Windows XP vs. Windows 2000

I'm starting to construct a new P4 box, just for video and audio work.
Combining dozens of applications and utilities on one machine only leads to
a messed up system.

Anyway, I have installers for both 2000 and XP - but which would you prefer
to use for video editing applications (Avid) and post work like After
Effects and Combustion?

Thanks!

 

if you are going to used it with an Avid editing system it all depends on
what Avid you will
be useing.Xpress DV 3.0 can only be used with Win 2000, Xpress DV 3.5
and Xpress Pro and also the new "testversion" Free DV only with XP.
Newscutter XP
with Win 2000 etc.
Christian

 

But as far as performance or stability goes, which OS is better for video
work?

 

I've used Avid on both of them. There doesn't appear to be any particular
difference in the reliability of the operating systems. In fact, both are
extraordinarily good, compared to Windows 98.

 

what P4 are you using? The newer HT cpu's claim to require XP Pro for
hyperthreading.

rma

 

I recently got a new home machine with XP Pro and remain very impressed with
it. IMO, it's even more stable than W2K (which we use on 2 edit systems at
work). Run it in "classic mode", make sure you have at least 1/2 gig of RAM
and use separate hard drives for the OS and your projects. Hard drives are
cheap so the bigger, the better for your project drives. Lastly, follow the
suggested XP tweaks at sites such as www.videoguys.com

Mike

 

Personally I upgraded from Win 2K to XP just to get the "Extended Desktop" dual
monitor capability.

- Bob Headrick

 

W2K does it.
I have a Matrox G550 running on an Athlon 650, it works fine.
Two monitors at 1600x1200.

 

Same here. Win2K with a Matrox G400 (old system) and an Nvidia FX5600 (new
system).

Win2K will also handle multiple graphics cards. It has since the day it
shipped.

Linux does it too.

 

My experience with a Pentium 4 "c" version is that Wi2K supports
hyperthreading extremely well, judging by the CPU usage monitor.

 

You're implying that Win2k does not support Hyperthreading. This is
incorrect. Any os that supports multiple CPUs will support
hyperthreading.

-WD

 

thanks for the reply, however, Intel indicates that XP Pro is required. I
understand what you are saying. I am NOT saying W2K doesn't support multiple
CPUs, simply that Intel states XP Pro is required for HT.

I would be interested in reports of W2K actually running HT with HT enabled.

rma

 

Not true at all!

Look - whoever wrote that for Intel was told to, because they (Intel) get
kickbacks from Microsoft for promoting XP. If the boss says "this is what
goes in the document", then that's what goes in. Big companies always say
a lot of things only work certain ways when in fact there are other
possibilities. Remember why it's called "Win-tel"?

Think about it. Intel wants you to buy XP because :

1) they get a commission from Microsoft in the form of advertising dollars
(just like Dell gets free advertising from Intel when they use the "Intel
Inside" logo;

and

2 (the biggest reason)) - XP takes more processing power. Intel wants to
sell the fastest CPU's it can because that's where the best profits are.

Do you think Intel's marketing executives would get their bonuses if they
told you the truth (that Win2K and Linux are screaming fast on a 2.4 GHz
hyperthreaded CPU overclocked to 3.2 GHz (what I'm typing this on)???

I can tell you from experience that a hyperthreaded CPU in Windows 2000
works much better than a non-hyperthreaded CPU.

So who are you going to believe, a Marketing hack (a former used-car
slick-willie) or actual users?

By the way, you should see how the 2.6 Linux kernel performs with a
hyperthreaded CPU. It screams.

Look, at work I have a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4. It's OK, but not all that
spectacular compared to a dual P3 machine running Win2K at 1 GHz. Under
heavy CPU load (single theaded programs) it bogs down and you can forget
about multitasking under heavy loads.

We all know that the difference in real world performance between 1.7 and
2.4 GHz by itself isn't all that great. But this machine (when it's
running Windows, which isn't often) almost never get's CPU bound, even
when doing parallel compiling tasks, and even without over-clocking.
There's enouch CPU headroom to compress DivX files and fight effectively
in Unreal Tournament 2003 at the same time, in Win2K, something that would
be impossible on the 1.7 GHz CPU (I tried once).

--Keith

 

not true at all? You might want to check the site before you launch into
your paranoia rant. and I will generally believe intels statements over
internet chatter.

cheers,

rma

 

I'm not disputing that Intel said it.

I'm saying the claim is not true.

If you believe everything that big companies claim just because a big company
said it then I pity you.

And it's not a paranoid rant, you moron.

It's a fact that companies give each other monetary compensation for advertising
each other's products. It's well know that Intel gives companies money to use in
their advertising budget if they display "Intel Inside" prominently. There's
nothing paranoid about that, it's long been well established.

 

Believe what you want. It's not going to bother me one way or the other.

But for anybody else who may happen to be reading this thread... The
difference between Win2k and WinXP with respect to HyperThreading
support is that WinXP (Home or Pro) will detect a HT CPU as one physical
CPU plus one logical CPU. Win2k on the other hand will detect it as
two physical CPUs.

Both XP and Win2k will benefit from HT.

-WD

 

This is just my anecdotal experience, but a dual P4 (w/HT'ing) server box
that is installed at one of my client's sites runs Win2k Server, and the
task manager shows it as having 4 CPU's. It works the same way under Win2k
Pro too.

-afh3

 

either will work, but go xp for the future. adobe's already starting to
cut out support for anything but XP in their latest program releases.
otehrwise, no problems running with either one.

 

By dual P4 you mean Xeons? Just curious...

 

What do we need Adobe for? Vegas is very good.

Photoshop runs great under Linux as well as Win2K...