Is Windows XP slower to render?

Chanimal wrote on 5/14/2003, 1:47 AM

In one of the threads, Taliesin said, "Encoding time on W2k is at least double as fast as it is on WinXP. Some interfaces in Vegas 4 not optimized for XP?"

I am considering switching to XP Pro from Windows ME. Is anyone else aware of decreases in performance with XP versus 98SE/ME? Any other unusual XP concerns?

Comments

taliesin wrote on 5/14/2003, 3:45 AM

Careful please. I did not say Encoding time is faster, but Encoding time of MPEG-2 is faster on W2k!!!
I only tested this with MPEG-2 encoding. Not only me - different people tested and noticed this.
But it seems like this happens not only in Vegas but in different Apps which use the MainConcept MPEG-2 encoder.

Marco

FuTz wrote on 5/14/2003, 6:42 AM

Even if you ctrl+alt+delete, right-click the Vegas app and choose a higher priority for the program?
Well, maybe it won't change anything after all since this affects memory management, not CPU speed...

kameronj wrote on 5/14/2003, 6:49 AM

Regardless of rendering time - I would highly suggest dumping WinME for XP or 2000 (or anything that is not ME!!)

:-)

FuTz wrote on 5/14/2003, 6:57 AM

Definetly! ;)
As soon as you can!!!

mikkie wrote on 5/14/2003, 10:16 AM

FWIW, ME's a little odd, being sort of an in between OS IMO, but then I know several folks running it with no appreciable prob.

Win98 SE is still considered the fastest in many circles (like among some gamers), but long in tooth and support is dwindling. I dual boot XP Pro & 98 SE and can say it (98 SE) is definitely faster with some tasks.

Win2k is mature, but requires a bit more hands-on maintenance IMO, keeping up with all the patches etc... Seems the main advantage over XP is that whenever you have something set to more of an autopilot mode like XP, you can go crazy sometimes trying to get things *right* - not what XP thinks it should be.

XP's most criticized attribute to my knowledge has always been the default *toy* interface and such. It can be slower or faster to render depending on the encoder etc., and a lot of times what you think *should* speed things up doesn't.

Overall, if you tend towards the geek end of the spectrum, might want to go XP Pro to get used to new technologies etc. that're coming on full force with their (MS) new server stuff.

Most important: Moving to either win2k or XP, if you've got broadband invest some time after the install learning about security.

BJ_M wrote on 5/14/2003, 10:47 AM

you can turn off the ugly toy interface in XP and make it look like NT4 if you want or win2k

ericb wrote on 5/14/2003, 2:30 PM

This is an interesting thread. Would SF recommend W2K for an "optimized" machine over XP? Or is the difference so small it's not worth it.

taliesin wrote on 5/14/2003, 3:06 PM

>> Or is the difference so small it's not worth it.

The difference:

1 minute of PAL-DV video takes

- about 5:00 minutes to encode to MPEG-2 on my WinXP system with 1,4 GHz AthlonXP mobile processor.

- 2:30 minutes to encode to MPEG-2 on my Windows 2000 system, though there it's only 900 MHz Athlon Thunderbird processor.

Marco