• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Win 2000 or Win XP

B

Bfavre444

Senior member
I can't decide whether to use Win2000 or WinXP on my new laptop for video editing. Which one do you guys use? And which one seems more stable, less crashes? I'm using Win2000 on my desktop right now and is very stable, but is WinXP about the same or better in stability?

Also, isn't WinXP more fancy and takes up more memory when loaded than Win2000? Win2000 seems just more basic, straightforward, with its classic shell, and have less "junk" unlike the green/blue stuff, zip integration, and hardware plug-n-play in XP. Win2000 just seems to run faster internally. (for example, opening folders, clicking menus, opening programs) So is Win2000 really faster to use?

Another thing I hear is that XP doesn't like FAT32. It runs slower says a friend than NTFS on XP. Is this true?
 
Originally posted by: Bfavre444
I can't decide whether to use Win2000 or WinXP on my new laptop for video editing. Which one do you guys use? And which one seems more stable, less crashes? I'm using Win2000 on my desktop right now and is very stable, but is WinXP about the same or better in stability?

Also, isn't WinXP more fancy and takes up more memory when loaded than Win2000? Win2000 seems just more basic, straightforward, with its classic shell, and have less "junk" unlike the green/blue stuff, zip integration, and hardware plug-n-play in XP. Win2000 just seems to run faster internally. (for example, opening folders, clicking menus, opening programs) So is Win2000 really faster to use?

Another thing I hear is that XP doesn't like FAT32. It runs slower says a friend than NTFS on XP. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Between the two, there is very little difference. The major consideration is how compatible are your video editing software with regards to either OS? You can also turn off all the bells and whistles of WinXP so that it looks and runs just like Win2k, so basic performance is not an issue. As for WinXP running slower on FAT32? I doubt it, but really haven't used FAT32 in WinXP. FAT32 runs fast and well in Win2k though.

 
What kind of laptop is this?

In general, I would suggest Windows XP for laptop because it has better support for the specialized hardware and power consumption that laptops have. That said, if you are a user of Windows 2000 and your laptop is not relatively recent, there is absolutely no reason to hitch yourself to the candycorn desktop. Windows 2000 is still a more mature operating system.
 
This is a Compaq 900z that was an amazing steal on the Hot Deals forum. I think I've decided to get XP. There are ways to disable a lot of XP's crap services and auto-services, I've discovered.
 
Personally I think 2000 is more stable. But when I installed xp I upgraded some hardware so I can't really blame the os.

Also one thing to keep in mind is that fat32 partitions can only have a 4 gig file. If you are going to be doing video files you may want to stick to ntfs.

Semper Fi
 
To begin with, I used FAT32 because I didn't have a version of Ghost that worked with NTFS.
I've since re-installed using NTFS. There is no appreciable difference in the speed of the machine.
(Benchmarks perhaps, but in games and apps..... I was not able to see any difference in performance.)

Good luck with it if you do decide to use XP (I can't help with comparison because I never ran 2K).
I will say that at first I didn't like the re-organization of where to find stuff.
It takes a couple weeks to get aquainted, but it is time well spent.... I am happy with it now.
 
I was in a similar dilema at work. We Just bought 30 new PC's for me to deploy (replacing old p100s for each office worker 🙂
Being a big 2k advocate, I decided to order them with that. More mature, less crap, etc. I support a couple of EXEC level Laptops (owners of Co. who buy what they want without asking me, install stuff, and when it breaks, exepcts me to fix it within 30seconds for them) that have XP and wasnt all that impressed. Needless to say, the idiot @ INSIGHT ( I wil lnot protect the guilty) shipped my rigs with XP pro instead of 2k. Owner of Co said, well you have to live with it, if you think you can deal with it, we dont care.
So I played with it for a day and have to admit I like it 🙂
I had to turn off, hide and uninstall a boatload of crap for my master image so my users cant get into any trouble. Once you mess with it for a bit, it is actually pretty cool. Cool enough where I just plunked down $50 to MS for XP pro for 1 of my home rigs.
This is coming from a guy who tried as hard as possible to resist the XP push, but after having it for a week, I like it ;-)
 
Personally I think 2000 is more stable. But when I installed xp I upgraded some hardware so I can't really blame the os.
Click to expand...

Using XP here and it`s rock stable,I can`t get it to crash even with my VIA board 😉,btw I guess the simple answer would be is decide on the amount of ram you`ve,if you`ve 128mb or below then Win2K is probably the better solution,there`s nothing wrong with XP but it does require more memory then 2K to get the best out of it.Stability wise there are both NT based and I would rate them equal with XP having more extra software built-in(bloatware some people call it).


🙂

 
laptop for video editing
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound too enticing, because of slower hdd, smaller ram & weak graphic card. I would go with WinXP pro for the built-in drivers, but Win2k should have most if not all drivers that you need for the laptop.

I personally had to wiped 5 new WinXP laptops & replace it with Win2k with out a hitch.
 
Well, here is a little update. I deployed the 1st 8 Xp boxes. Mine is flawless, I am loving it. Some uneducated users are having trouble figuring out office XP vs. office 97 we used to use, but that isnt the OS. My Boss already hosed her box and now have to do a system restore from yesterday. Why is she my boss? Good question, but that is for another time.
Go to blackviper.com
He has a good list of services you can disable to make it run a bit quicker.
RAM, RAM and more Ram is a good idea tho. Our baseline here is 256mb (Supposed to get 2k instead of XP PRO) and I would say that is the bare minimum (my integrated G2 graphics also swipes 32mb).
I am running 640mb in mine and it is doing just fine. Occasional lockup here and there, but otherwise good.
Definately going to be much more work admin'ng XP pro then 2k but thats life!
 
Originally posted by: mboy
Well, here is a little update. I deployed the 1st 8 Xp boxes. Mine is flawless, I am loving it. Some uneducated users are having trouble figuring out office XP vs. office 97 we used to use, but that isnt the OS. My Boss already hosed her box and now have to do a system restore from yesterday. Why is she my boss? Good question, but that is for another time. Go to blackviper.com He has a good list of services you can disable to make it run a bit quicker. RAM, RAM and more Ram is a good idea tho. Our baseline here is 256mb (Supposed to get 2k instead of XP PRO) and I would say that is the bare minimum (my integrated G2 graphics also swipes 32mb). I am running 640mb in mine and it is doing just fine. Occasional lockup here and there, but otherwise good. Definately going to be much more work admin'ng XP pro then 2k but thats life!
Click to expand...

So your task manager in XP is showing that you're using just about 256 megs of ram? Occasional lockup!!!??

 
ok i dont know about anyone else and i didnt actually read any of the other opinions..but i would always go with XP its is a little more stable than win 2k.. in my opinion....although i have not run it on a laptop..
 
So your task manager in XP is showing that you're using just about 256 megs of ram? Occasional lockup!!!??[/quote]


My rig is running 640mb. I would say it is close to using 256 with all the background apps running including the 32mb the onboard video steals( I am the admin, I have my AV admin software running, Network monitoring software and a bunch of other stuff).
My occasional lockup, or error is just typical MS stuff,nothig drastic. I do notice my machines that have the standard 256mb are a bit slower running apps in office Xp and some other apps we use.
 
Windows 2000 just feels snappier than XP (even when XP has all the candy turned off) on my computer with only 256MB of RAM. With Windows XP I would get a lockup after about one week of constant uptime, but I think that was due to some driver installation that I blotched up; Windows 2000 runs for over two weeks at a time (until I get bored and have to install or uninstall some big piece of software that requires a reboot 😉). I will probably go back to XP after I get some more RAM in my computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top