I have two PCs currently: one running Windows 98SE and the other Windows
2000 Professional. The 98SE machine runs most of my audio programs such as
Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.. The 2000 Pro is running my video programs. Now I'm
about to build another machine and I'm not an expert on Windows OS, but what
I'd like to know from other more experienced users is what is the most solid
Windows OS out there? I've heard XP Home edition is rock solid reliable.
True or False? I like 98SE because it's backwards compatible with every
piece of software and plugin I have, but crashes here and there. 2000 Pro
has lots of network related stuff I don't need and don't know how to work
around. Advice please...

TIA

"Meekoe" wrote in message
news:jZ4Eb.28638$pY.3186@fed1read04...
I have two PCs currently: one running Windows 98SE and the other Windows
2000 Professional. The 98SE machine runs most of my audio programs such
as
Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.. The 2000 Pro is running my video programs. Now I'm
about to build another machine and I'm not an expert on Windows OS, but
what
I'd like to know from other more experienced users is what is the most
solid
Windows OS out there? I've heard XP Home edition is rock solid reliable.
True or False? I like 98SE because it's backwards compatible with every
piece of software and plugin I have, but crashes here and there. 2000 Pro
has lots of network related stuff I don't need and don't know how to work
around. Advice please...


I've had XP Pro on my machine for almost a year now (running Vegas, Sound
Forge, etc.) and it is, without a doubt, the most rock-solid Windows OS I've
ever used (even better than W2K).
A buddy has it on his machine running Logic Audio Platinum with a MOTU card
and agrees with me wholeheartedly.

Mike

On older hardware, use W2K. On new hardware XP Pro is a little bit nicer
than XP Home.

"Meekoe" wrote in message
news:jZ4Eb.28638$pY.3186@fed1read04...
I have two PCs currently: one running Windows 98SE and the other Windows
2000 Professional. The 98SE machine runs most of my audio programs such
as
Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.. The 2000 Pro is running my video programs. Now I'm
about to build another machine and I'm not an expert on Windows OS, but
what
I'd like to know from other more experienced users is what is the most
solid
Windows OS out there? I've heard XP Home edition is rock solid reliable.
True or False? I like 98SE because it's backwards compatible with every
piece of software and plugin I have, but crashes here and there. 2000 Pro
has lots of network related stuff I don't need and don't know how to work
around. Advice please...

TIA

Shaw Goh (NetPlus Micro Computers) wrote:
On older hardware, use W2K. On new hardware XP Pro is a little bit nicer
than XP Home.

The only difference between XP home and pro is that pro has additional
networking features. Even DIGI spec's home edition for audio as it has
fewer services running in the background.


"Meekoe" wrote in message
news:jZ4Eb.28638$pY.3186@fed1read04...

I have two PCs currently: one running Windows 98SE and the other Windows
2000 Professional. The 98SE machine runs most of my audio programs such

as

Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.. The 2000 Pro is running my video programs. Now I'm
about to build another machine and I'm not an expert on Windows OS, but

what

I'd like to know from other more experienced users is what is the most

solid

Windows OS out there? I've heard XP Home edition is rock solid reliable.
True or False? I like 98SE because it's backwards compatible with every
piece of software and plugin I have, but crashes here and there. 2000 Pro
has lots of network related stuff I don't need and don't know how to work
around. Advice please...

TIA

"Mike Kujbida" wrote in message
...

I've had XP Pro on my machine for almost a year now (running Vegas, Sound
Forge, etc.) and it is, without a doubt, the most rock-solid Windows OS
I've
ever used (even better than W2K).

I'd have to agree. One thing though DO NOT do ANY "recommended tweaks" on
XP. It runs perfect right out of the box. I didn't have a single problem
until I started making these small supposedly "benign" changes. (You know us
techs. Always thinking we can squeeze a little more out of something).

In article ,
(Andrew M.) wrote:

The only difference between XP home and pro is that pro has additional
networking features.

Not the only difference. XP Home has no SMP support, for example, which
might be important to some users here.

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
"Mike Kujbida" wrote in message
...

I've had XP Pro on my machine for almost a year now (running Vegas, Sound
Forge, etc.) and it is, without a doubt, the most rock-solid Windows OS

I've

ever used (even better than W2K).


I'd have to agree. One thing though DO NOT do ANY "recommended tweaks" on
XP. It runs perfect right out of the box. I didn't have a single problem
until I started making these small supposedly "benign" changes. (You know us
techs. Always thinking we can squeeze a little more out of something).


I disagree. If you change the processor scheduling from PROGRAM to
BACKGROUND services and disable the messenger service you get a
noticeable improvement in stability and performance. Also, disabling the
fade effects and font smoothing you also get improved performance. I
don't think there are any other tweaks that I would do though. The most
important is to change the processor scheduling. These are clearly
outlined by Digidesign but they seem to apply universally to all
systems. The only thing I don't do that digi recommends is the disabling
of the ethernet card and my system is solid. I only reboot about once a
week, and rarely crash.

