If the upgrade is XP Home I would say keep w2k. If it is the XP Pro upgrade you could consider it but you should read the info at the MSDN site to see if there are any issues. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/deployment/filesettings/default.asp is a good start.

Of if you want to dual boot here is good info. http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/administration/management/mltiboot.asp

I would strongly urge you to NOT upgrade from 2000 to XP. It's much better to install XP Pro fresh...yes, it's a pain but it's worth it. I upgraded from 2000 to XP and had all kinds of problems with software and Windows updates. A clean install of XP is a much better long term solution.

Vegas always ran fine for me on my Athlon 900 mhz Compaq (128 mb RAM). PTT was hit or miss on Win98. I upgraded to XP because of a network glitch unrelated to Vegas. XP fixed the networking glitch, but, other than that, I see no major difference in the performance between 2000 and XP. They are both excellent OS's. I set my machine up as dual boot to 98/XP because I still have some games that my kids like to play that won't run on XP.

Dual boot is easy to do, you just opt other than "Upgrade" (I forget what the choice is called, just don't choose upgrade), then, pick a partition other than your Win2000 directory.

My guess is, however, that once you get your dual boot up and running, you'll choose winXP 100% of the time. Each has his/her cosmetic preference, but, I would never go back to win2000 - of course, there is one other consideration - that's XP's registration scheme. You have to register within a certain time for it to continue running, and you will only be able to install that OS on one machine.

I don't support piracy, but fail to see what harm I do to (did) to Billy Gates by loading the growing list of MS OS's I've purchased over the years to run on the several computers I maintain in my home. Like many, I've been through most of the win versions back to I think 3.0 and work group, then the 9x, ME and on and on.

I won't buy three copies of a program to use in my one house - so, I run XP on one machine and one machine only. Everything else runs Win2000.

Sorry if I've gotten off topic here, but, I believe that, if one is required to register software to make it run permanently (the scheme Vegas currently uses), then, one should be able to install that software on any machine. The owner/mfr of the software can monitor those registrations and put on the brakes (like SOFO does) if a suspicious pattern of registrations becomes apparent (like installing one copy on 10 or 100 machines at the office without purchasing a site license).

Again, sorry to run off-topic, but, I say, upgrade if you wish, dual boot if you are uncertain. I predict that Vegas will run fine under either OS.

Caruso

The only bad thing I noticed on XP are longer MPEG-2 render times when using the internal Vegas MPEG-encoder. It takes more than double of the time than it does on Windows2000.

Marco

Ok, I think I should go for double booting to avoid any unexpected prblems that could take my lots of time to fix.
Thank you all for your valualble suggestions.

Here is a thought....

Do you have another HD?

If you are going to dual boot - you are going to have to reinstall all of you applications anyway. Then you are going to have duplicates eating up HD space.

You could - if you have a second drive...build the XP drive make sure everything works...then put the original first drive in...make it the secondary drive...copy all your files to the first - wipe it...and make it a storage drive.

Basically - you are going to be doing the same work if you 2boot from one drive. That's what I would do. I had a 2boot system for a bit. Pain in the ying to switch back and forth. For a home use PC, I just prefer one system - one OS.

My $0.02