Win 2K was absolutely the most troublesome upgrade I have ever done, hardware-wise.

When upgrading to WinXP Pro, I was ready for "war," only to find out it was possibly the easiest upgrade I ever did.

I have been running WinXP Pro since shortly after the time it came out and have been very pleased. It is very stable, has nice features, and supports a wide variety of hardware.

It's the best Windows to date...you just need more CPU horsepower than ever before. I am running (home-built) an AMD Athlon XP 2400, 1 gig of RAM, which I strongly suggest for video work, and 6 (120 GB) hard drives, HP200i DVD burner and a OnStream 30 GB tape backup. Works great all day every day.

XP is a very good OS--as long as your hardware behaves. Every blue screen I've had with XP (very few total) ultimately traced back to a bad driver, bad RAM, or overheating. Isn't it nice that Vegas is an all-software solution? :)

XP Pro-- although I have to admit, I still use Win2000 VERY happily...

The ONLY complaint I have about 2K was that the driver support wasn't always there. I was occasionally hung out to dry by drivers (especially soundcards) that didn't support 2K, or were essentially NT drivers. It pissed me off to no end.

As far as I can tell, you wouldn't run into too many problems like that with XP, and it's supposed to be even more stable than 2K. And, in all seriousness, 2K has been absolutely rock solid for me...

David.

Any significant differences between XP Home and XP Pro?

Windows XP Pro is the way to go. For some of us, who could afford to get up to the 3GB of memory territory, Windows XP Pro will let you use all of that memory. Driver availability is a definite plus for XP (compared to Windows 2000).

--svb

"Win 2K was absolutely the most troublesome upgrade I have ever done, hardware-wise.
When upgrading to WinXP Pro, I was ready for "war," only to find out it was possibly the easiest upgrade I ever did."

I had to disagree with you here.

the way you put it here, it sounds like you were upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. I take you word for it that you might had lots of problem with upgrading, but windows 98 and Windows 2000 uses totally differente database for their hardware list.

You are not the only one that had this problem with upgrading to Windows 200, but this is not a problem due to Windows 2000 itself, but the poorly made database within windows 98. When upgrading Windows 2000 need to convert many thousands of data entry to the new database, the size depends on how many hardware and software you have installed in your system.

To answer the second, why XP is so easy going. When you upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, the convertion of the database is done already, the database in Windows 2000 and Windows XP is mainly the same, so no convertion is needed here.

I have been using windows 2000 for long time i have never had any problem with it. I have been using old hardware still no problem, windows 2000 goes as a dream, it might happen that you had some hardware that was in vonfl;ict with Windows 2000, b ut again did you really check out Microsofts hardware list for Windows 2000 before you upgraded?

I hope this put some light on all this, you cant blame Windows 2000 for having problem doing upgrade if you did a upgrade from Windows 98.

Frankie
Singapore

Lol, i dont understand some of you guys (no offence), but if something is not working (especially hardware) you seems to blame Windows 2000 itself, first off its not Microsoft duties to make sure that 10-thousands of differente hardware is working with Windows, its the hardware vendor that is suppose to make a driver-program to interact with windows.

I tell everyone, before you go to install either Windows 2000 OR Windows XP (dont take it for granted you just have yourself to blame afterwards if you dont listen to me). Do the biggest favour to yourself before you go and buy hardware, go and do a check the Hardware list that Microsoft have for their OS'es.

I still prefer Windows 2000 as many more software and games is more stable with it then Windows XP. But as i see here many of you enjoy Windows XP, so i guess you should just listen to all those guys as they have just good experience with it :)

Frankie
Singapore

I use win2k pro in three computers. XP pro would limit me to one computer
so I continue to use win2k with very few problems.

JJK

FWIW:

There are some folks who will stand by win2k -- imo most of the reasons boil down to the extensive number of services running by default in XP that can eat up resources and lead to various security issues. BTW, Most have great fun pointing at the Fischer Price interface.

XP builds on win2k code, so otherwise I haven't found any real differences that would say win2k is better (on some stuff win98SE is faster). Both have hardware issues when comparred to win98 SE, and under pressure from hardware manufacturers, expect the next version of windows to have these as well. XP is supposed to run more older app.s, having a compatibility mode, but I don't think this is usually an issue since most all software now days runs on win2k & so win XP.

