What's the Best OS?

[proxima9]

I'm just getting started in DVD,SVCD and video editing on my PC. I have Win98se and have read about the 4gb file size issue. I have a large enough HD to partion and Dual-boot OS mostly so I don't lose stuff on my PC by upgrading with one of Microsoft's "Easy" upgrades! Which OS should I install WinXP or Win2K and home or prof version? I'm leaning towards XP but have heard of some minor compatability problems with some editing and ripping software. No neg comments heard about Win2k?!

[Nelson37]

I would investigate available drivers for your existing hardware, that may dictate your decision.

Been capturing, encoding, and burning with XP pro non-stop for over a year, no problems. Have found Win2k to be very solid, as well.

Some software issues, but these are with old programs, and minor problems at that.

[wulf109]

Unless you have a compelling reason to break the 4GB barrier I would stay with Win98. I've read too many posts hear and on other forums to ever use XP,W2K seems better. Why change to Bill Gates OS dejur?

[Jonathan Archer]

is there any problem reported with using WinXP SP1?

[SatStorm]

Win 98SE and Win 2K are the best choices for me.

WinXP are "heavy" for any computer. With Win2K you can do the same, but faster and with less need for hardware
Win 98SE has great support in the internet. That resolves many issues, expecially on older PC systems (older: More than a year!)

[Gazorgan]

If you haven't used either, then in in for some learning. Second, the 4 GB barrier isn't a function of XP/W2K per say, it's a function of NTFS format of your Harddrives. NT/W2K/XP can read NTFS. Therefore, dual booting isn't going to help you at all unless you have a dedicated NTFS drive ( of at least 40 GB if your going to capture, preferably 80 or more).

98 can't read NTFS. There are some 3rd party program that will let you read small NTFS partitions(2GB), some that will read write small NTFS partitions(2GB), and some really expensive ones that will let 98 access the full NTFS drive.

Go with W2K. XP is bloated, needs a P4 and 256 MB RAM to load and do anything worthwhile.

[tom28]

I like the Win2k better, run faster, wider drivers and applications support. I found WinXP runs slower and not enough applications support. I have dual boot into Win2k and winxp and found Win2k is faster, more reliable, more drivers and applications available.

[dcsos]

Vote # 2 for 2000
Its the most stable
XP Pro is ok too, but has all this garbage in there like
internet firwall and networking garbage...Still, you can even see how much disk space is left on another machine's hdd over the network
2000 can't do that!
please udate ASPI for XP Pro with adapec or similar utility as windows removed aspi layer ..Also use SP1..it fixes RIP problems

[JasonK]

Win2k is fast and rock solid. and requires no activation.

The 4 gig limitations of Win98 / ME are NOT just a file system limitation as has been implied here. Even if accessing large NTFS partitions over a network, Win98/ME can't surpass 4 gig file size.

You can use utilities to access very large NTFS partitions >4gig with Win98 and ME (and they aren't that expensive. ) But because of the internal architecture of Win98 and ME, you can not read an entire file which is over 4 gig in length.

[energy80s]

Someone earlier asked about Service Pack 1. The simple answer is not to install it as there are a lot of problems with it. Wait for SP2 to be released.

[vitualis]

It is a curious statement that some have made that Win2K has better application and driver support than WinXP. I have found this to be exactly the opposite.

Also, if you turn off all the new gawdy UI "enhancements" on WinXP, it runs just like Win2K.

Regards.

[crahak]

Well, I had lots of problems with win2k, same for lots of friends and even at work, it's behind a pain. Never had a glitch with XP yet. Everyone I talk to love it. (Of course, you gotta disable all that crap u don't want)

[SatStorm]

Win XP works great if you buy a ready PC solution, from a manufacture like Dell, HP,etc. In other words if you buy your PC from a PC manufacture/ distibutor
If you built your own PC, you must be lucky with WinXP. Expecially if you are using "exotic" hardware for most US areas. Here in europe we have this problem all the time (many local hardware solutions, many cheap made in china hardware...)
The same probs once was with win2k. But 2 and a half years later, there is enough support for this enviroment. Far better winxp.

And why someone has to learn how to de-activate manually all those parameters of winXP just to have a software identical with a previus one (w2k) in fuctionality?

Win2K hands down. And win98SE in a small partition, just for "those" times...

[Dubber]

Another vote for Win2K here!!!

FYI: http://www.vcdhelp.com/oscomparisons.htm

[JasonK]

I am a network engineer for a large company and manage many servers and hundreds of workstations. In general, my peers in the field (other companies) and myself have had less problems with Win2k systems than XP. This represents thousands of workstations just from my direct associates which I converse with regularly. Both OS both use the same core, but their are some additions to the XP "bloat" which add to its instability. Need I mention the activation for all non-corporate versions?

[vitualis]

I don't disagree that WinXP comes with more "crap" installed by default, but as a general home user, I actually find some of that "crap" useful. All the stuff I don't like/use, I just turn it off.

I question the validity of the "superior" software and hardware support of Win2K simply because WinXP is essentially an updated version of Win2K. WinXP supports more hardware devices than Win2K natively and can furthermore use all Win2K drivers. Also, on the software front, my experience is that WinXP supports more programs with it's "compatibility" mode.

Regards.

[la_bomba]

to stay on the safe side - stick with w2k.

I dualboot with 98 & w2k no problem, except w98 have given me some headache, but that's just the way it's supposed to be... XP on the other hand doesn't have anything I'm missing out on except compatibility issues..

