Deciding Which O.S to BUY

[WeedVender]

I am having trouble deciding which O.S to buy for Home use...

I need a o.s that can support SMP processing.

I have come up with Win2k Pro and WinNT 4.0

Is there a pro of NT?

Also what is the difference between the O.s package and the workstation package?

[LanEvo7]

Why not consider Win XP Pro?

[WeedVender]

Dont like it. I want something more stable than WinXP

[Dpick]

Why not consider OS X from Macintosh if you don't want to mess with XP?

[sterno]

Choose 2000 if you're going to use it for a workstation. Definitely if you're going to do video work with it, a lot of current consumer-level hardware won't work in NT4. 2000 is part of the NT branch of windows, before Microsoft marketing got in to it everybody figured it would just be called Windows NT 5.0.

NT4 has no "professional" version, just like 2000 has no "non-professional" version. Putting "professional" in the name is just another piece of marketing. For that matter, there weren't actually 4 versions of NT, the first release was sold as version 3.1 because that was the current version of 16-bit Windows.

[WeedVender]

I don't like macs (sry tgpo), for me OS. X is just all eye candy and I can't seem to do any video editing work, believe me.

I am going to do A LOT OF VIDEO WORK. Its the reason why im considering to get it.

[Faustus]

Weedvendor I find it odd that you cant seem to do video editing work on a mac...its all very easy. That aside though I'd suggest 2kPro since you seem set against XP Pro. 2k is sorta the best of both worlds.

[i-on-s]

I do all my video editing on Win2K it is the best has never crashed on me while working. I installed XP Pro and had nothing but headaches with drivers and software and shit i would not recommend it but thats just me.

Cheers. :P

[trasixes]

I've used XP since release candidate 1 and never had a problem with it. 2K is nice and all, but I'd never go back.

[vitualis]

You're probably going to get better driver support (and better overall video editing support) in WinXP than Win2K.

WinXP is basically just as stable (IMHO) as Win2K and remember, you can TURN OFF all the stuff you don't like in WinXP. Turn off everything and you basically have Win2K with better driver support.

Regards.

[Faustus]

I wouldn't say XP is just as stable as 2k quite yet, give it to SP2 and then maybe. But its a pretty solid OS in general, just make sure to only use Certified drives, and run a clean ship and it will be nice back.

[tgpo]

I don't like macs (sry tgpo), for me OS. X is just all eye candy and I can't seem to do any video editing work, believe me.

I am going to do A LOT OF VIDEO WORK. Its the reason why im considering to get it.

Tha'ts what I do at my job, video editing and DVD production. And I do it all from a mac, in fact we only have one pc in the back corner which we use to put our time sheets in. With the combonation of Final Cut Pro, and DVD Studio Pro, and Shake, And After Effects, and Premire, and Maya, how can you not do video work on a mac.

[LanEvo7]

Just stick with the PC. The hardware it offers is in everyway superior to any mac, meaning less time wasted. Of course no mac user would ever acknoledge this fact.

[tgpo]

Just stick with the PC. The hardware it offers is in everyway superior to any mac, meaning less time wasted. Of course no mac user would ever acknoledge this fact.

Everyway superior? .....Right, but go ahead and support the copiers and don't go with the leaders of technology, of course no pc user would ever acknoledge this fact.

[gcutler]

Dont like it. I want something more stable than WinXP

Who says XP-Pro is less stable than Win2000Pro or NT Workstation?

My first choice would be XP-Pro (or XP-home if corporate networking not a big deal). Then 2000Pro and lastly NT Workstation (NT Workstation has no plug-n-play, so avoid that and you can't get NT support from MS starting any month now, any MS product after 5 years or so and support will drop)

[EK03]

windows 2003 server, you can get a guide to make it into a workstation. Its the best OS for processor power on the windows side, i got it and im loving it

[gcutler]

windows 2003 server, you can get a guide to make it into a workstation. Its the best OS for processor power on the windows side, i got it and im loving it

2003 server is relatively new, Wiating for 1st Service Pack is usually a good idea. I'm sure there are hotfixes, but SP1 usually makes life less daring. And the cost of a legit copy of 2003 server and downgrading it's usage to a Workstation is probably not cost effective.

[LanEvo7]

Everyway superior? .....Right, but go ahead and support the copiers and don't go with the leaders of technology, of course no pc user would ever acknoledge this fact.

LOL, Leaders of technology? Of course you can't offer any proof to support this statement.

Here is a whole article that pits the Dual G4s 1ghz against a Dual Mp2000+ and a Single P4 2.53. http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

Look at the benches. The Mac is last IN EVERY SINGLE BENCH. Some by quite a lot too I might mention. Looks like "copier" runs faster than a "leader of technology".

You show me some facts, not just opinions or statements with no backing, and I'll believe that they are leaders in technology

[WeedVender]

LanEvo please refrain from making this into a PC vs. MAC thread.

That link you gave proves nothing. Macs use 64 bit Processors, Pc are starting to move there (AMD Opetron) but still are a long way from there. Anyway a comparison of Dual Processors with a 1 ghz difference is not fair either. If TGPO suggests a mac, let him suggest a mac.

TGPO, I really don't have the money to buy a Mac. I had to wait a month so I can get my Dual CPU Xeon system back from work and I already put too much money into it to invest on another computer. Maybe I can try to buy the Mac I use at work from the company but that chance is nill.

Another thing, I am still keeping XP Pro, If u look at my specs..
im just going to do a dual boot, thats all.