XP pro vs home, go with pro any day. First off the price difference is low (roughly $98 US vs $120 - $140 US), and you have much more control of windows & running processes/services. For info on which services to turn off (it can appear a maze with little if any info): http://www.blackviper.com/index.html It really does make a difference.

mike

I would have to say go with Win2K Pro. In my expirience it was much better than XP. Though I have pretty good and new system, VV3 was starting up with an error in XP, ReelDVD was acting up and not even creating Video files, Impression DVD didnt like XP either. All of the above and more lives happily with W2k, never complaining. Here is my path: XP->W2K->XP->W2k again and staying.
Just MHO

This subject has been beaten to death so many, many times, not just here but in other forums as well. There are a lot of variabilities in hardware and software that can make or break your computer. So, there is no sure answer to which is the better of the two. Whatever works solidly, stick with it.

atedee is right. I have a p3-667 with win2k, Vegas 3 LE, Vegas 4, and TONS of small apps, games, free 3d tools, etc. and I have NEVER had a problem with running ANY of my programs that wasn't driver related (i even use win 3.1 software sometimes). On the other hand, at work I use an AMD 1ghz with Win2k, Office 2k, Preimere 6, Photoshop, a Matrox RT2500, and if I got a nickle, no a penny, every time it crashed/froze, I would make more $$ then bill gates himself! :) I even reformatted the computer a month ago, and I still have the same problems I had before I formatted it.

Oh, I'm personaly biased against the look of WinXP. I think it LOOKS childish. Doesn't mean it is though. And if I could afford XP... I might buy it. Not sure if all of my older hardware would work.

Three cheers for W98SE. Absolutely NO problems whatsoever using Vegas, even with multiple 4GB files.

John

I can tell you being a java programmer, video buff, and web designer that winxp has big memory problems. I used win2k forever and was super pleased. I recently moved to xp because I had tested it with video editing and found my camera and vid cap worked a little better. Then I started having problems. When I had 4 programs open the original program would run out of memory and lockup. I never saw this with 2k. MS has addressed these mem issues, but has made no formal claim a serious problem exists. XP needs a truck load of mem to run. Services galore run upon boot. I never had one problem like this with 2k.

Running …
Asus A7N266-E
Athlon XP 1800
512 crucial ddr

I am going back to 2k when I upgrade to some new hardware in a few days. I will only go to XP when I absolutely have to. It seems MS took a really great OS and screwed it. They saw that 2k was stable and decided to try and turn it into something it was never designed to be. It was written as a true 32bit business OS with hardcore hardware abstraction features to prevent lockup. Its kinda like putting nitro on an 18 wheeler. It just doesn’t work well.

XP Pro. Better driver support, supports lots of RAM and you can play all your games. However, Vegas crashes a TON for me right now, though every other program I use is stable (3D Software, audio software, 2D painting programs, etc.).

I think I need to completely re-build my OS and try Vegas then, or try Vegas on another system because something is seriously wrong. Other than that, XP rocks. WIN98SE is fairly limited...it won't even see more than 512MB of ram, from what I understand. I also run a dual processor machine and Win98 won't support multi-processing.

I would never base my shopping on that Windows XP support more hardware by itself. As i said before its not Microsofts duty to make all things work together. Its the vendor of the hardware.

to those of you who have problem with Xp, why dont you try Windows 2k instead, see if you have same problem.

But also as a note to those who have problems, upgrade alle the hardware you can upgrade, unless its working:
Bios on the motherboard
Bios on the graphic card
Firmware on your hardware
Install the latest drivers, for mother board, graphic card...etc.

The funny thing, is that i read about more people that have software/hardware problem with Win XP then with Win2k. Yeah of course, Win XP might support 3GB of memory, but who can afford to buy it? Especially when many of the motherboards only support 2 memory slots, some support 3 and 4.

