Ok im trying to set up a server. However, i only have 1 screen and its for my main PC while my other PC dont have one. Now im wondering, im trying to set up a server and want to be able to control it over the network. Im installing Windows 2000 Datacenter server for now, and want to control it via Windows 7 home premium 64 Bit. Is there a program compatible with Windows 2000 and 7 able to do this?

Maybe TeamViewer. But if it was Windows Server 2003/2008/2008 R2, and not 2000, you would be able to control via RDP (which is easy to use, when set up correctly).

RDP? Is that short for Remote Desktop _____?

Cause i would use 2003 or better... but i tend to stay legal and dont like Pirating software, and 2000 datacenter is abandonware so i can download it from the server at anytime. Unless theres a beta on the server that timebomb can be removed for 2003 or better...

Yeah, and Server 2003 has it, which is pretty stable (tested by myself).

Does server 2003 betas have timebombs?

Yes, they do.

Every beta version of Windows since Chicago 2xx has had a timebomb.

No. Windows 2000 Datacenter has a remote desktop server included (it is called Microsoft Terminal Services), and it is compatible (although not officially supported) with all versions of the Remote Desktop Client.

IIRC plain old Windows 2000 Server has support for Terminal Services.

Yep! Terminal Services was in Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server, but not Professional. I just mentioned Datacenter because that's what the OP was talking about.

So what should i use?
Windows 2000 Datacenter server

or a beta of a newer release?

As long as you're using a Server edition of Windows 2000 it will come with terminal services. I've personally been playing recently with the server editions of Windows 2000 myself in VM's. The one problem you might run into is CPU limit as Windows 2000 doesn't understand cores as far as I know, so you need to make sure if you have a 4 core PC the edition you have supports 4 CPU's although I'm not completely sure of this.

Remote Desktop Connection, although not sure if that will be good with 2000 Data Center, I RDP with my Server 2008 R2 and it's crystal!

Its gonna run on a Intel pentium 4.

2000 Datacenter Edition will work just fantastic for you. No worries. It'll work well as a file server, web server (although that version of IIS is a little old, and it probably has unpatched security holes, so keep it off the internet). If you get adventurous, you could also run an Active Directory domain or even have Windows 2000 act as an internet router/gateway (Routing and Remote Access service)! The only thing that doesn't work is that you can't download updates from windowsupdate.microsoft.com anymore.

Do you mind me asking what services you plan to host on the server? Or is it just for playing around with?

Possibly an FTP server for Personal use and remote access. (Example: use it as a PC to store backups, and say im at a friends i can access it there as well, etc.)

May I suggest Linux? Ubuntu Server is extremely easy to set up once you get used to it and will be able to fulfil your the functions you want extremely well, along with the fact that it is actively patched (Windows 2000 lost all support in 2010) and it should run faster without a GUI. At least play with it in a VM and create a virtual server with the configuration you want, so when you get to the real hardware it should be a breeze.

No thanks. I hate linux.

Y U HATE LINUX?!

Its dull, and dont run any of my programs. (and i hate Wine and the other emulators to run windows apps). I stick to windows.

May I ask why you are using DATACENTRE SERVER?!? Are you running a datacentre? Unless you have a 32-core CPU, you should at least be using the regular Server SKU (supports 4 cores).

Now, to answer your question, yes, Windows 2000 supports RDP, and you can connect to it via a Windows 8/7/Vista/XP/2003 or (afaik) a Linux box. If, for some odd reason, Windows 2000 doesn't play nice with RDP, you can always use TeamViewer, an alternative to RDP. However, it requires you run the client software on both the server and the client in order to connect to each other, unlike RDP. If you don't set up unattended access, rather than logging in through the standard Windows login box, you must remember or write down a 9-digit identification number and a 4 digit (is customizable) password. Also, TeamViewer is slightly slower than RDP.

May I suggest Linux? Ubuntu Server is extremely easy to set up once you get used to it and will be able to fulfil your the functions you want extremely well, along with the fact that it is actively patched (Windows 2000 lost all support in 2010) and it should run faster without a GUI. At least play with it in a VM and create a virtual server with the configuration you want, so when you get to the real hardware it should be a breeze.[/quote]
No thanks. I hate linux.[/quote]

Y U HATE LINUX?![/quote]
Its dull, and dont run any of my programs. (and i hate Wine and the other emulators to run windows apps). I stick to windows.[/quote]
May I ask why you are using DATACENTRE SERVER?!? Are you running a datacentre? Unless you have a 32-core CPU, you should at least be using the regular Server SKU (supports 4 cores).

Now, to answer your question, yes, Windows 2000 supports RDP, and you can connect to it via a Windows 8/7/Vista/XP/2003 or (afaik) a Linux box. If, for some odd reason, Windows 2000 doesn't play nice with RDP, you can always use TeamViewer, an alternative to RDP. However, it requires you run the client software on both the server and the client in order to connect to each other, unlike RDP. If you don't set up unattended access, rather than logging in through the standard Windows login box, you must remember or write down a 9-digit identification number and a 4 digit (is customizable) password. Also, TeamViewer is slightly slower than RDP.[/quote]

Why does 2000 not like RDP?

Hey, give the guy a break. There's honestly very little difference between the Datacenter, Advanced Server, and Server SKUs for Win2000 server, aside from the original purchase price, the logo banner, and the number of CPUs that can be licensed. Any of the Windows 2000 Server SKUs will work fine for what he wants to do (provided that he keeps it behind a firewall). Linux will also work, and he can experiment with that if he likes, but if he doesn't, then that's fine too.


Yes to all of the above.


The only problem with depending on TeamViewer is that it requires active internet access even if you are just connecting from PC to PC on a local LAN. For some reason, it needs to communicate with the TeamViewer mothership to generate those ID numbers, and doesn't seem to accept a simple IP address in the "where to connect?" field (at least not in my testing). SO, the problem is that if your internet service is out for some reason (thunderstorm, whatever), you can't use TeamViewer even if you are trying to control the system sitting right next to you.

If that doesn't bother you (it bothers me), then TeamViewer is fine.

It works fine. Who says it doesn't? The only weird thing with the Terminal Services server in Windows 2000 is that it doesn't honor console sessions. i.e. If you connect to a Windows 2000 server with your RDP client using "mstsc /admin" or "mstsc /console", the admin/console switches are not recognized, and you just get connected to a random session. Kind of annoying, but if you close your windows and save your documents before disconnecting the RDP session, there won't be a problem.

I don't understand why we are bashing somebody's choice to use the market leading server solution: Windows Server.
If it's a Pentium 4 I'd recommend 2003 R2 - it's much more secure and it will run perfectly well - hell it runs fine on dual 1GHz P3 systems. If your RAM is up to spec (i.e. about 1GB or more) then Server 2008 will be fine. If the Pentium 4 supports EMT64(64-bit) then you can shove on Server 2008 R2. Also, I believe with Windows 2000 Server, the terminal services integration came about through an update. Could be a different edition of Windows 2000 Server though, never really used it. I'd say stick with 2003 R2 minimum though, just for that extra confidence in stability, security and compatibility.
If you're running a P2... NT4 + SUPERTOOLS TIME <:

Why the hell not? It's abandonware and for his private use anyway.

I was also going to run a server with windows drivers and service packs too.