XP or 2K - Pro or Home

  • Thread starter Thread starter Perceval
  • Start date Start date
P

Perceval

New member
I am upgrading my PC and I need to decide whether to go XP or 2K - Pro or Home. Old PC had Win98SE and I was happy with it. I use a Motu2408MKII and PCI324 along with Vegas Video.

Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks
 
XP Home is probably ideal. You only need XP Pro if you have a dual processor system or need more advanced networking features like VPN support or Remote Desktop.
 
brzilian said:
XP Home is probably ideal. You only need XP Pro if you have a dual processor system or need more advanced networking features like VPN support or Remote Desktop.
Click to expand...

Yup
 
I'd go XP. I have home on my recording computer - it's fine.

I have Pro on my "work/other" computer. Honestly, the only thing it offers better than home is network stuff. But nothing needed unless you are using/running a huge network or something from your home. haha. not worth the extra cash.

but, if you need network security with your file sharing, etc. definately go pro. home will ONLY allow simple file sharing (share a folder with everyone, password free (no options!), you can say whether it's read only or full control).
 
Which recording software are you using ? I'd go for XP Pro unless you're using Protools LE which is officially supported on XP Home by Digidesign.
 
Which recording software are you using ? I'd go for XP Pro unless you're using Protools LE which is officially supported on XP Home by Digidesign.
 
Don't underestimate the benefits of remote desktop on XP Pro. Every machine I have except my laptop has PRO on it so that I can take my laptop anywhere and control the other machines just like I was sitting at them - and all at the same time. BETTER than having a multi computer on one monitor/keyboard. That said I am running 8 computers at any given time at my home office.

To bring this back to recording - one really cool thing with remote desktop would be to be sitting in one place, at your instruments, with a cheap laptop and be able to control your more expensive desktop sitting back across the room in your "studio booth". No more running back and forth.

-Scott
 
I have a question.

So if i were to set up a really good computer for recording in one room, but track in another using remote desktop on a laptop so there isnt computer noise in the recording, it would run just as well as if i was at the computer?
 
bradthefattest said:
I have a question.

So if i were to set up a really good computer for recording in one room, but track in another using remote desktop on a laptop so there isnt computer noise in the recording, it would run just as well as if i was at the computer?
Click to expand...

The ABSOULUTE MOST TECHNICAL side of your answer is no because you are going to have to run longer cables and your remote desktop networking is going to take up SOME CPU power.

Now that nobody can say you werent told that - the REAL answer is absolutely! Unless you go to the extreme, your cable length is not going to make that much difference and a "good" computer is going to have way more than enough band width and cpu power to handle both the networking and the recording. It does not require very bandwidth at all using remote desktop built into XP Pro and there is zero (or almost) latency. If you try and use another remote control program such as VNC, there is a lot more data and a lot more latency. For once MS actually did something better... I use 802.11b wireless and it is 98% enough. If you were just now buying 802.11g or 802.11a are much faster and would probably even solve the sound issue.

Sound does come back to your remote computer but it is not quite as good the rest of the stuff so for editing and accute listening to your tracks you willl probably want to go back to your main computer.

Good Luck - Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top