I've been wondering if Vue worked with Windows 2003 Server. So as a test I installed it just to see what would happen. It works fine. In fact it seems to run a little faster when rendering. But I can't be sure that's due to the OS. It may just be that there are fewer services running in the background on my Win2K3 box than on my XP box. Other than that the two boxes are pretty much identical. Oh, and OpenGL works well too. I'll keep playing with it and post if I find anything that doesn't work as advertised.

As a network administrator I'm asking you why you try to convert win2003 server into a workstation??? Doesn't make any sense to me... Win2000 SP4 is even more stable than w2k3. Look on this site: http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/ Pages and pages filled with instructions to convert win2k3 to some kind of workstation. You will discover that some software isn't 100% compatible with win2003. I've read many stories about manufacturers that had t release new version of their software to make it fully win2k3 compatible. I know, you're going to say that you don't have any problems, but trust me, give it time. Assuming that your copy is legal, why did you pay $1,200 (!) for win2003 server when you can have win2k/xp pro for somewhere between $250-$300... After reading this, can you understand all my confusion?

It's pretty simple really. I have a MAP subscription (A step below an MSDN Subscription and MUCH cheaper). It gives me pretty much everything Microsoft sells for an annual fee. We already know that Vue works with Win2K but e-on software hasn't announced compatibility with Win2K3 yet so I was curious to see if it would work. Does that clear up the confusion?

Weird, you only reply to the question why you spend all that money on w2k3... Why do you have such a need to defend yourself especially on that part of my initial post, without discussing anything I mentioned earlier? So your question "Does it clear up the confusion?" can be answered with; NO Be honest, what else did you expect for a reply...

I tried to be nice in my reply. I really did. First, I did my best to explain the ONLY two questions that you asked me. "Why did I spend so much to have Win 2003 on my server when Windows XP or 2000 is cheaper?" and "Why am I trying to turn my server into a workstation?" I honestly think that cataloging the problems that a person may have when running Vue on Windows 2003 is a benefit to both the Vue community, who may one day be using Windows 2003 when rendering on a network, and to e-on software when they develop their application. Testing Vue was my first step. The next will be Render Cow. The rest of your post seems to be flame bait designed to lure me into an argument about which OS is better suited for a certain purpose. This forum is not the place for that kind of discussion. Perhaps I misread the tone of your post. If I did then I apologize.

Well, then I advice you to apologize, because you base your ideas on assumptions. Trust me, I really don't care what operating system someone uses and why would I ha! I mean, do you really care that others use Bryce, World Construction Set, World Builder or Mojoworld? Well, there you go. So dont assume that Im any different. The only thing I'm asking you is why you're converting win2k3 to a workstation. I do that pure out of interest, because based on my professional experience I don't see any obvious reason for it and correct me if I'm wrong. Hey man, I'm quite human and I might be overlooking things that might be interesting for me to know, things that might make me consider using win2k3 too. For network rendering you don't need servers, so that's no reason why this post might be useful for most Vue users, not to mention that NOT many will go through the hassle to convert win2k3 to a workstation (check the link that I post earlier) and add to that the fact that most users will NOT pay $1,200 when they can have a workstation version for some $295, because most users DONT have a MAP subscription. The strength of network rendering comes not from the power of single machines, win2k3 or not, it has to do with quantity. 25 Workstations with a processor speed of 1 Ghz each renders wayyyy faster than 2 servers with the latest processors. Does this all make sense or not? I think its more than fair to ask you to convince us to use Win2k3, taking in account the price, compatibility and the work involved to convert it to a workstation.

