Valhalla Legends Forums Archive | General Discussion | Windows 2000 Pro Vs. Server

AuthorMessageTime
iago
At work we're having issues installing a virus scan client on Windows 2000 Server, but it works fine on Windows 2000 Professional. We've tried it on a couple of each, and looked everywhere in the documentation and can't find out why.

My question is, what is different about Server? The problem is when the client (on win2k server) attempts to contact the server. Doing the exact same procedure on 2k pro and 2k server turns up different results. Although it does connect, it is unable to update.

On every box we've tried, we used Administrator accounts.

Any idea why it might work on pro and fail on server?
September 1, 2004, 8:25 PM
KrisL
Windows 2000 Professional is a desktop operating system for workstations designed to replace Windows NT Workstation and Windows 95/98 in corporate environments. It can support 2 processors, as well as multiple monitors. Windows 2000 Server supports 4 processors and is designed to fill the role of typical domain controller, file and print server, application server, and other common tasks.

What type of virus scan are you trying to put on there? Is it compatible with server? Also, are you using server, advanced server, or datacenter server? You can check this list to see if the virus scan client you are using is fully compatible with your version:

List of Compatible Applications for Windows 2000
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/upgrading/compat/search/list.asp

Or you can try this search if it would be quicker for you
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/upgrading/compat/search/software.asp

I hope that list helps. If you find the software you are trying to use on that list, then I'd contact the developer and see whats up.
September 1, 2004, 8:59 PM
iago
It's Trend Micro OfficeScan. Yes, it's compatible. Yes, we meet the requirements. Yes, I read the documentation (spent most of my day reading) and they don't distinguish between 2k Pro and Server. But clearly, there is some difference in the default installations that is causing this to function only on Pro. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is, and so far I haven't.

We've also put in a call to Trend about the problem, and they're getting back to us tomorrow morning, but I'd like to figure out why it would work on one but not the other.
September 1, 2004, 10:28 PM
Myndfyr
What account is Trend running on with Server? Are there appropriate access privileges (perhaps LOCAL SYSTEM?) needs to have access to write and modify the installation folder?
September 1, 2004, 10:53 PM
iago
[quote author=MyndFyre link=board=2;threadid=8513;start=0#msg78607 date=1094079234]
What account is Trend running on with Server? Are there appropriate access privileges (perhaps LOCAL SYSTEM?) needs to have access to write and modify the installation folder?
[/quote]

The entire trend directory is FULL ACCESS on both ntfs and iis on the server (which we know works). And we're running the client as Administrator with full privilidges to everything.

The client is designed for the server. The server has a web-install feature that lets the corperate computers download and install the software through the internal network, which is what we're doing. It installs fine, but seems unable to properly communicate with the server.

<edit> it DOES communicate, we determined, just fails to update.
September 2, 2004, 12:05 AM
Adron
Sounds like an interesting problem. Share your solution!

I can't think of any obvious difference. More services running perhaps, but I can't see why anything would collide. I would suggest debugging it...
September 3, 2004, 6:00 PM
iago
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=8513;start=0#msg78911 date=1094234452]
Sounds like an interesting problem. Share your solution!

I can't think of any obvious difference. More services running perhaps, but I can't see why anything would collide. I would suggest debugging it...
[/quote]

We still haven't heard back from Trend, so we don't have a solution yet. We've given up on figuring it out ourselves, though.
September 3, 2004, 6:02 PM

Search