Deciding Which O.S to BUY

[sterno]

To be specific, most newer hardware will not work well in NT4 because it didn't exist until long after NT4 was released. Many companies didn't bother to release drivers because few home users had NT4 and most work environments didn't need the hardware.

USB, Firewire, and many video capture devices are either unsupported or poorly supported in NT4. DVD support is flakey at best (and that was with a hardware decoder card that had official NT4 drivers). Fancy sound cards will also work badly even if you can find drivers, an SB16 will work fine but I've seen an SB Live cause major stability problems. DirectX 3 was the last version to be supported on NT4, so some new games won't work correctly - and NT4 doesn't allow direct access to most hardware so some old games won't work either.

NT4 is faster, more stable, and requires less memory and disk space. That's why some companies still use it on most of their desktop machines, and are only migrating to newer versions because MS won't provide patches. But the lack of hardware and software support is an absolute show-stopper for home users.

[gcutler]

Just one question... why not NT"?

1) MS on verge of no longer supporting it.

2) No Plug and Play

3) NTFS under NT not as robust as NTFS under 2000 or XP.

[WeedVender]

Thank you all. I will be going to buy Windows2000 Professional then...

I still want to know whats the difference between Pro and Workstation...

[BJ_M]

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.

there was a NT 1 , a NT 2 and NT 3 and then NT 4 , nobody really used it untill NT 3.51 came out -- all these version were 32 bit version and completly diff. from windows 3 (windows 1 or 2 or 3.11) ..
windows 1 and 2 were not really used much either by anyone ..

i use both win2k (server) becuase one system i have is 4 cpu , and the other dual cpu systems i use have XP pro on them and I find it just fine ..
I still have 1 NT4.0 system also ..

i dont have any stability issues with any of them and after real negitive feelings about XP when it came out - i have accepted it .. Then again i was really negitive about 2000 when it came out because NT 4 could kick its butt in rendering , untill sp1 came out for win2k that is ...

[rkr1958]

I have come up with Win2k Pro and WinNT 4.0

Stay away from NT ... it does not support USB. I just upgraded to Win2K Pro from W98SE. I was debating between Win2k and WinXP. Talking to people at work they convinced me to go with Win2k which is focused more on the advance computer user and has more flexibility. WinXP trys to be everything to everyone from the beginner to the advance user. The price you pay for this as an advance user is loss of flexibility compared to Win2K. All of this is my understanding and opinion of course.

[gcutler]

Thank you all. I will be going to buy Windows2000 Professional then...

I still want to know whats the difference between Pro and Workstation...

THere is no Pro or Workstation depending on which os.

NT 4.0 = Server or Workstation (There is no NT Pro in this version)
Windows 2000 = Server or Professional (The is no 2000 Workstation in this version).
XP = Home or Pro (both desktops, one geared for home or business)
Windows 2003 = Server (basically equivlant to XP Server, was supposed to called .NET, all marketing descisions)

It is just symantecs or marketing

[gcutler]

I have come up with Win2k Pro and WinNT 4.0

Talking to people at work they convinced me to go with Win2k which is focused more on the advance computer user and has more flexibility. WinXP trys to be everything to everyone from the beginner to the advance user.

That is just incorrect. Consider XP Pro just an upgrade (new interface) and bug fixes to Win2000Pro, it is NOT a step backwards the way your describe it. XP-Pro is the replacement OS for W2KPro in every way (any problems are really based on OEM customizations or Apps that do not have upgraded drivers plus any new bugs that an upgrade usually gives you)

XP-Home just got home OSes away from Win95/98/ME and closer to the NT/W2K/XP world of NTFS and got rid of all the DOS support than handicapped Win95/98/ME (No direct access to hardware like W95/98/ME gave). So it isn't like XP drags the Pro user down, but pulls the home user up. Then then they removed some features from the HOME product (to make sure the business people buy PRO and don't save by using HOME). Pro gives you ability to log into a domain, have user rights for sharing, remote access, etc. Doing what we do with DV, home or pro makes no difference.

gcutler, Microsoft Certified System Engineer and Microsoft Certified Trainer

[gcutler]

Did you upgrade from 2000 to XP?