Well, it all boils down to what you like, and whats stable for you. But i wont change over to Win XP earliest 2years time. Not before they get a SP3 :-P

Frankie
Singapore

Have been using Win XP Pro without problems on my Desktop w P4 1.6gig 512meg and laptop Sony GRX570 512Meg Ram.
I use 80gig and 120 hard drives in Pyro Firewire enclosures, and put the Veg, PreRender and all media on these drives. I then move back and forth between the two machines without incident and a lot. It all works.
My only complaint with XP is that it slaps a lot of "layers" on in the Explorer, and buries your work deep.
I have a lot of trouble finding files across the network (Wading through C:, Documents, Owner, more documents, etc). Probably there's an easy way to figure out all this internal navigation, but I still haven't got it.
AND (and this cost me an afternoon of aggravation) - I use Macromedia Authorware for my interactive production. Because XP buried my stuff so deep in directories, Authorware wouldn't recognize the files for import. This drove me crazy "File type not recognized" since I have been doing this kind of import on a daily basis for years. I finally figured out (with clients calling on an hourly basis for results) that all I had to do was move the files up about 5 levels, and the Authorware could read them. But not until I resaved the files, changed the file types, restarted the program, restarted the computer... well you get the idea.

512 of RAM will not be enough for XP and editing.
IMHO

I've never used more than 512MB RAM with XP and it seems more than enough. One way to check is bring up task manager in XP, (Ctrl/Alt/Delete) then look at the load under the performance tab. IF Vegas is running it will "hog" as many CPU cycles as it can, (meaning the little graphic chart with nearly be maxed out at close to 100%)but... if you look closely, you'll see memory is at best 30-40% used. Because of how XP is written regardless of how much RAM you have it still will do a lot of excessive page file swapping. Further you can start up several other applications, even another Vegas session and it won't have a material effect on rendering time. Yes, it will slow it down, but not that much, assuming you don't stress your system that much. Right now, I'm doing a Vegas render, I'm writing this, I'm playing some music in the background and got a spreadsheet open and Word, no problem, still got about 35% of RAM free.

>>...but the poorly made database within windows 98. When upgrading Windows 2000 >>need to convert...

Actually, I did a *clean* install. I never install one OS over another.

Just FYI... :)

Thank you.

Windows 2000 limits you to one system as well. It's just that there is no activation, so if you want to participate in software piracy, it's much easier to do.

Jim

I made the transition from W98SE to XPpro about a month ago. I had sworn to myself that I would never do another MS operating system again, and would instead go to Linux. Well, Linux is coming along, but not as rapidly as I would have hoped, and what triggered the change was buying a Dell Inspiron laptop that didn't have a screen driver for W98SE.

Anyway, I too was turned off by the cartoon-like XP screens, but fortunately sober heads at Microsoft saw to it that one could turn off all the eye candy and return the screens to a traditional Windows look and feel, which I've done.

The big difference? Stability! In W98SE I very happily did some major Vegas projects, thanks to the automatic 4GB slicing, but I also began to reboot the system every night before going to bed, so that I had a fresh system in the morning. Something in the hundreds of programs that I ran would gradually encroach on the system, eating up resources and making it behave flaky, and the only way to get rid of the behavior was to reboot. Still, it wasn't a big deal.

Nonetheless, in XPpro one gets the feeling that things are as solid as a rock, and rebooting for stability's sake is history.

The other thing I LOVE about XPpro is "Hibernation" mode. I have my laptop configured so that when I close the lid, XP hibernates (meaning that it takes the entire contents of RAM and throws it to disk) and that means that the entire system completely shuts down, unlike Suspension, where RAM is kept alive. Next time I open the lid, the system comes back up in about 10 seconds. Booting is a thing of the past.

I have no experience with W2k. From what I've read, the two systems are close cousins. Since XP is newer, it has more drivers, and thus more compatibility with hardware coming in from the W9x side. There are more bells and whistles, too, but you can use them or ignore them as you see fit.

As for RAM, 256MB is fine for most tasks, including Vegas. From time to time, however, I need to run multiple instances of Vegas in order to do rendering in the background, and then it's not enough. I currently run 512MB, and will not add any more.

As a rule, monopolies are a bad thing, since they tend to crush innovation. On the flip side, however, they ensure standardization. I guess XP represents the finest accomplishment of the Microsoft monopoly. Still, I look forward to putting my next system on Linux.