try it. If you're talking about "converting" Server 2003 into a workstation, then yes, you would get NT 5.2 Professional, a product that isn't for sale. Everyone knows this, what's you're point? That these two modes are the same OS? Technically, I guess you could say that, but logically they are totally different.

Actually, I meant using TweakNT on Server 2003 to get XP Pro 3790, so that argument doesn't apply.

The question is, why are they different products when there are so few differences between them? You were the one who said that there were two modes, with different functionality in the server version that wasn't in the workstation version. That just isn't so. The OS is the same except for a few tuning parameters.

One other thing -- if it's just supposed to serve requests from other machines, why even have a GUI? Because Windows Server admins want a Workstation OS, to use to configure the server.

And the thing is, you WERE comparing server and workstation modes of the OS. There is no functionality in the Server version not present in the workstation version. They just use a registry key to change a few minor parameters. We could equally say that XP is not a Workstation OS, since it's the EXACT SAME OS underneath.

Personally, I don't think including a few extra DLLs makes an OS all that different -- and besides tuning parameters, that's the only difference between the products. Server 2003 is a workstation. A Server doesn't need a local User Interface at all -- it should only need it long enough to install. If it keeps it afterward, it's a workstation.

Grand Master

John Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
And the thing is, you WERE comparing server and workstation modes of the OS. There is no functionality in the Server version not present in the workstation version. They just use a registry key to change a few minor parameters. We could equally say that XP is not a Workstation OS, since it's the EXACT SAME OS underneath.

If that's true, why did Microsoft feel it was necessary to rewrite the kernel and other parts of XP to release a server version? They are different.

Collaborator

theh0g

Posted
Posted

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!!!

Contributor

oddballz19

Posted
Posted
If that's true, why did Microsoft feel it was necessary to rewrite the kernel and other parts of XP to release a server version? They are different.

They didn't. They had problems with the server mode of the kernel at the time they were ready to release XP, so they worked to debug it until build 3790. The only difference is whatever changes were made to fix the server mode in the kernel.

And the fact is, a Server needs no GUI. Anyone who needs the hand-holding of graphical wizards and a GUI in general should not be administrating a server. It's a workstation.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.