David Morton wrote:

In article ,
(Andrew M.) wrote:


The only difference between XP home and pro is that pro has additional
networking features.


Not the only difference. XP Home has no SMP support, for example, which
might be important to some users here.

So am I reading this correctly that win XP home has no multiprocessor
support?

In article ,
(Andrew M.) wrote:

So am I reading this correctly that win XP home has no multiprocessor
support?

That is correct, yes.

David Morton wrote:
In article ,
(Andrew M.) wrote:


So am I reading this correctly that win XP home has no multiprocessor
support?


That is correct, yes.

I was just reading the the Pentium 4 processors don't support SMP
regardless of your OS.

"Andrew M." wrote in message
...
The only difference between XP home and pro is that pro has additional
networking features. Even DIGI spec's home edition for audio as it has
fewer services running in the background.

Well, it would be nice if that were totally true, but XP Pro supports
multiple processors, which is somewhat more important with the right
software than some administrative functions within the networking.
Particularly when talking about video. Then again, would 2 Athlong MP 2.0
GHz processors be better than a hyperthreading P4 at 3.2 GHz? Probably not.
But XP Pro is more robust than XP Home anyway, so who cares? However, it's
there if someone wants to know about it.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

"Andrew M." wrote in message
...
I was just reading the the Pentium 4 processors don't support SMP
regardless of your OS.

No, but Xeon processors do. Check out www.tomshardware.com for further
information. Great site, btw, if you're into hardware and want to know the
newest and probably get some of the most comprehensive test results.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

Windows XP, Home or Professional, is the best Windows OS, period. Could it
be better? Sure. But on the Windows side of the fence, it's the best route
to go. If you're planning on ever going the multi-processor route (including
a hyper-threaded P4), make sure you get the Pro version.

"Andrew M." wrote in message
...


Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
"Mike Kujbida" wrote in message
...

I've had XP Pro on my machine for almost a year now (running Vegas,
Sound
Forge, etc.) and it is, without a doubt, the most rock-solid Windows OS

I've

ever used (even better than W2K).


I'd have to agree. One thing though DO NOT do ANY "recommended tweaks"
on
XP. It runs perfect right out of the box. I didn't have a single problem
until I started making these small supposedly "benign" changes. (You
know us
techs. Always thinking we can squeeze a little more out of something).


I disagree. If you change the processor scheduling from PROGRAM to
BACKGROUND services and disable the messenger service you get a
noticeable improvement in stability and performance. Also, disabling the
fade effects and font smoothing you also get improved performance. I
don't think there are any other tweaks that I would do though. The most
important is to change the processor scheduling. These are clearly
outlined by Digidesign but they seem to apply universally to all
systems. The only thing I don't do that digi recommends is the disabling
of the ethernet card and my system is solid. I only reboot about once a
week, and rarely crash.

I find tweaking to be pretty beneficial. I'm using XPLITE
(http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html) and use it to strip my audio PC right to
the bone in terms of functionality. If XP can do anything more than I need
it to do, there's a chance it's effecting my audio performance. Maybe it's a
simplistic approach, but I find the less cluttered things are, the more
reliably they work.

XP home is bar far the best. MS finally got it right.

"Meekoe" wrote in message
news:jZ4Eb.28638$pY.3186@fed1read04...
I have two PCs currently: one running Windows 98SE and the other Windows
2000 Professional. The 98SE machine runs most of my audio programs such
as
Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.. The 2000 Pro is running my video programs. Now I'm
about to build another machine and I'm not an expert on Windows OS, but
what
I'd like to know from other more experienced users is what is the most
solid
Windows OS out there? I've heard XP Home edition is rock solid reliable.
True or False? I like 98SE because it's backwards compatible with every
piece of software and plugin I have, but crashes here and there. 2000 Pro
has lots of network related stuff I don't need and don't know how to work
around. Advice please...

TIA

Have you or anyone else looked into / at BEOS?



David Morton wrote in message
. uk...
In article ,
(Andrew M.) wrote:

The only difference between XP home and pro is that pro has additional
networking features.

Not the only difference. XP Home has no SMP support, for example, which
might be important to some users here.

dylanboyle wrote:
Have you or anyone else looked into / at BEOS?

It's impressive, but:

1. It's not Windows. It's not even remotely Windows. That's why it works
so well.

2. It's not very well supported either by applications or in terms of
development support.

Get the application you want, then run whatever underlying hardware and OS
it takes to run that application.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Why not use IE?

Oh... and by the way, do you know if I can upgrade directly from 98SE to XP
Home. Will all my programs (and I have ALOT) be backwards compatible with
it? Seriously... I'm not looking to experiment. I need a solid answer on
this one.