and I want to ask you something else. How much do you pay for your MAP subscription and how much is Win2k3 server really costing you? See, I dont believe one moment that Win2k3 server is cheaper than $295 in any license construction. Ive worked for companies that had volume licenses and trust me, that doesnt make any single product 90% cheaper. So in the end you will always pay more than a workstation. I also dont assume that any Vue users at home are in the possession of these volume licenses, I mean, who is running hundreds of clients.... The only time when you render on a server is if you; a) are a company that has a dedicated server for rendering only. b) Youre a user who has a small network in a non-production environment and want to use the extra speed that the server has to offer. Assume that you dont have the MAP license (never heard of it btw) and that you want to render using 10 win2k3 servers (all single processor). You would pay 10 x $1,200 = $12,000 for licenses. The license on win2000 workstations would cost you 10 x $295 = $2,950 In that casing youre saving $9,000 and you can make every machine a dual Pentium. Now my question for you is; what runs faster? 10 win2k3 SINGLE processor servers or 10 Win2000 DUAL processor workstations. Get the point? Or instead of making all workstation dual processor, you decide to add 3-4 extra workstations for the $9,000 that you saved. I think it will be no surprise that 14 win2000 workstations run faster than 10 win2k3 servers. Lets say that license for win2k3 is a lot cheaper. Im being reasonable and I lower the price to $595. In that case you would still have to pay $3,000 more than the 10 win2000 licenses. For that $3,000 you can make 3 Win2000 machines a dual Pentium. Which runs faster? 10 win2k3 single processor servers or 10 win2000 workstations of which 3 have a dual processor? Again, get the point? I have taken the time to come up with lots of arguments that are based on the plain reality and that gives me the right to say: Try to look up what flaming means next time before you start accusing someone!! Btw, I use Windows XP Pro ;-)

I misread your tone. Sorry. With all the talk of RIAA lawsuits flying around here that comment about a "Having a Legal Copy" probably set me off. The hurricane I just went through probably isn't helping my attitude any either. Again I apologize. I use XP Pro on my workstation too. I'll lay it all out for you. I have a VERY small network. By that I mean two machines. My XP workstation and my 2003 Server. I want choice B that you listed above because I am interested in doing animations with render cow running on the server (because that's the only other machine I have. I need it to be a web server for when I am developing and testing web applications). Yes I get your point about the network render. But it doesn't apply to my situation. I don't have that many processors. I just want my animations to render faster. I asked Lynn if Vue 4 Pro (and it's Render Cow) would work on 2003. But he got swamped and never answered the question. It may be a leap of faith on my part but I figured if Vue 4 would run on 2003 then Vue 4 Pro would too. I hope so because I am about to shell out the money for Vue 4 Pro based upon that. I haven't converted my server to a workstation. Vue works fine on it with the default installation. I probably wouldn't even be thinking about this if I had to convert to a workstation. I need the server for my work. Microsoft Action Pack Subscription http://members.microsoft.com/partner/salesmarketing/partnermarket/actionpack/actionpackus.aspx MAP is only $299 and gets you a developers copy of XP Pro, Win 2003, SQL Server 2000, MS Office, and a bunch of other stuff. It's a really great deal which Microsoft doesn't advertise much. Go to that link and check it out. My experience with 2003 has been pretty good. It seems to be laid out more logically. By that I mean things are easier, for me at least, to find. Fewer steps required to get something like create a user account, etc. Security has improved a LOT! Everything is disabled by default. If you want a service you have to enable it or in some instances install it. For instance no Blaster Worm if DCOM is off. I'm a web developer so having the .NET framework there from the get go is a plus. Admittedly a small one since all you have to do it patch 2000 to get it.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12368&Form.ShowMessage=1449990

Thanks for the reply grunthor. Your explanation really helps me to understand what you're trying to do. I hope that you can understand that you I was rather confused when I read your very first post, but now it makes more sense. MAP subscription, I never heard of it, but I agree, that's a great offer! Of course there are limitations, like only 1 license for each product, one year subscription and a list of products that can change any moment. But still, great offer! I'm still wondering who are allowed to use this license, even after reading the license agreement. I mean, many times I read something that one can interpret in two different ways. I can be honest though; I have always considered Microsoft's license policy rather complicated, especially when you have to deal with it in large companies that have a mix of laptops, PCs, OEM versions, client licenses, operating systems, full and update versions, which licenses are transferable or not, etc. But I have MAP bookmarked, very interesting, thanks! Btw, what I like about Vue d'Esprit Pro is that you can EXPORT single objects or complete (!) scenes. I really would like to see the render result of a Vue scene in Cinema 4D!