Can the free/personal mode of Teamviewer be installed and run on Windows Server operating systems?

I am planning on providing some remote service to an office in a different town. They have one server and 3 workstations. I think the server is either Windows Server or Windows SBS.

link|improve this question

42% accept rate
well, if the answer is still important, I can try installing a Server2008R2 into a VM and install TW on it. (Mention my name in comment if it is.) – Shiki Feb 15 at 1:13
@Shiki: yes, it would be good to know the answer. Thanks. I'm talking about the free version of TM. – CraigJ Feb 15 at 1:36
feedback

3 Answers

The workaround is to right click the setup file and go to compatibility and select Windows XP compatibility mode.

Once installed the program will run in regular mode.

link|improve this answer
feedback

As TeamViewer Support Center states:

TeamViewer is available for the following operating systems:

Windows
 - Windows 98/NT(Service Pack 6a, at least IE 5.5)/Millennium Edition
 - Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7
 - Windows Server 2003/Home Server/Server 2008/Server 2008R2/Home Server 2011

So it can be installed and run on Windows Server.

link|improve this answer
AFAIK, the free version doesn't work on Windows Server, as it's free for non-commercial use, and they assume Windows Server isn't. Not really sure though. – Daniel Beck Jan 11 at 7:34
You can, but it takes a little fantasy. Using normal approach, the choice of "free for non-commercial use" won't be available to you. – STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED May 19 at 5:20
feedback

You can't install the free version on any Windows Server version. The install will start, but when you have to select the usage, everything except "Company / Commercial Use" is greyed out.

http://i.imgur.com/K7oHN.jpg

I still haven't found a proper way around this apart from unpacking the files in the temp directory and running it that way, but half of the functions don't work, basically rendering it useless.

Looks like I'm stuck with RDP or the exploit-happy VNC variants :(

link|improve this answer
1  
So you can afford Windows Server but not TeamViewer? Life sucks. What's wrong with RDP, though? It's gotten better and better in recent years. There are ways to get around the installation issue, but I have it from one of the people who worked for the company that produces TeamViewer, so I'm not going to disclose it. I agree with him, it's only fair to pay for commercial use. – STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED May 19 at 5:23
@STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED What makes you think he had to "afford" a Windows Server licence? There are ways to get it for free for personal or educational purposes. Teamviewer's assumption that Windows Server is purely for "Company / Commercial Use" is plain wrong. – Indrek May 19 at 14:42
Well, these licenses aren't exactly the cheapest. MSAA is an argument, of course. Still with the server versions you get two RDP connections plus one console connection included. What's wrong with that? Session shadowing offers similar functionality to TeamViewer/VNC, so why violate the license terms of another software in order to get something that is on board? RAdmin is another affordable solution, still cheaper than TeamViewer. I really don't get the reasoning, unless you are questioning the idea of making money with software. – STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED May 19 at 15:01
@STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED I'm not arguing with the idea of making money with software, nor with using RDP as an alternative. I'm arguing with Teamviewer's assumption that everyone who is using Windows Server is doing so for commercial purposes, as well as your assumption that everyone who is using Windows Server paid for the full retail licence and thus can afford <software X>. Both assumptions are demonstrably wrong. – Indrek May 19 at 19:06
@Indrek: fair point. Got it. – STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED May 20 at 19:42
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.