new system

[disc-spinner]

what is the best opperating system for this sort of work, building a new pc, windows 2000pro or xp, what do you people think ,i have been using 2000 pro for a bout a year, but is there any advantages with using xp ? thanks gezzers

[disc-spinner]

no one knows then i take it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kedirekin]

I doubt there's any compelling difference from a transcoding perspective.

XP works for me. I don't have Win2000 on any of my home PCs, so no comment on Win2000.

[Kedirekin]

Oh, and you might want to look at rule 12 (part a). An hour and 15 minutes doesn't give people much chance to think about the question, let alone enough time to respond.

[Erik_Osterholm]

I use Windows 2000, works just fine. I really have a problem with product activation, and plan on using my legit copies of Windows 2000 for as long as I can, although I'm already running into software that requires Windows XP *mutter*.

[echooff]

If you are bulding a new system, go with the latest operating system. Microsoft has discontinued support for win 98. How long before 2000 is out the door?

[Erik_Osterholm]

Originally posted by echooff
If you are bulding a new system, go with the latest operating system. Microsoft has discontinued support for win 98. How long before 2000 is out the door?

"Self-support" for Windows 98 is ongoing until 2006. That just means you have to go online and get the hotfixes yourself; they won't support telephone technical support for Windows 98.

Mainstream support for Windows 2000 will continue until 31 Mar 2005, while the self-support will continue until 31 Mar 2007.

Information on Microsoft product life cycles is available at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin

[monkeymajik]

Go with WindowsXP Professional. It looks nicer :D

[writersblock29]

@disc-spinner

It really depends on what you mean by "this sort of work." If you create DVD images or create large MPEG files for authoring DVDs, then you'll need NTFS file support, either way. I know for a fact that Windows XP allows this (I'm not sure about 2000; I BELIEVE that 2000 allows NTFS, but I can't say for certain). If you're only using one-click-backup programs, you can get away with most any operating system so long as you stick to only working with DVD files such as IFOs and VOBs (VOBs tend to max out at a Gig apiece, and since there are a collection of individual one Gig files, FAT32 isn't a problem).

I can only say that Windows XP has proven itself in my eyes as being outrageously dependable and stable. Spendy, yes... but by buying XP, I've pretty much kissed "The Blue Screen of Death" goodbye. I'd recommend it to anyone! *I've certainly never said that about Windows ME!* ;)

[monkeymajik]

Ewww you definitly took a step in the right direction moving away from ME (memory leaks ahoy!). Also you're right, 2000 does support the NTFS filesystem and recommends it.

[chipvideo]

Go with what I have. And overclock it as well. Mine is stable as heck.

[Erik_Osterholm]

@writersblock29:

Windows NT based operating systems (NT, 2000, XP) all support NTFS, and it's recommended as the FS to use. In fact, in 2000, you can't create a FAT filesystem that's larger than 32 gigs in order to get people to use the better FS (which is, of course, stupid and it hampers people with external hard drives who need interoperability with older Windows machines).


@chipvideo:

Just because your system works when overclocked doesn't mean someone else's will. Overclocking can cause damage to the chip in addition to simply not allowing the machine to boot up. I never suggest that a person overclock, except in a few rare cases (the classis Celeron 300 -> 450 overclock that has incredibly high success rates).

[chipvideo]

Erik

I said my system works great. Look at my sig. It is 3 times faster than my P4 1.8

I tried everything at it including burning at 8X while encoding with CCE. Buffer ran down, BUTT I watched the movie with no jerkieness.

[Grover]

Originally posted by Erik_Osterholm

Just because your system works when overclocked doesn't mean someone else's will. Overclocking can cause damage to the chip in addition to simply not allowing the machine to boot up. I never suggest that a person overclock, except in a few rare cases (the classis Celeron 300 -> 450 overclock that has incredibly high success rates).

Agree that OC'ing is not for everyone and if you have "budget" components (even just one in the chain) you can easily fry something... and I dont want to start a holy war about who can squeeze the most of thier rig with OC'ing becuase there are plenty of places on the inner-net better suited to those discussions... but

Would you agree that overclocking is more or less mainstream these days. There's no need to even know what the CPU looks like, let alone open the case and "unlock" CPU's and change jumpers on the mobo.

I'm no expert in memory timings, multipliers, CPU voltages or any of that PC geek stuff but the BIOS in my run-of-the-mill Asus P4P800 mobo lets me OC the PC with the "flick of a switch" either 5%, 10%, 20% and 30%. I happily OC my P4 2.4GHz to 2.89Ghz using this simple BIOS setting alone. I wouldn't even know how to manually adjust any of that other stuff myself.

I tried the 30% setting and PC crashed and would not boot. But they thought of that too and mobo has a feature where it re-sets itself automaticaly at next power up without me ever having to open the case. Idiot proof.. (luckily for me)
From what I read and see around the place, these types of BIOS's and mobo features are fairly common in most brands these days in all but the basic OEM boards for things like the IBM and HP "office PC's" we have at work. (no OC features on these - I already tried :) )

Also, to the original poster in this thread, Win XP is the only way to go (IMO) for "this kind of thing". Either way, you have to run NTFS to easily manage the large file sizes of +4GB.
I tried setting up a Linux box for "DVD work" but it was just too hard.

Cheers...

[Mikey Mike]

Go for XP Pro. You might as well install the most up to date operating system right ?