zemlin wrote on 7/22/2004, 6:07 PM
I used W2K for a while with good results recording 24 bit audio. The limitation that bugged me was a max of 8 or 10 (I don't recall) stereo devices, so I couldn't use all 24 tracks of my interface. I never needed to record that many, but when I good deal on a copy of XP came my way, I upgraded.

If you do install W2K, make sure you bypass the automatic config on install and setup your PC as a STANDARD PC - you don't want W2K on ACPI. It doesn't handle the interrupts as well as XP.
bgc wrote on 7/23/2004, 8:34 AM
Win2K handles greater than 16bit just fine. Some of the pre SP3 devices were limited to 16bits. MS made a fix at SP3. Some cards got around it in their own drivers.
Geoff_Wood wrote on 7/23/2004, 6:45 PM
Prior to SP3 any software that used the internal Kmixer module truncated all 16-bit-plus audio to 16 bits. Not as great start.

Apart from driver issues, there should be no reason to opt for W2K over XP, and several against, being a 'dead' OS one of them. If you already have W2k SP3, give it a try....

zemlin wrote on 7/24/2004, 7:06 AM
OOooohhhh yeah - That's right. I forgot about the 16 bit thing. VEGAS would not read 24 bits from my 24i until SP3. Then it started working.
datman wrote on 7/24/2004, 2:16 PM
I have had no problem with win2k. I have it on both my desktops. I have xp on my laptop and I hate some of the things about xp, mainly how the mouse works.

I have recorded up to 4 channels in 24/96 for over 6 hours ( 2-13g stereo files) not one problem. In w98 there is a 2g file size limitation that is not a problem in w2k.

There may be reasons to use xp , for me w2k is fine