locked
SQL Server 2012 Client Tools installation fails silently on Windows Server 2003 RRS feed

  • Question

  • I try to install the SQL Server 2012 Client Tools (x86\setup\sql_tools.msi) on an up-to-date Windows Server 2003 machine. The installation fails silently; nothing gets installed. Any input?
    • Edited by AxBender Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:58 PM Typing error
    Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:54 PM

All replies

  • Instead of running the .msi directly, try to run setup.exe and select only the client tools you need (either SSMS or SSMS Advanced).

    Thanks,
    Sam Lester (MSFT)


    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" and "Vote as Helpful" on posts that help you. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:54 AM
    Moderator
  • Thanks for the answer Sam, but setup.exe wouldn't start either (that's why I tried this workaround). It seems, installing any part of SQL Server 2012 on a Windows 5 machine is a doomed process. Are they (MS) really going to cut off all Windows XP/Windows Server 2003 boxes?
    Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:59 PM
  • Ah, sorry I missed the OS part of the question.  Yes, unfortunately SQL Server 2012 does not support Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 as a platform.

    You can see the system requirements on:

    Hardware and Software Requirements for Installing SQL Server 2012

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ms143506(v=SQL.110).aspx

    Thanks,
    Sam Lester (MSFT)


    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" and "Vote as Helpful" on posts that help you. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

    Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:27 PM
    Moderator
  • I had read that already, but I felt like asking if MS would really "dare" leaving so many users of these OSs behind. Installing the "Native Client 11" should not be that tricky - given the fact that I have no problems whatsoever to get Visual Studio 2010 (and SP1) running on Windows 5. Guess this is - once again - a political yet very unfortunate decision.Thanks for your answers!
    Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:04 PM