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

Agree about the OEM issues you discussed, been happy with DELL's OEM.

But can you exactly specify why Pro is better than Home? Because the difference in features is only beneficial to a small # of home users and most Office users (logging into Network Domains, Remote Access, etc). There might be some drive options XP-Pro might give you (don't remember which options off top of my head) but most people here won't use the features anyway.

for DV people, there is no or very little difference between Home or Pro
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp see the difference...


GCutler, Microsoft Certifed System Engineer & Microsoft Certified Trainer.

[BJ_M]

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.

mac do not use 64 bit proccessors -- never did and still a way before they do ...

they were comparing in that report 2 machines that were top in thier class - and the mac costs more ..

apples are VERY well built machines and I like them for many things -- but speed is not thier main strenth (at all) .. I wish more pc makers would have a build quality like a G4 ... apple right now has a problem with cpu's and what they will use in the future (IBM or AMD or INTEL ) as the current apple cpu line is discontinued and the line is about to be shut down in a short period of time forever (still a year i think away i heard) -

[rkr1958]

I have come up with Win2k Pro and WinNT 4.0

Talking to people at work they convinced me to go with Win2k which is focused more on the advance computer user and has more flexibility. WinXP trys to be everything to everyone from the beginner to the advance user.

That is just incorrect. Consider XP Pro just an upgrade (new interface) and bug fixes to Win2000Pro, it is NOT a step backwards the way your describe it.
gcutler, Microsoft Certified System Engineer and Microsoft Certified Trainer

I was really speaking about Win2K Pro versus Win XP Home. And I stand by what I said. Win XP Home, in my opinion and in the opinions of several knowledge PC Users (of which I am one) gives the knowlegable user less flexibility and for us is a step backwards. Where I work there are probably 1000 or so PC running Win2K. Several of these work PCs have been replaced in the past two to three months from 933-GHz to 2.3+ GHz machines. All of the replaced machines are running Win2K and Not Win XP Pro. Why? I'm not a IT person, but the people I talk to say that Win2K is a much better system for that environment. Also, switching back to home use again, you don't have to mess with that pesky XP activiation big brother stuff with Win2K. That was also a big factor in me, personally choosing Win2K over XP.

[petec]

I have used NT 200 server, 98SE and XP Pro. Initially tried 2000 server because of the ability to use NTFS. I had issues with hardware drivers and software. Switched to 98SE and it worked with all of my hardware and software. (started with burning VCDs, then SVCDs and currently DVDs). Recently decided to make my multimedia machine XP pRO. So far have had no problems with any hardware or software. Mostly doing video captures from satellite using Canopus ADVC50/100 and a DVRaptor card. Still prefer using TMPGe for conversions over CCE and Procoder.

[ChrisX]

I have come up with Win2k Pro and WinNT 4.0

Stay away from NT ... it does not support USB.

I am using Win2000 and my keyboard and my mouse is connected this way, the USB. Not a problem using this connection.

WinNT 4.0 doesn't support USB and Microsoft has no plans to introduce support in future.

By the way, WinXP is also considered to be an NT as well due to the fact it uses file system NTFS.

[vitualis]

It is probably better to say that WinXP and Win2000 uses the WinNT core and as such can use NTFS as a filesystem (rather than the other way around).

Regards.

[mats.hogberg]

Go for W2k pro. To me, XP Pro is 2k with eye candy. If I had known what I know now, I'd never "upgraded" to XP.

/Mats

[ChrisX]

But can you exactly specify why Pro is better than Home?

The reason "WinXP Pro" is better than "WinXP Home" is more flexibility and less restrictive such as network access and security of files with the extras not included in the Home Edition.

