Windows 2000 vs. XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter nunyabusiness
  • Start date Start date
N

nunyabusiness

New member
Okay, so I’m being forced to upgrade. My computer is the most stable I’ve ever used, and I’m afraid that changing the OS will mess it all up, but no one makes software for Win98 anymore. So I want to get some opinions on Win2000 and XP. Mostly, which one is more stable.
 
If you have a computer that can handle it (most important thing is a bare minimum of 256MB RAM, more if you want to get stuff done properly), just get XP.
 
XP has been out for almost 3 years and wil soon get its second service pack.

Anyone who tells you 2000 is a better choice over XP doesn't have a clue.
 
XP is generally the better choice, although the underlying kernal (which is where most stability comes from) is basically the same between the two. They are both based on NT.

XP has more software options and features and that can be a plus. Some gear that works on 2000 may not have drivers for XP, so that too can be an issue.

Ed
 
Ed Dixon said:
Some gear that works on 2000 may not have drivers for XP, so that too can be an issue.

Ed
Click to expand...

I dissagree.

Pretty much every driver you install for XP is exactly the same as the 2000 driver. They are interchangeable. If it works in 2000, it works in XP.

Like I said before, there is no good reason to use 2000 because XP fixed its one major flaw - better compatibility with legacy software written for 95/98/ME.
 
Get Windows XP, and spend a day or so getting it to look like Windows 98. I really hate the Windows XP default 'Computer for an idiot' theme that is there when you first install. (Sorry if anyone likes how XP looks when you first install, but I've used 98 for far too long for them to change the start menu on me). XP is more compatible than 2000, but some programs still don't work.
 
brzilian said:
IPretty much every driver you install for XP is exactly the same as the 2000 driver. They are interchangeable. If it works in 2000, it works in XP.
Click to expand...

I can absolutely assure you this is not the case. I have lots of gear that works in Win2000 and will not work in XP.

USB gear is at the top of the list. USB drivers are strange beasts and some are very OS specific. I have USB gear with multiple features. All work in 98, maybe half in Win2K, and none in XP.

Modems are another source for problems. Some older models work well in 98 or Win2K, but their drivers will not even install in XP, much less work.

Don't get me wrong. I use XP on most all my PC systems, and prefer it over Win2K or 9x. However there are some driver problems that can force one to use Win2K if a particular piece of gear is required in your system, and no XP drivers exist or work.

Ed
 
With some drivers, you can get them to install if you change the compatibility settings of the setup program to windows 98. This has only worked for me in a few cases though.
 
Sometimes that will help. In other cases a driver not suited to XP will cause the BSD display and an immediate reboot. Most USB modems I have ever tried do this to XP.

Ed
 
Who would have some precise tecnical argument in favor or against XP?

things like:
-better task scheduling policy under XP?
-more audio streams with XP?
-better latency with XP?
-better swap file management with XP?
-more plugins on the exact same project on the exact same hardware just by shifting to XP instead of 2K?


for the moment I'm on W2K, and i cannot see any technical benefit in mocing to XP, only drawbacks (takes more disk space for bullshit, plenty of wizards everywhere, animated gui that suck up your CPU just for nothing but crap for computer novices (my mum, which is about to turn 50, just got into using a computer a couple of month ago, and she likes to read all the popups, she likes to have the word assistant pop up every second type on the keyboard, she likes to see the tasks slowly drift to the left of the task bar rather than just pop out and pop in when she closes an app...)

If you've got the up-to-date drivers under 2K I bet the system will work just as good

So guys, any maesurable technical benefit for DAW in XP?
 
All of those annoying pop ups and graphics can easily be disabled. Check out http://www.musicxp.net/ for easy tweeks on XP.

The first thing I noticed when I installed Winxp was how easy the installation process was. The only drivers that I had to install was the drivers for the Steinberg dongle and my controller.

I also find the boot up and shutdown to be faster on XP.

Here is a link to a good article on Audio and WinXP

http://emusician.com/ar/emusic_xp_audio/index.htm

Just to quote one section:

"But overall, XP offers many advantages over Windows 2000. XP includes native support for a far wider array of motherboards, devices, and expansion cards. It raises the maximum number of WDM audio and MIDI devices from the 10 imposed by Windows 2000 to a more realistic 32. In addition, XP's power management under ACPI is now vastly improved from that of Windows 2000 "

Just my thoughts...
 
vestast said:
I also find the boot up and shutdown to be faster on XP.
Click to expand...

Yes, the difference is very noticeable.

I also turn off the XP GUI. When I do that, the system does appear to be more responsive than 2000 was.
 
brzilian said:
I also turn off the XP GUI. When I do that, the system does appear to be more responsive than 2000 was.
Click to expand...

Same here.

I also downloaded an "application accelerator" from Intel for my chipset. It replaces the stock ATA drivers that come with Windows with drivers that they say are optimized for Desktop PC's......Hmm now that I think about that, you don't think that would cause any issues do you ?
 
With XP, USB2.0 and Firewire drivers require at least Service Pack 1, unless your hardware came with a driver CD with XP drivers released before SP1 came out. For some reason, Microsoft have persuaded hardware vendors to not provide seperate driver downloads for USB2.0 and Firewire controllers for XP.

For those having to multitrack with software that doesn't work with ASIO or Cakewalks WDM/KS system and therefore having to use standard Windows MME, Windows 2000 has a lower audio and midi device limit. 10 of each in 2000 while 16 of each in XP. A device = 1 midi port or 1 stereo audio channel.

The MME and Direct Sound systems in Win2000 suffer a 6db cut while XP does not. This is due to the design of the Windows Kmixer componant of the WDM driver (Which is Microsofts code).

MS show no inclination to upgrade Win2000 MME to that of XP, though it is surely only a matter of updating a few system files?
 
Zero problems here on Win2k and when Microsoft stops supporting XP and refuses to give out any more reauthorization codes, my Win2k disk will still keep going.....

:-))))))

But seriously, it looks like more and more devices (mLan and Firewire) are XP only. That should be your deciding point--- compatibility with outboard devices.
 
brzilian said:
XP has been out for almost 3 years and wil soon get its second service pack.

Anyone who tells you 2000 is a better choice over XP doesn't have a clue.
Click to expand...

i use 2000 therefore i dont have a clue

its like saying AMD is better than Intel... pretty silly

very similar kernel.... different interface and control
 
This is one of those things that is somewhat user based. If you have gear that does not work in XP, then Win2K may be a much better choice. Same for software.

If Win2K does what you need, and spending $ on XP is hard, then sticking with Win2K is probably the right answer.

I have 2 NT 4.0 Server systems and 1 Win2K system (in addition to a number of other XP based PCs). These systems do exactly what they need to do today, and spending $ to upgrade is not needed.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top