Windows XP vs. Windows 2000

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Dinsdale, Oct 12, 2003.

  1. Dinsdale

    Dinsdale Guest

    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?

    Dinsdale, Oct 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dinsdale

    Stormbom Guest

    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.
    Stormbom, Oct 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dinsdale

    Dinsdale Guest

    But as far as performance or stability goes, which OS is better for video
    Dinsdale, Oct 12, 2003
  4. 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.
    Robert Morein, Oct 12, 2003
  5. Dinsdale

    ralford Guest

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

    ralford, Oct 13, 2003
  6. Dinsdale

    Mike Kujbida Guest

    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

    Mike Kujbida, Oct 13, 2003
  7. Dinsdale

    Bob Headrick Guest

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

    - Bob Headrick
    Bob Headrick, Oct 13, 2003
  8. W2K does it.
    I have a Matrox G550 running on an Athlon 650, it works fine.
    Two monitors at 1600x1200.
    Robert Morein, Oct 13, 2003
  9. Dinsdale

    Keith Clark Guest

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

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

    Linux does it too.
    Keith Clark, Oct 13, 2003
  10. Dinsdale

    Keith Clark Guest

    My experience with a Pentium 4 "c" version is that Wi2K supports
    hyperthreading extremely well, judging by the CPU usage monitor.
    Keith Clark, Oct 13, 2003
  11. Dinsdale

    Will Dormann Guest

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

    Will Dormann, Oct 13, 2003
  12. Dinsdale

    ralford Guest

    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.

    ralford, Oct 13, 2003
  13. Dinsdale

    Keith Clark Guest

    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;


    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 Clark, Oct 13, 2003
  14. Dinsdale

    ralford Guest

    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.


    ralford, Oct 13, 2003
  15. Dinsdale

    Keith Clark Guest

    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.
    Keith Clark, Oct 13, 2003
  16. Dinsdale

    Will Dormann Guest

    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.

    Will Dormann, Oct 13, 2003
  17. Dinsdale

    afh3 Guest

    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, Oct 13, 2003
  18. Dinsdale

    David Chien Guest

    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.
    David Chien, Oct 13, 2003
  19. Dinsdale

    Keith Clark Guest

    By dual P4 you mean Xeons? Just curious...
    Keith Clark, Oct 13, 2003
  20. Dinsdale

    Keith Clark Guest

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

    Photoshop runs great under Linux as well as Win2K...
    Keith Clark, Oct 13, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.