PDA

View Full Version : W2K vs WinXP (again)



Tom McB
09-07-2003, 10:06 PM
Getting a new PC next week and leaning towards W2k - checked the previous thread (Mar 2003) on this topic and agree with most comments.

Intend to do some video conversion (VHS to VCD / DVD) and so was wondering whether there is anything in XP worth considering and changing my mind.

Many thanks
Tom

PS
wanted a quiet PC - somebody told me that PSU is biggest noise factor. If this is accurate, can anybody suggest a good, low-db brand?

godfather
09-07-2003, 10:14 PM
> wanted a quiet PC - somebody told me that PSU is
> biggest noise factor. If this is accurate, can
> anybody suggest a good, low-db brand?

Not so in general, the CPU fan and video card fans are noisier than a normal PSU fan these days i my experience.

Win 2k and XP share a lot of commonality at core level, and I have used both. XP has matured to the stage where I would not go with the older OS now.

Tom McB
09-07-2003, 10:27 PM
Thanks GF. Was thinking of sticking to vanilla hsf if psu was the main culprit. Also getting a 128megs GeForce 4 Ti4200 - that OK noise-wise?

godfather
09-07-2003, 10:37 PM
The skinny little fans on video cards are noisy, with a much higher pitched noise.
The gruntier the video card the more powerful the fan, the noisier the fan as a rule of thumb. Do not expect a Ti to be quiet in that case? Some configurations and brands may be better than others, see if they give a dB rating on fans?

Noise is a definite downside to fast PCs and Video GPUs

A lot to be said for water cooling?

Tom McB
09-07-2003, 10:48 PM
> The gruntier the video card the more powerful the
> fan, the noisier the fan as a rule of thumb.
Sounds right, sorry about the pun. <off to check threads on gpu fan replacements>

> A lot to be said for water cooling?
Been considering that but was afraid to use the family PC as learning platform, not with school starting again after next week (last time I opened up the P233, went cold turkey for 6 weeks).

Hmmm, maybe I can rig up the tropical aquarium and do away with the Jager internal heater altogether. :^O

PoWa
09-07-2003, 11:49 PM
I can recommend the Enermax power supplies. Bought one a few weeks ago - made a huge difference! I can kinda sleep with the comp on now :)

I think http://www.pp.co.nz/ have the best price for them. Thats where I bought mine, great service + free delivery.

Definitely power supply one of the noisiest things. Well worth the investment for a quiet one - depending on where the computer is situated.

Tom McB
10-07-2003, 01:14 AM
Thanks P. I had that brand in mind - must have been from one of your posts. You got a 350w right?

I'll give the psu a go first then the gpu fan transplant as the graphics workload increases.

Still no comment on advantages of XP over W2k for video work???

Cheers
Tom

Murray P
10-07-2003, 01:20 AM
Have a look at Quiet PC (http://www.quietpc.com/nz/) for starters can't get www.silentpcreview.com to load for some reason, an interesting site if you can get to it.

Cheers Murray P

PoWa
10-07-2003, 02:14 AM
Yep 350W it was ;)

I do a bit of video work with XP. It works great as long as you don't upgrade to SP1 or get MS updates :p Hell SP1 crawls..

I don't like win2000 as much as xp. Xp much nicer to work on. 2000 is ahh whats the word ..ugly that will do :)

KiwiTT
10-07-2003, 12:08 PM
Not sure if this helps.

I ran 3DMark on a Laptop and XP scored 40% better than 2K.

I prefer 2K for Daily use. However, I would lean towards XP if you want the most up to date performance, and are happy with the Product Activation issues. If you rebuild you PC a lot, you will need to reactivate again and again.

2K will be my last Windows version, before fully converting to Linux.

Lohsing
10-07-2003, 12:34 PM
> I don't like win2000 as much as xp. Xp much nicer to
> work on. 2000 is ahh whats the word ..ugly that will
> do :)

Well if you're into a computer "looking" nice as opposed to doing the job, then go right ahead with XP.

I personally have a problem with XP as it tries to be a jack of all trades type of OS where everything is bundled, etc. I point out the whole video editing, CD-burning, etc.

At least with 2K you can pick and choose with little fear of programs having problems working on XP. I do a lot of SVCD and DVD encoding, and it's a real pain with XP.

Gaming also isn't the greatest with XP either. I speak broadly and from experience, when I say that I would prefer gaming on 2K Pro than I would on XP Pro.

But then again, XP does have its good points (networking) etc... But then, sometimes it's better to go through the process of doing things yourself (setting IP addresses, default gateways, etc) as you learn more about the computer and theory behind networking... I think with XP you might "dumb down" your computer learning experience... then again, maybe this is the future??

I personally don't buy into the XP culture. Too much control and invasion into one's computer from Microsoft for my liking.

Lo.

