Windows 2000 vs XP

[Studioplayer]

I'm thinking of re-installing XP on my machine. I currently have 2000.

Pros & Cons??? 

Dave

[j]

as long as it is a legit copy of XP, all pros. If not be careful of automagically updating.. always manually update. The XP copy protection is quite an annoyance.. I hear 

[Studioplayer]

Legit copy. I had XP on when I got the computer but I was comfortable with 2000. Now I'm thinking XP may be better for music? 

Dave

[Johnny-Boy]

XP definitely for me.

Best, John

[dogbizkits]

Hi Dave.

I went the other way... from XP Pro to Win 2000 and have to say there's no real difference in audio with the gear I use. The only real benefit with XP is that you'll find it more future-proof because most modern drivers are written for XP. However, if you have the right drivers for W2000, there will be no noticeable difference in audio quality.... even if you go as far as using an oscilloscope to check the DO's with some very precise audio test files. As I said, I went the "other" way and have stuck with a W2000 box that runs Cubase SX and the actual reason I went in this direction was that XP pro was just too big even with a cut-down install. Now I have a very streamlined and stable W2000 installation that just does exactly what I want it to do and nothing else. I don't see any point in having a buggy O/S full of stuff that can interfere with what I'm doing if I'm in the position to minimise potential (or actual) problems. Not saying that XP's "bad".... I've just found W2000 to be a very fast and efficient way of working at the moment. I'll probably re-visit XP pro (just for the sake of using the most up-to-date drivers if not available for W2000. Lastly (and probably because I work in the IT industry),  I'd NEVER re-connect my recording platform to the internet after the initial build was done. Strictly stanalone!!

Hope this helps 

Rab 

[Studioplayer]

The reason I went to 2000 was for the simplicity. I didn't want all kinds of bells and whistles. This is a stand-alone machine, no internet access, strictly for recording music. All I want is my apps & plugins. But...... I have heard XP pro was better for music. Just trying to figure out why.

Dave

[dogbizkits]

As you say...."Simplicity". This means reliability along with stability. With no noticeable difference in audio measureable from the Digital Outputs, then W2000 (for me) is absolutely ideal. It was just fine in studios of the past - and it's still fine today provided you have the right drivers. Everyone tends to use the O/S they're most comfortable with. XP will no doubt have particular advantages as does W2000 - but as far as audio quality goes, there's nothing spectacularly benificial about XP even if you're not a configuration wizard.

Rab 

[Gerk]

I've seen quite a few discussions about this stuff in the past and there was a site out there dedicated to tweaking XP performance specifically for music .. that said I've never really had a problem with my XP box (when I use it that is hehe).  The only real complains I've seen are that XP hogs more resources (ram specifically) than 2000.  I don't remember the site that showed all the tweaks, but I'm sure it's easily found with google if you need it.

Mark

[dogbizkits]

I posted the following link on this site some time ago, but will reproduce it again here: http://www.musicxp.net/  It's a very useful resource.

This is the site (I believe) Mark is referring to. I did all the tweaks from this site on my XP / Cubase box and it did improve matters - but the W2000 build I have is still more lean and faster.

Rab 

[Studioplayer]

Maybe I'll just stick with 2000 for now. I've never had problems with drivers or apps so far. 

Dave