is Win2000 really better for Video apps???

[videotape74]

hey everyone,

i'm currently running XP Pro and I was thinking of doing a dual boot with Windows 2000. the reason i'm thinking of this is i keep hearing that 2000 is better for video apps (encoding etc.). i use CCE alot for converting between formats and backing up DVD's. what is everyone's opinion on this. is it really worth it to do a dual boot with 2000 just for video editing? thanx for any info.

[politiken]

It obviously depends on your machine (speed, memory, etc) but yes, Win2000 has the same stability as Win XP, but uses much less resources - I can't imagine substituting my Win 2000 with XP (and even more so for Win Vista). - regards Pol

[guns1inger]

The die-hard Win2k users will tell you yes, but we still have people too scared to move off Win98 as well.

An argument can be made that for general interface speed, win2k can be faster because it lacks the visual aesthetics of XP. That is true of older machines, less so on newer machines.

The biggest issue you really need to consider is availability of software. More and more, drivers and software releases for Win2k are slowing and ceasing altogether. If you look at the latest releases of most commercial software, you will find it is XP only, and often XP with SP1 as a minimum.

If you only use freeware then it is not so crucial.

Will it make CCE run twice as fast ? No. Will it run 1 - 2 % faster ? Perhaps. The difference between the two, speed wise, is greater in the minds of die-hards that it is in reality.

I have used XP now since it was launched. On the original machine, it was slower than Win2k. Not a lot, but some. Since the upgrade (some time ago) I wouldn't ever consider going back to Win2k.

[videotape74]

thanks for the replies. my system specs are in my profile...do you think it would make much difference to me? thanx again.

[lordsmurf]

No.

I used Windows 2000 for a while, and Windows XP works better, especially when playing video. There is also a lot of software that requires Windows XP, so no way to avoid it.

I've never understood the comments about 2000 not being as resource-hungry as XP. They both act the same to me. When you do video work, you're going to have at least 1GB or RAM anyway, most of the time. So an extra 50-100-whatever of RAM... so what?

If you want a hog, look at Vista, not XP.

With modern Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs, even eating processor wouldn't be a big deal (though CPU use is about the same for both). On my system, in fact, XP took less CPU, more is idle.

I use SP1 on my main video machine. SP2 on others.

[videotape74]

thanks for the info lordsmurf

[SnoopNL]

you can keep XP SP2