| Author |
Message
|
| klabran |
 Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: WMQI 2.1 and windows 2003 |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 259
Location: Flagstaff AZ
|
Is it possible to install WMQI 2.1 on W2K3 server?
The install just stops without any error or message when I start the install?
Kevin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| klabran |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 259
Location: Flagstaff AZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You can try changing the compatibility mode of the installer before you run it.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| klabran |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 259
Location: Flagstaff AZ
|
| ah.... didn't think about that.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqsidude |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
|
klabran,
Just wondered whether you were able to do this.
Unfortunately I am in a same kind of situation.
Appreciate if you can share your case.
The installer just hangs or terminates with DrWatson error in the event log during the initial system requirements check. The trouble seems to be with the jrew.exe that comes with WMQI 2.1 JRE.
How can we change the compatible mode of the installer?
Any work arounds or guesses to cheat this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Why fight with 2.1? It was old when this thread started in 2005, and now it's obsolete.
Even if you get it to work, it'll be massively unsupported (aside from 2.1 being horrible!) 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqsidude |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
|
Why fight with 2.1? May be fate I would say  We just cannot avoid few things on our way..
After three days of continuous days of struggle to get this work, I finally gave up.
The reason for trying WMQI 2.1 on Windows 2003 was due to the upcoming DST changes and we thought of moving to Windows 2003 as upgrading to WMB is not an immediate choice of the client.
We just decided to stick with Windows 2000 + WMQI 2.1 which seems to be the safest combination.
Anyway, thanks for your time and suggestions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
| mqsidude wrote: |
| to WMB is not an immediate choice of the client. |
Any reason for this? Time & effort, or is there a technical reason? Just curious... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqsidude wrote: |
We just decided to stick with Windows 2000 + WMQI 2.1 which seems to be the safest combination.
|
Any client who thinks that an obsolete and unsupported piece of software is a better choice needs to be guided in their decision making. At gunpoint possibly... 
Also it's the first time I've seen "Windows 2000" and "safest" used in the same sentance.... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqsidude |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
|
| Quote: |
| Any reason for this? Time & effort, or is there a technical reason? Just curious... |
They have been delaying this for some or the other reason. The current reason for pushing further is that DST 2007 changes are priority and the fear that we cannot migrate and test all that WMQI stuff within the available time frame.
| Quote: |
| Also it's the first time I've seen "Windows 2000" and "safest" used in the same sentance.... |
That was a good one but I don't think there is a way to avoid "Windows" while using "WMQI" and I think you know the reason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Did you tell them that they can't run away from the heat when they've put the torch in their back pocket?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqsidude |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| Did you tell them that they can't run away from the heat when they've put the torch in their back pocket? |
Probably they want to bear the heat for little more time!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqsidude wrote: |
| I don't think there is a way to avoid "Windows" while using "WMQI" and I think you know the reason |
Quite right, but Win2000? Not MSoft's greatest effort!
Run the wretched thing under XP and save yourself an upgrade job when you move to MBv6!
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqsidude |
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 148
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| Run the wretched thing under XP and save yourself an upgrade job when you move to MBv6! |
Windows XP is desktop OS and I am sure my folks would not install it on a server scale machine.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