-=JM=-
10-07-2003, 01:34 PM
If you're needing to buy a new OS personally I'd go with XP, but if you've already got 2000 and are looking at upgrading I wouldn't bother.

whetu
11-07-2003, 03:05 AM
gotta agree with loh here... XP is basically 2k with a fisher price interface and more bloat than I care to give effort removing.

2k is clean by default, xp is not (in my opinion of course), and I also dont appreciate being treated like a moron by an OS, there's only space enough in my flat for one condescending A-Hole, and that condescending A-Hole is me

XP's wizards, while helpful for joe bloggs, are restrictive for me... a simple task that would take me under 10 seconds in 2k gets drawn out into the minutes while I click my way through a wizard that is convinced I'm a 9 year old. These wizards and the interface etc should all be disabled in XP Professional BY DEFAULT in my opinion. Its a professional level OS, stop treating "professionals" like children.

If you are on 9x, I recommend you go straight to XP, if you are on 2k, I say you stay put. MS is going to be supporting 2k for a while yet, look how long they supported 9x/NT4

PoWa
11-07-2003, 04:35 AM
I agree with the statement that Xp Pro is a little bloated when you first load it on. Thats why someone invented AtomicXp - removes some of the baby features after a first install. Xp Pro shouldn't have these features n wizards on to start with - thats what Xp home is for - the newbies :)

It only takes a minute to get rid of all the fancy visuals etc that actually only slow down performance by 1-5%. But then again, its you that has to stare at an ugly screen all day if you do. You can actually leave the last option turned on (xp style), and the rest off.

-=JM=-
11-07-2003, 12:42 PM
>But then again, its you that has to stare at an ugly screen all day if you do. >You can actually leave the last option turned on (xp style), and the rest off.

That's what I do as well. Just stick to the options which can be useful, the styles, clear type and drop shadows for icons on the desktop.

Gorela
12-07-2003, 01:35 AM
Personally I prefer Windows 2K for video editing as XP Pro had some serious problems with my Pinnacle card. You definitely can't beat NTFS though as it doesn't have the limitations of FAT file sizes.

So really it comes down to you personally.

I also prefer the greater degree of access control over users that 2K gives you and don't like XP's all or nothing approach.

juandem@rco
16-07-2003, 01:49 PM
Make it Dual Boot so you can make the most of both OS :D

Odin
16-07-2003, 01:58 PM
I actually went out and bought WinXP...Big mistake It has this stupid thing somewhere that insists on activating Mouse smoothing and even though I have turned it off and removed the entry from the registry it still does it.

The wizzards do nothing but screw things up and won't allow me to customize the setting once they have done their things. It even makes it so I can't turn off the Firewall by greying out the option for me to do so. XP's so called intelligence has an IQ lower than a common brick.

I now use my nice shiny reflective holographic Windows XP CD as a coffee cup coaster and that it probably the best use of XP I have ever gotten out of it.

-=JM=-
16-07-2003, 02:14 PM
Can't say I've had any of those problems you mention Odin. It just works fine for me.

KiwiTT
16-07-2003, 02:14 PM
I read it on the register WinXP vs RedHat Linux (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22533.html)

Well worth a read.

Each successive Windows version gets less and less configurable, by the end-user.

kiwibeat
16-07-2003, 02:23 PM
Try XP Tweak to get rid of the excessive add ons etc

Chilling_Silently
16-07-2003, 05:22 PM
Well, If you're running an AMD Athlon XP Processor,then there is noticable performance gains with WinXP, but from experience, Win2K has always been more stable, mainly because WinXP was "Built on the proven stability of Windows 2000", so its built on it, but Im positive its not as good as it.

Its candied up a lot to make it look more visually appealing, but I can also say safely that after spending the past 2 weeks in RedHat without booting into Doze, XP still looks rather bad!

So, what are your system spec's for starters?

Personally.. at the moment.. I would gear towards Win2K until you can tell what exactly you're hoping to do etc.

:-)

Cheers


Chill.

Chilling_Silently
16-07-2003, 05:35 PM
> I read it on the register
> [url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22533.html
> WinXP vs RedHat Linux[/url]
>
> Well worth a read.
>
> Each successive Windows version gets less and less
> configurable, by the end-user.

Well, that does look a little out of date, seeing as RedHat released version 7.3, then 8.0, now onto 9 :-)

There is a fix for the SP slowing down WinXP out there on microsoft.com also.

Win2K can be made to look a lot more visually appealing with the use of Windows Blinds, and other things from the stardock.com range. I would prefer using Windows Blinds to make the System look smoother over Windows XP!

Windows XP is becoming more "mature" in saying that like Win2K is, but it is certainly more "buttered up" for the end user, and those wizards are nothing but a pain in the @$$ after using Win2K for a while, and to then come to that!

And in saying that, Win2K was supposed to be microsoft's "Gaming" OS.. it didnt start off too well, but with the release of the first and second Service Packs, saw many people realising the stability etc over Win9x.


There's my second spiel for the afternoon, hope its helped ;-)