Windows Server 2019 System compatibility check ?

You want to know if the machines can run Windows 2019?

Shouldn't they be running on a hypervisor in 2020 (or even 2014)?

Compatibility with a new OS on older hardware can be a tricky thing.  A good first step is to go to the manufacturer's site and see if they have drivers for the OS you want to install.  If they do, then it's a safe bet that the hardware (at least that provided by the manufacturer) will work.  If you've added a different RAID controller, for example, check for drivers for that.

The "grey" area comes when the manufacturer doesn't have drivers, but you go ahead and install the OS and it works, including finding drivers for all devices.  The challenge here is that an update to the OS will not work with the hardware.  That is far less of an issue with Windows Server as the base version doesn't (usually?) change.  It's not like Windows 10 that gets a new version twice a year.

I've run into the situation where I can't load the latest Server OS on a client's computer, but am able to go one version back.  In those cases I install the older version (check for sure, but you should have downgrade rights) as the host OS and then the latest OS on the VMs.  This may or may not supported by Microsoft, depending on specific OS versions.

As kevinseih implied, the host should only by a hypervisor for VMs.  There are many good reasons for this, including compatibility with newer Server OSs.

If you can take the servers out of production, it shouldn't take too long to try to install Server 2019 on a spare drive.  You'll then find out how much effort you have to go through to get it installed.

Hmmm - just contemplated further on the problem ... would it help if I just boot an install medium on such a machine (w/o actually installing anything) ? I presume that the installer should probably say "Eeek !" prior to trashing the old OS ... shouldn't it ?

Unfortunately the test field is a wild mix of machine models (fortunately most of 'em from HP), so even booting an install medium on each machine would be a really nasty job - that's why I asked for some compatibility checker.

Actually not even the "Sysinternals" tool mentioned on the web page linked in my question doesn't show all CPU flags the prerequisites list asks for ...

"I presume that the installer should probably say "Eeek !" "
I've never gotten a message from an installer that the hardware wasn't compatible, though that could just be the limit of the situations I've encountered.

Have you looked up availability of 2019 drivers for any of the systems?  That could give you a reasonable "yes, it's compatible" if appropriate drivers are available.  You can at least find out the last Server version that was supported and then determine if 2019 is a supported VM client to that host.  If the systems will support a Server version that supports 2019 as a VM, the only issue then would be having both installers available.

I'll try do check the driver idea ASAP ... stay tuned ;-)

BTW: No VM's involved on the machines in question. They should just run the OS and their applications ...

"No VM's involved on the machines in question. "
I would give careful reconsideration of that limitation.  There are many reasons to move to VMs, one of which might get you around the limitations of your hardware and Server OS version.

Hi,

Setup will not say "Eek". It will possibly start and then fail part way through. I agree with what's already been said above. Virtualisation is  the best use of hardware and gives many advantages, not least you can run the latest OS MS has, for the rest of eternity. Well, until MS changes goalposts.

MS hardware specs are generally limited to "it will just about install" and not a sensible starting point for most real-world hardware/uses.

I am not aware of any hardware checker for servers. I notice you haven't mentioned the spec of any of these machines or indeed the age. The age is the worst thing. New OSes work best on new hardware. It's diminishing returns the older the kit.
If you put the actual specs here, assuming you have the info, someone here can comment.

Mike

@CompProbSolv: The VM issue is well considered. I'ts a test field, and the poduction twins of the machines are nonVM due to careful considerations (i.e. availability (if you stuff all machines onto one heavy server, you create a big fat single point of failure, which would be inacceptable) - and hardware dependent considerations (i.e. if many of the machines drive displays, there could be a heavy shortage in display interface ports))

@Mike T: Most of the machines in question are HP DL3xx pizza boxes of several generations, ranging from G3 to G9.

If I'm understanding your comments about availability, single point of failure, and number of displays, I don't think they are valid.  Nothing wrong with a single VM on a host.  You'll have the same 1-1 relationship between servers (VMs) and pizza boxes but you'll get the other benefits of VMs.  No, you won't get the hardware sharing benefits, but those don't appear to be an advantage to you.

You could argue that a single host with a single VM is more prone to failure as failure of either of the servers (host or VM) would halt the VM.  That argument is valid, but given how little the host does and how simple its configuration is, it's unlikely that it will fail for software reasons.  If it fails for hardware reasons, a non-VM server would have failed, too.

Hi,
That's still not much to go on. I was expecting RAM, HDD etc specs. I would guess the G3's will struggle and possibly not boot. The only way to find out is try it. Is any of the kit even in warranty? Whilst I see the need to reuse hardware, there is a practical line where it really is not cost effective. Some kit is best donated to charity beyond a certain age. Why? The risk is sudden hardware failure which then puts you in panic to replace your service and you have to buy a replacement which you dodged so you end up costing money not saving it. If the business insists, make it plain your advice is not to. It kind of reminds me of the "buy cheap, buy twice" adage.

I would be concerned that those very old servers don't have compatible CPU. Windows 2016 was the first version to have specific requirements beyond need for AMD64 instruction set support.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started-19/sys-reqs-19#processor

Minimum:

• 1.4 GHz 64-bit processor
• Compatible with x64 instruction set
• Supports NX and DEP
• Supports CMPXCHG16b, LAHF/SAHF, and PrefetchW
• Supports Second Level Address Translation (EPT or NPT)

Microsoft suggests using coreinfo to get CPU capabilities.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/coreinfo

@kevinhsieh:
I've already seen these specs on the MS website ... unfortunately not all of these specs are covered by coreinfo. And with lots of HP egotrip hardware (RAID controllers, GPUs, [you name it, HP reinvented it with need for special drivers]), there's so much more to consider ...  ... that's why I asked for some "compatibility checker".

@CompProbSolv:
The decision not to use VMs is out of discussion, I fear ... and I fear that the VM host software would suffer from similar compatibility problems on the older machines.

@Mike T:
I really don't want to bore you out with hardware details of dozes of machines of which I would need days to collect from these machines ... besides the fact that RAM is usually 4GB (some are 4GB+) and HDD space wouldn't pose a problem for OS installation. And I agree that the G3's would at least fail to pass the "x64" requirement.

Not exactly what I'm searching for, but - IMHO - helpful to otheres anyway ...