w2k or xp?

adihead wrote on 5/30/2003, 9:12 PM

will be purchasing a new pc monday for video editing. plan to edit on vegas 4. i have w2k already, will i be ok with that, or is there good reason to go and spend the extra $ to get xp pro?
i know that avid xpress dv, for example, is made for xp pro. does vegas have similar preferences?

Comments

kameronj wrote on 5/30/2003, 10:04 PM

Nope. Doesn't matter. Will run perfect on a system with Win2K.

As a side note -- because an application was "desinged" for a certain OS does not necessarily mean that it will not run on another. Especially when talking about Win2k vs WinXP.

I could see a hugh diff between Win98 and Win2K (different platforms...2K being based on NT)...but you won't see any diff between 2K and XP - especially if you are only going to use it to edit.

DDogg wrote on 5/31/2003, 11:19 AM

I think if I had that decision I would select XP. Not so much for vegas' sake, more because, IMO, XP supports a more robust plug and play system that video folks tend to use a lot. You will get a lot of opinons on this subject, but normally a newer operating system will have a few more things worked out well than an older one. XP more or less got it right and works well with more up to date drivers and quite a few additional features. Again, just my opinion and for what it is worth.

kentwolf wrote on 5/31/2003, 4:25 PM

Win XP Pro is a WHOLE lot easier, hardware-wise.

Win2K was the most difficult OS upgrade I have ever done, bar none.

I was upgrading after Win2K was out for about 6 months, I believe. It was awful. I did not have obsolete hardware either.

When I upgraded to WinXP, I was ready for war. The upgrade, however, was a breeze...

Win XP is a great OS.

Surely, I will never to upgrade my OS ever again... :)

Fireguy5 wrote on 6/1/2003, 12:59 PM

One thing to bear in mind also is that if your getting a system that is Intel and want to use Hyperthreading I believe that only XP Pro supports this....Others will correct me if I'm wrong.

Tim

kameronj wrote on 6/1/2003, 2:20 PM

Kentwolf is correct on one issue - Win2K is a bear if you are upgrading. Especially if you upgraded from the Win9X platform.

Since Win2K is NT (ie. WinNT 5.0) - it is different from everything 9X. And...depending on what you had on your system at the time some software/hardware wasn't ready for the transfer yet.

However....being in IT I have installed Win2K about a gazillion times and have only ever had two problems with it. One was doing an upgrade from NT 4 (surprisingly enough) and the other was upgrading one of my 98SE boxes and my scanner wouldn't work. Of course, the scanner (and some of the other software I had) just wasn't ready to work with Win2K yet....but I since got past that.

As for which OS is better....well I would definately take Win2K over 98 anyday. XP is just an extension of 2K (some more bells and whistles) but nothing so new and exciting that I'm breaking out my checkbook to upgrade all of my systems for.

But, of course, I'm speaking from an IT Professional point of view and have been working with these OS's and boxes for a long time and I have seen tons of different setups (and people/companies still using Win95). So I guess my point is - whatever works works.

:->

BillyBoy wrote on 6/1/2003, 3:13 PM

How many zeros in gazillion?