[LanEvo7]

I didn't want to turn it into another mac VS pc thread. I just wanted to state that Apple/Macs do not offer a good price/performance ratio in comparision to PC. I don't think many people would like to waste their money. The benchmarks were "fair" in terms that, at the time the benches were done, these were the top of the line systems. MHZ doesn't rate speed, Motorola and AMD have been trying to get this point across for years. 64bits doesn't mean anything when the system as a whole doesn't perform as well as a similarly priced system.

In regards to your O.S. question, if you don't like XP Pro, I'd suggest you go with Win2K. With 2k you get a lot more software support since microsoft wants to elimitate win98 and win nt 4.0.

[tgpo]

Just a quick note. Adobe has openly stated that their software, which is what was tested, is NOT optomized on the mac side, but that is is highly optomized for the PC. I bet the results would have been different if they would have used software that was optomized on the mac side as much as it was for the pc side, such as Final Cut Pro vs Adobe Premire....but strangly you don't see tests like that...maybe it's because the macs win and people just don't like to know they are wrong

I would suggest, on a PC, windows 2000 over Windows XP anyday. The XP OS is almost unusable to me, it seems like Micro$oft simply wanted to add features, but not make them usable. SO for the money I'd say that Windows 2000 was the better of the two.

[LanEvo7]

Sorry, must clear up something.

Ok, Adobe is optimized for PC. That still proves a PC can run Adobe faster than a Mac does. Here is a different set of benchmarks that are more current that test a variety of applications. Its with the Dual 1.42(Top of the line Mac) vs a Single P4 3.06(Top of the Line PC). http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html Hmm, most of those applications must be optimized for the PC too right?
And you still can't deny that a PC offers a MUCH better price/performance ratio. Go and try to find a Mac for under $800 that can do video editing/conversion and gaming and doesn't do it at super slow speeds.

[WeedVender]

In order to process data, store interim results or do indirect addressing, each processor has a number of internal memory cells that can be accessed without any latency, called registers. Each register has a fixed width.

A 32-bit processor such as the Intel Pentium 4 or the AMD Athlon XP can, for example, add 32-bit wide numbers in one step, while the older 16-bit processor (e.g. Intel 80286 CPU) would require two steps for the same job.

It goes without saying that every processor comes with registers that are at least the size of its arithmetic units (ALUs), which is why 32-bit x86 processors come with 32-bit wide registers. It's not only important that a processor has registers that are wide enough, it should also have a lot of them, as it allows to keep a lot of data 'in flight'.

AMD64 offers not just 8, but 16 64-bit wide registers, which speeds up applications (that are properly compiled), because data does not need to be written to main memory as often.

Floating point and SIMD operations (SSE, SSE2) profit from 64-bit processing. A 64-bit processor can natively calculate the important 64-bit floating point format ("double precision" - precise up to 15 decimal places) and is therefore faster - this is the main reason why 64-bit processors take the lead in the floating point benchmarks.

This is taken from Tom's Hardware.com in their Article of Xeon vs. Opetron


Enought about 64 bit computing..

[ChrisX]

I tried Win XP Home and this didn't work out for me and that OS brought problems. So, reverted back to Win2000, never crashed on me and I can do anything with it. Even the printing is now possible from all of my computers in my network. Win XP was a problem with compatiblity of printing.

I think WinXP Pro is better and best not to use the OEM version, you know what I mean, Compaq Computer pre-installed OS.

Win2K is a great OS much better than Win98 with NTFS HD. Much more reliable and stable.

Anyway, I am thinking of researching on Win2003 Server, whether to go for it or not.

[gcutler]

I think WinXP Pro is better and best not to use the OEM version, you know what I mean, Compaq Computer pre-installed OS.

XP-Home and Pro very little difference, so if XP-Home not work, XP-Pro probably not work better (unless you need the Corporate networking or other advanced utils, that aren't needed for doing DV or DVD.) And the OEM versions just as good as out of the box, usually gives you additional drivers specific for OEM and some custom apps but not much different. But don't use OEM on different brand computer as assumptions may not be correct.

Did you upgrade from 2000 to XP? That often is the problem, upgrades usually not as good as fresh install, tends to keep SW around that not 100% compatible. As for printing, did you upgrade ALL your drivers, you visit the vendor sites and they have updates for drivers that worked fine on 2000 but need patch on XP.

[ChrisX]

Did you upgrade from 2000 to XP?

No, the WinXP was pre-installed in a new Compaq Computer. The problem with Compaq's WinXP is that they add additional programs into the OS. They were usually as a duplicate of Microsoft is doing and custom made for a Compaq Computer.

I noticed IBM was doing the same thing on a Win98 computer and I have remove the unwanted outdated programs.

There was a problem with WinXP SP1 upgrade using Compaq's WinXP OS which damaged the system to do with networking. I couldn't restore and fix it and Norton Internet Security 2001 was also the culprit of the damage. The only way was re-format the drive.

I then decided to install Win2000 as there were restrictions and compatablity issues using WinXP as well.

I still think WinXP Pro is better than the Home Edition.

[LanEvo7]

Thats the bad thing about OEM computer manufacturers. They customize the operating system with their own software. As if Win XP didn't have enough crappy software included

[WeedVender]

Just one question... why not NT"?

[ChrisX]

Just one question... why not NT"?

Win2000 is really NT Version 5. Which OS is really up to you.

[LanEvo7]

NT 4.0 is an outdated O.S. Win 2K was designed to replace it(WinXP Pro replaces 2K). Since you don't like XP Pro, 2k is the next best thing.