I search a driver for Yamaha 715 for Windows Server 2003. If you know from where i may to find a this driver, tell me.

you can use the windows xp driver in windows server 2003.

In fact there are no drivers in the market for Win2k3 so far. All drivers for XP work fine with Win2k3 but system requires some fixings prior to install sound or video drivers. Please see this url for the fixings http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/

I believe that you are wrong in your statement sir. There are several drivers available now for windows server 2003 for many different types of hardware! And not all drivers that work fine in xp...will work in 2003 server environment. Just like many different types of software that ran fine in windows 95 will not run in xp even with using the 95 drivers.

Ok I agree with you that they are not equal. But we can expect windows 2003 drivers from now on. Pleae let me say that the comparison you have made is not valid for this example. Windows 95 has another technology not appropiate in the most of the cases with the NT family despite some applications can run. In this case, I have been testing Win2k3 and Except Antivirus, vga and sound drivers, that might be installed after some settings, the rest is equal. Anyway, Windows 2003 is for me the best sistem sold by Microsoft so far. Regards

It is valid for a comparison. Windows 95 and NT are basically the same operating system, except for some minor differences and the file system. Let's be clear to everyone who is using windows server 2003. Key word "server" not intended for the home user. Most of the problems people are having on this forum is the result of putting this operating system on a home computer and wondering why the sound card, video card, the directx, cannot access the web, email not working, cannot install message, error message, digital camera, scanner, and the list goes on. Keyword "server" business environment?

I would say that Windows 95 and NT looks the same but only talking about appearance, they have remarkable differences like a completely different architecture , enhanced security features,different file accessing, similar flash point calculations are performed up to eight times faster with NT than with Windows 95, backup and others. But you are right. It is necessary to clarify that Windows 2003 was not created for home users purposes. but neither did Windows 2000 and because of its good perfomance, a lot of people adopted Windows 2000 as their home O.S., because it's more stable than W98 or WME and applications run faster or because it needs less memory than XP to run decently. My insistence on Windows 2003 is due to the fact that after you make five or six fixings you can use it as if you were using XP (except for the Antivirus)Those fixings enable you for example to use your camera or your scanner, your Vga /AGP drivers, Direct X and your sound drivers. You can import XP themes, you will be handling a very stable system, that wastes only with 128 megabytes of ram to load in front of an XP that requires 512 mb to run decently, a system that runs applications 10 or 20 percent faster than its predecessors. In my case, after doing fixings shown in http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/ I found my system working equal to XP but better except the antivirus because not all of them work. Equal and faster. Regards