Windows Xp or 2000?

[Kevin]

I am sure this has been brought up on here a million times but, I need to upgrade from 98 se to something and i was thinking xp but some peopl seem to like 200 better because it closer to 98 se.
anyone's thoughts on this?


www.animalhospitalmusic.com

[superluminalmagus]

I use both 2000 and XP at work. My personal preference is XP. I haven't really went in depth about which is better. I think both need some security tweaking after installation. With 2000 you get the benefit of the OS being out longer - thus, more security problems have patches via MS. In any event, I would recommend doing an complete reformatting and new installation rather than an "upgrade." I also recommend the NTFS file system rather than FAT32 or FAT16.

If you go with XP, I would recommend XP Pro rather than Home edition.

[djdrake13]

I personally like 2000 better. Seems to be more controllable, and a typical OS. XP seems to be more consumer home computer crap that isn't intuitive and is uneasy to navigate, but that's just my opinion.

[hammertime]

The only reason to get 2000 is if you're computer is too slow to handle xp. For instance, if you have a pentium 3 800 or lower, with not that much ram, you might be better off with 2000.

[antilog]

XP if your machine can handle it.

[Family Hoof]

I agree with Djdrake concerning 2000 but XP has been generally more stable and compatible for me. XP is slower (unless you get really in depth with the tweaking, like hacker style) and less intuitive/harder to navigate. I also think that XP looks stupid and is too "in your face" with all the popups and shit.

[antilog]

I agree with Djdrake concerning 2000 but XP has been generally more stable and compatible for me. XP is slower (unless you get really in depth with the tweaking, like hacker style) and less intuitive/harder to navigate. I also think that XP looks stupid and is too "in your face" with all the popups and shit.

the look can be customized (mine looks like 2000), and those popups can be turned off.

[andyg666]

also depends what software you're running. no pro tools on win 2000. right?

[nicksense15]

XP has been running PT LE very solid for over a year now for me. Id say this was your best bet. You just have to tune up the machine for running audio apps, go to:

http://www.musicxp.net/

Also a good choice if you want to stay current with new software and updates, etc.

Nick

[nicksense15]

XP has been running PT LE very solid for over a year now for me. Id say this was your best bet. You just have to tune up the machine for running audio apps, go to:

http://www.musicxp.net/

Also a good choice if you want to stay current with new software and updates, etc.

Nick

[myphx]

I would say get XP Professional.

If you do end up getting XP Home, you can remove all the graphics bells and whistles in the display properties under Control Panel - Performance and Maintenance - Adjust Visual Effects. On the Visual effects tab, pick "adjust for best performance." And change the Windows XP sound scheme to "No sounds."

[mc-delta-t]

I really don't know why everyone recommends getting xp pro rather than home

I had home, got pro from an uncle who works for microsoft (no, that's not a euphamism for file sharing)

used both exstensively, haven't noticed any real differences

I mean, if these is some difference besides networking stuff, let me know, but my experiences have been pretty identical

[misterock]

Check out Windows 2003 Server. It's like XP with all the crap turned off.

[mrc]

2003 won't load Doom3, here, and Waves has problems with it. You can try it for free to see if you have better luck, limited run demo from M$.
mrc

[Mr. Dipity]

Check out Windows 2003 Server. It's like XP with all the crap turned off.

Unfortunately, it's got a whole load more crap turned on in it too.

I'm running it on one machine of three, for the Software RAID features. It seems a bit less audio plugin friendly.