Not an expert in OSs but my understanding is that 98SE and ME allows applications software to directly access hardware but with 2000 all commands from the application program are routed through the OS. Wouldn't this lead one to think that 2000 would be slower than 98SE and ME because of all the communication between the sound card and the recording software?
Windows 2000 or ME
- Thread starter SBax
- Start date
Direct X is Microsoft's prefered method for programs to address multi-media hardware. Since Windows 2000 supports DirectX as does W98, I don't think there would be a huge difference. But I'm not a programmer so so I can't give a firm technical answer. But I will ask a few that I know....
I'm a programmer but I'm no OS architecture expert. A Windows application usually has to go through some kind of Windows driver interface whether it's 98, ME or 2k. Especially with a fairly low-level (from what I've read) ASIO driver I'd expect similar performance under any of those operating systems as far as the audio hardware is concerned. From what I've read though, the thing to be concerned about under Win2k is hard drive performance, which apparently isn't nearly up to par with Windows 98.
DorianDDR1
New member
answer
To tell you the truth, you should stick with 98SE or ME due to the compatibility issues (and not to mention the DirectX support). While it is true that 2000 does support DirectX, 2000 will not work with all of the hardware you have and most of the software you want to put on. 2000 is meant for the business environment to support secured transactions across a local medium (i.e. networking and internet). ME and 98SE are for home use and will support all the programs/hardware that you have. That is my opinion and I work for IBM as a software designer so you can take my advice or someone elses.
To tell you the truth, you should stick with 98SE or ME due to the compatibility issues (and not to mention the DirectX support). While it is true that 2000 does support DirectX, 2000 will not work with all of the hardware you have and most of the software you want to put on. 2000 is meant for the business environment to support secured transactions across a local medium (i.e. networking and internet). ME and 98SE are for home use and will support all the programs/hardware that you have. That is my opinion and I work for IBM as a software designer so you can take my advice or someone elses.
If you can get your software to work with win2K (and drivers for it are available for your hardware), you'll find that it will way outperform win98 or ME. Win2K is more stable, has much better memory management, and more efficiant disk I/O. I switched to win2K 6 months ago. I would never go back.
"From what I've read though, the thing to be concerned about under Win2k is hard drive performance, which apparently isn't nearly up to par with Windows 98."
- You've got it backwards
"From what I've read though, the thing to be concerned about under Win2k is hard drive performance, which apparently isn't nearly up to par with Windows 98."
- You've got it backwards
Alchemist3k
New member
The way I have read about it in recording magazines is that Win2k is not the best OS for handling MIDI information and I can confirm that to a certain extent (could have been made worse by a bog standard sound card right enough).
giaschel
Hello.
ProRec has interesting articles on both issues:
Tweaking Win 2000 for Audio
Hard Disk Optimization (a bit old)
Tweaking Win 2000 for Audio
Hard Disk Optimization (a bit old)
kennedy connor
New member
try www.audioforums.com they will have a 9X optimization specs...