[mustang581]

at the end it may be a matter of preference win2k vs xp. I personally have been using xp for about year now, with out any problems. it does seem to want to take over you pc but you can disable and or remove some of these extras. the one thing I would recommend with xp is a clean install (don't upgrade).

[crahak]

I am a network engineer for a large company and manage many servers and hundreds of workstations.

I work on a country wide WAN, and we're running 2K. I like XP much better than 2K. However, you have to turn the extra/unwanted stuff off for sure. About bloatedness, if you're working on a big corporate network, it's going to be slow and overbloated anyhow. Most PCs at work take twice as much time to boot than all my computers at home all together. It's a completely different setup, and I find it has nothing to do with capturing. Let's stay focused?

Pre-98 is mainly considered too old.
98/98se is still used a lot, but the no NTFS is a pain in this case.
2K or XP, depending on your hardware. You have to have a PC big enough to run 'em, and have the proper drivers. If you remove the ueless autorun's, services, gui enhancements and such things, XP is just as lightweight as 2K. (and in my case, it's about 2 million % more stable). Guess it comes down to preferences, and bad/good experiences with 2K and XP...

[Colindale]

Strange?, I have no problems withs XP.

But perhaps that depends on my choice of hardware,

[vhelp]

my .98 cents worth is, 98/2000. I can't say much for 2000, but as others
have stated, 2000 has ben run through many exhaustive testings. And, as
such, it seems to get the most credits there of.

But, you also need to consider this.. what will you be using that will
require the optimum OS for your given task ?? Some examples:
* mb / cap card / cpu / software / other devices etc.

You biggest issue seems to be the 4gig (w98) or no limit w2k ->

2nd pc capture/video setup under w98
------------------------------------
At this present time, I am using Windows 98 for all my capture/DV conversion
and then, encoding projects. I'm using the ADVC-100 DV device in my setup.
I have no problems, and can't get enough of this device.. its much fun.
I also have the Wintv go and the DC10+ in this same setup. I have no issues
that I can remember (so far) with all three of these devices (2 analog, and
1 DV) I like doing a lot of test comparisons when I'm up to it on this
setup, with all these devics.
And, at the present, this pc setup is runnin pretty optimum (when I'm not
going crazy w/ my ideas)

Consider these tips, (IMO)
---------------------------
A If you go with analog capture, go with a dedicated PC/hd setup
.. and have your main pc for your all-in-one daily activities,
.. and NO LAN/Network connection whatsoever.
.. use: PRIMARY 1st HardDrive as C:\ ' for your OS ie windows 98
.. use: SECONDARY 2nd HardDrive as D:\ 'for your capturing etc.
B If you go with DV (ie advc-100) you can go with a all-in-one PC setup.
.. firewire card
.. good size harddrive,
.. and a decent DV capture software (though I use DVIO)
.. note, in this setup, for optimum performance, the OS is pending your final
.. judgement. The 4gig limit of windows 98 will be your deciding factor, other
.. wise, 2000 is your aim, and shoot for bare min. of 128MB ram, or 256 for
.. starters. You'll need the RAM for the video editing part only. Capturing
.. does nothing for the RAM. This is what I have for my 2nd pc setup.

The above (B) is basically my setup, and I couln't be more happy with it.

Give the above some thought, and good luck, and have fun at it !!
-vhelp

[vh5150]

Windows 2000 Professional is my current OS now but hear this;

I used Windows XP Professional but found out that the pre SP1 version I had was having more memory problems the Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra Congressional meetings. I went first with the Fisher Price (tm) OS because of the claim of better multimedia support. I soon found out that would be its only strong point.

Since digital convergence is the key all along, this is the OS of choice.

I therefore dropped back a step and settled on a proven OS that is Windows 2000 Pro. I used NTFS because of the 4gig limit is nothing for me to use in FAT32. When and if you use Huffy you will see what we all mean to say that you should use a NTFS drive.

Don't get me wrong XP is good but since I am serious in what I need to do for capturing and encoding. Win 2K Pro for me is the best bet.

I don't need no stinking email notification of mail in my hotmail account. And I don't need no stinking MSN messenger logging me on it automatically either.

XP Pro is a tad bit too bloated for me. But all is not lost:

I would like to thank William Gates III for XP SP1 (or Win 2K SP3) and it's trojan horse like capabilities. That which introduced me to the wonderful world of Linux and dual-booting .

[x9protocol]

Posted: Jan 07 09:58

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you have a compelling reason to break the 4GB barrier I would stay with Win98. I've read too many posts hear and on other forums to ever use XP,W2K seems better. Why change to Bill Gates OS dejur?

I am not aware that you can author without using ntfs? Not arguing just curious.

[vh5150]

No one really needs NTFS unless they plan on using Huffy or Motion JPEG. Or any codec that uses less than a 10:1 compression ratio.

Windows 98 is good if your machine can't take 2000 or XP. But if you need to capture with quality codecs like huffy you need NTFS for when you do. So it puts people in a catch-22.

Then theres also Linux. It will take time but not all wars are won overnight.

[Greg12]

I have both flavors of Windows XP

Stay away from Service Pack 1. It slowed my system to a grind, everday I was maxing out the ram and the page file.


Windows XP professional w/ 320megs of ram runs really nice, if i could boost to 512 (i will soon), it would be great.

I have 866MHZ P3 mobile.


I also have a p4@2.4ghz with 512megs w/XP home.

I don't like XP home, it seems to lag more than XP pro.

Windows XP is a great OS overall