TIA


"Dean" wrote in message
...
Just make it stand-alone, or only in a PRIVATE network. do not put it
on the internet if you want it to run well. Unless your very vigilant
on windows updates, and don't use IE...

-Dean

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:14:53 -0500, "El Dude!"
wrote:

XP home is bar far the best. MS finally got it right.

"Meekoe" wrote in message
news:jZ4Eb.28638$pY.3186@fed1read04...
I have two PCs currently: one running Windows 98SE and the other
Windows
2000 Professional. The 98SE machine runs most of my audio programs
such
as
Nuendo, Wavelab, etc.. The 2000 Pro is running my video programs. Now
I'm
about to build another machine and I'm not an expert on Windows OS, but
what
I'd like to know from other more experienced users is what is the most
solid
Windows OS out there? I've heard XP Home edition is rock solid
reliable.
True or False? I like 98SE because it's backwards compatible with
every
piece of software and plugin I have, but crashes here and there. 2000
Pro
has lots of network related stuff I don't need and don't know how to
work
around. Advice please...

TIA




--
http://ripperd2.dhs.org

El Dude! wrote:

XP home is bar far the best. MS finally got it right.


Well, plug-n-pray still isn't quite right.

"Meekoe" wrote in message
news:nW_Eb.31517$pY.17350@fed1read04...
Why not use IE?

Oh... and by the way, do you know if I can upgrade directly from 98SE to
XP
Home. Will all my programs (and I have ALOT) be backwards compatible with
it? Seriously... I'm not looking to experiment. I need a solid answer on
this one.

TIA

Though a clean install is always preferred, 98 upgrades to XP quite nicely.

As for compatibility, you should download and run the Windows XP upgrade
advisor application located at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...ng/advisor.asp

Also note that many older programs that will not run under XP will run quite
nicely in one of the compatibility modes which can be accessed by right
clicking on the .exe file for the program you wish to run, selecting
properties, selecting the compatibility tab and then selecting the windows
version of compatibility to you wish to operate that program under.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

"Meekoe" wrote in message
news:nW_Eb.31517$pY.17350@fed1read04...
Why not use IE?

Oh... and by the way, do you know if I can upgrade directly from 98SE to
XP
Home. Will all my programs (and I have ALOT) be backwards compatible with
it? Seriously... I'm not looking to experiment. I need a solid answer on
this one.

Do NOT upgrade your existing PC from 98 to XP. There will be little bits of
98 crap hidden on your PC that will not go away and will make it
progressively unstable again. Do a clean install. If you have a 98 disk, you
can buy the XP upgrade and do a clean install (fdisk etc) during the
installation and it will ask to verify your previous OS by inserting the
disk.

As for backwards compatibility, that's a good question. You need to work up
a list of apps and look it up. XP won't run DOS apps and it will be picky
about non-32bit apps. There is a legacy more you can run stuff in
("compatibility mode") but that's a real hassle for a multitasking
workstation. Look for s/w upgrades to bring yourself up to date.

"SomeGuyOnTheInternet" wrote in message
news:vX3Fb.1776$Ur.70986@localhost...

Are you sure about DOS apps not working in XP? I seem to remember
testing a DOS app in XP as part of our XP testing at work, and as I
recall, the DOS app worked in XP.


I run Qbasic in XP with no problems.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:18:37 GMT,
(SomeGuyOnTheInternet) wrote:

In article , "Mike"
wrote:
Do NOT upgrade your existing PC from 98 to XP. There will be little bits of
98 crap hidden on your PC that will not go away and will make it
progressively unstable again. Do a clean install. If you have a 98 disk, you
can buy the XP upgrade and do a clean install (fdisk etc) during the
installation and it will ask to verify your previous OS by inserting the
disk.

As for backwards compatibility, that's a good question. You need to work up
a list of apps and look it up. XP won't run DOS apps and it will be picky
about non-32bit apps. There is a legacy more you can run stuff in
("compatibility mode") but that's a real hassle for a multitasking
workstation. Look for s/w upgrades to bring yourself up to date.

Are you sure about DOS apps not working in XP? I seem to remember
testing a DOS app in XP as part of our XP testing at work, and as I
recall, the DOS app worked in XP.

XP is the best version of Windows for running DOS apps, because it
runs them entirely in a protected box. You do need to set parameters
for it, just as if you're creating a boot disk (all the startup files
in config.sys and autoexec.bat). That is, for getting them to run.

Because it emulates everything, sometimes stuff like sound and
hardware interface doesn't work as expected. The program runs, but it
has no direct access to the hardware, so that can cause anomalies.

XP *cannot* run 16 bit device drivers and OS hooking apps. It can
run actual apps just fine, but it can be tricky -- the compatibility
mode helps with a lot of it, but not everything is going to work
easily.

Everything important, or just about, has upgrades for WinXP
compatibility.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/
*Starfire Design Studio* http://www.starfiredesign.com/