Remote access is another one as not in the home edition and WinXP Pro got better “system restore” in an emergency. Web server is another one for business.

Check out on Win XP Home vs WinXp Pro: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

Chris

[rkr1958]

I have come up with Win2k Pro and WinNT 4.0

Stay away from NT ... it does not support USB.

I am using Win2000 and my keyboard and my mouse is connected this way, the USB. Not a problem using this connection.

WinNT 4.0 doesn't support USB and Microsoft has no plans to introduce support in future.

Not sure if your are agreeing or disagreeing with what I said but when I said, "Stay away from NT", I was referring to NT 4.0. At work, I use 4 PCs, 2 running Win2K and 2 running Win NT 4.0. The two NT machines really bite because we have a CD-RW USB drive that will not work with the two NT machines. The days of NT 4.0 are long pass, Win2K is far superior and much more stable than Win NT 4.0. Win2K also gives you, in addition to USB, firewire support.

[gcutler]

I was really speaking about Win2K Pro versus Win XP Home. And I stand by what I said. Win XP Home, in my opinion and in the opinions of several knowledge PC Users (of which I am one) gives the knowlegable user less flexibility and for us is a step backwards. Where I work there are probably 1000 or so PC running Win2K. Several of these work PCs have been replaced in the past two to three months from 933-GHz to 2.3+ GHz machines. All of the replaced machines are running Win2K and Not Win XP Pro. Why? I'm not a IT person, but the people I talk to say that Win2K is a much better system for that environment. Also, switching back to home use again, you don't have to mess with that pesky XP activiation big brother stuff with Win2K. That was also a big factor in me, personally choosing Win2K over XP.

Just because your company chose not to upgrade new machines to XP does not mean it is an inferior product. Often there is a coporate mandate for only 1 os, and until every machine in the company is capable of running XP, they have to use the lowest common denominator, which is Win2000Pro will run on EVERY PC in the company and is therefore the best right now. I work in a similar situation, and there are often several factors, one is Corporate IT does not like to make changes when what they are familiar with works adequately, but that also leave you companies similar to yours that are still in Win98. Should the people who work at companies where IT is still using Win98 assume that 98 is superior because their IT says so? What IT should be saying is that "by having to support 1000 people, and we by mandate can only support 1 OS, the best OS for EVERYONE at this point is W2KPRO.". In 1-2 years when every machine can support XP, watch them upgrade to XP.

Corporate IT probably does not have the time and money to get the support staff trained on the new components so that is another reason, and lastly any type of change seen by the end-users will cause them to blame the change when it probably is something else. So when asking why, you don't get the true answer (which is the ancillary costs of upgrading or supporting multiple OSes, you just get the quick and easy W2KPro is best, but that is not necessarily true) Take my word on this, you would love to be a fly on the wall at IT meetings where these things are decided, the best dosen't always win, other factors are often in play besides which OS is better.

You as an end-user do not have the same ancillary costs of switching to a new OS when you get a new PC at home, granted you may be familiar with Win2KPro, but again that doesen't prove or disprove that XP is inferior/superior.

And lastly the issue of activation key, it is fine that you don't want to use it, but that has nothing to do with the quality or lack of quality of XP.

[gcutler]

But can you exactly specify why Pro is better than Home?

The reason "WinXP Pro" is better than "WinXP Home" is more flexibility and less restrictive such as network access and security of files with the extras not included in the Home Edition.

Remote access is another one as not in the home edition and WinXP Pro got better “system restore” in an emergency. Web server is another one for business.

Check out on Win XP Home vs WinXp Pro: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

Chris

You never stated what your needs are originally, and that is where the argument may have come from... But for a home user the issues you list are generally not important issues (How many home users are running an advanced network, or need file encryption or even backup as to make system restore valid, or use remote access or host local web servers on their workstation) For a business user I agree that that they may be important. SO to say that XP-Pro is just better is misleading. For a vast majority of the Home users, than XP-Home is good enough and XP-Pro is a waste of money. If you are a business user of course XP-Pro is better. To recommend XP-Pro to everyone would be doing them a disservice and wasting their money, find out their needs first and then the defintion of best OS becomes a reality.

But for doing any of the stuff we are talking about on this forum, XP-Pro gives you no advantage over XP-Home.

If your brother/sister was going to buy a PC, and they were doing the typical stuff (Word processing, Internet, and COnverting Home movies to DVD) which OS would you recommend to them. If you recommend XP-Pro then you are probably asking them to waste around $60-$100 on stuff that they will probably not use.

[LanEvo7]

I have used NT 200 server, 98SE and XP Pro. Initially tried 2000 server because of the ability to use NTFS. I had issues with hardware drivers and software.

You're right. Win 2K was crap when it came out. There were a ton of issues, both software and hardware. Now most of it has been resolved, and its a very good operating system.

[BJ_M]

i keep seeing NT4.0 and no USB and firewire support -- not true , you can get 3rd party USB support for NT4 as well as firewire support for NT4 (nt4 has had firewire drivers for a long time) ..
but I dont really like USB anyway - it should be turned off if you are using most any higher end NLE software and DV ..

There is even Direct X up to 6 for NT4 ...

not saying you should use it - but just setting the facts straight ..

[rmacfarland]

I have to say use Windows 2000. As for Windows NT it was/is a good operating system. I used it since it came out. It would have been
nice to have PNP and USB support but it doesn't..

One thing though I use to use NT with my Pinnacle card and it work great.

Since I upgrade with Windows 2000 Pro I am stuck using Pinnacle's own
software for capturing as their drivers suck. I use to use Virtual Dub
but can't any longer...As for XP Pro/Home I would not touch it with
a 10 foot poll. I work as a network administrator and we bought
about 10 dell desktops with XP Pro and have had nothing but problems.

Half the software we use crashes, blue screens. We actually moved half
of those systems back to Windows 2000 pro and the problems are gone.


Come on Linux get better software (ie. capturing, ripping, encoding) going and I would switch in a heart beat.

[gcutler]

i keep seeing NT4.0 and no USB and firewire support -- not true , you can get 3rd party USB support for NT4 as well as firewire support for NT4 (nt4 has had firewire drivers for a long time) ..
but I dont really like USB anyway - it should be turned off if you are using most any higher end NLE software and DV ..

There is even Direct X up to 6 for NT4 ...

not saying you should use it - but just setting the facts straight ..

Only problem with 3rd party USB and Firewire drivers is that MS won't support you if you use them, but then again MS isn't going to be supporting NT anymore anyway so I guess that reason goes out the window

[gcutler]

Since I upgrade with Windows 2000 Pro I am stuck using Pinnacle's own
software for capturing as their drivers suck. I use to use Virtual Dub
but can't any longer...As for XP Pro/Home I would not touch it with
a 10 foot poll. I work as a network administrator and we bought
about 10 dell desktops with XP Pro and have had nothing but problems.

Half the software we use crashes, blue screens. We actually moved half
of those systems back to Windows 2000 pro and the problems are gone.

But have you applied the latest application patches and drivers? What you describe has occurred with every OS when new without fail. Of course I'm willing to bet that you have 40 man hours a week to do 80 man hours of work, so going back to W2KPro is most efficient way to fix problem. I hate supporting two OSes at the same time (unless one of them is on the way to being phased out)

I've often found that at least with Dell the latest drivers help, but sometimes patches for some apps are long in coming, especially if the vendor wants you to upgrade to the newer version and the company you work for dosen't want to spend the money

[LanEvo7]

I'm using xp Pro right now and it seems like a pretty good OS. Crashes are very low. Then again, I was upgrading from ME, so anything is better than that P.O.S of an OS. I didn't upgrade to 2k because when it came out, there was so much problems with support for it. Should have gone with 2K instead of ME.