Windows 2000, XP Pro or Home?

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:39 pm

Hi guys,

As I'm about to move from logic to cubase sx, I'm finally going to upgrade from 98 to XP or 2000.

I know this has been discussed in several other topics, but most of them are fairly old.

I already own Windows 2000, but have read that XP is better for music. Is this really still true?

I understand the general feature differences between XP home and pro as described by Microsoft, and elsewhere (e.g. at http://www.musicxp.net).

But I've read a couple people in the old threads say that Pro is more tweakable than Home, etc. I wonder how true that is...

From you 2000 and XP users out there, can you comment on your OS suitability for a studio PC?

Thanks,
-John

[ This Message was edited by: John Cooper on 2003-10-17 17:23 ]

Rob van Berkel · Post by **Rob van Berkel** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 2:52 am

Hello John,
I just made the move from 98 to XP Pro. The reason was not new software but new hardware (Asus P4C800-E Dlx rev.2). I found out that 98 did not work as flawlesly as I was used to. So actually just to give it a try, I installed an XP Pro partition. I was completely new to XP, lost my way into navigating thru the OS, but well, I tweaked it according to the optimization hints in the forum. Also the memory tweaks as presented by EarlyFirst were performed and I disabled my paging file completeley (with 1Gb of RAM the system should not want to page).
And there it was, not lite at all, full of Internet Explorer crap, but running as stable as a rock. The OS is setup with ACPI, and every single device has it's own interrupt handler. Benching gives me enough proof that this machine does what I want it to do:
I run 15 MV's on 12 DSP's. The test is limited because of the DSP's, not because of PCI bandwidth. Recording in VDAT gives me at least 48 channels of 24 bit. While recording I'm still able to start Logic or wavelab and perform other tasks. So the 48 channels is definiteley not the max.
So what can I say? It runs better than 98, supports my hardware completely, and is fully supportive to my applications (SFP, Logic, Fruity, Wavelab).
So I can, out of my own experience, definitely recommend you the step forward, but I'm curious about your motivation to say goodbye to Logic... Ok, it's a dead end street, but for me it works. Ok, no 32 bit recording but I can live with that. What's the reason for the switch John?
Cheers,
Rob

_________________
ERROR: signature not found. fake it (Y/n)?

[ This Message was edited by: Rob van Berkel on 2003-10-18 03:56 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:52 am

I too would suggest for you to get the PRO version John, cos you'll be covered for the future...

Hardware as well as software, are going to evolve tremendously in a couple of years, and you never know what you are going to get then... With Pro you know you are ready for whatever important changes or upgrades that may happen, not including the home edition.

Internet: If you have a strong relation to the internet, XP Pro gives you much more security features than Home.

It is highly twekable. I can't really tell you with names and details which ones, what it is exactly what the Pro does agains the Home in regard to tweaks, I'm just starting myself.

Nevertheless, many told me in the forum to get the Pro version instead of the home, cos I would be able to fine tune it for Audio. I did some tweks already, and it's rock solid. I don't know if you can't or not doing the same thing with the Home version.

Perhaps the tweaks given by EarlyFirst are imposible to perform in Home edition?

I would say that, if you are one of those geeks searching all the time for a better performance DAW, Pro is for you. If you just want to make music and you are not going to tweak or use it for networking, Home it's good too. The stability I think, will be the same cos both share the same Kernel32.

I whish I was of more help, but I know I'm not, just my "two pesos"...

AndreD · Post by **AndreD** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:12 pm

home rocks same as pro in your audio-computer!
the only audio-related issue is the "physical" dual-processor support.
(sx/nuendo virtual dual-processor hyperthreading is supported in home as well as in pro)

[ This Message was edited by: Andre Dupke on 2003-10-18 14:13 ]

w_ellis · Post by **w_ellis** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:50 pm

I'm using Windows XP Pro and I'm very happy with it. I've had to use Win98 a couple of times recently and it's really reminded me what a big step forward XP is.

One thing to note is the massive discrepancy between the OEM and retail prices for Pro. I paid around £120 for my OEM copy of XP Pro, whereas the retail boxed copy costs around £250. I think it's a similar situation in the US.

I mainly chose Pro for the IIS stuff, as I do web development too, but also the general networking support is a bit more complete in Pro I believe.

Having said that, if you are literally just going to use the PC for music, then probably may as well stick to Home.

Cheers,
Will

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 2:22 pm

One thing to note is the massive discrepancy between the OEM and retail prices for Pro. I paid around £120 for my OEM copy of XP Pro, whereas the retail boxed copy costs around £250. I think it's a similar situation in the US.

The different in prices is the same everywere in the world, retail boxed copies are always more expensive.

About the differences between 98SE and WinXP... well, it's like comparing DOS to 95, it trully is this much!

One more thing John: I have read that Microsoft has released Pro and Home being conscious that they were pretty similar, but that this would change over the next couple of years, and that Pro would definetely become a different package than Home. They said that this is just the beggining and that Pro is going to get mayor upgrades that will surprise everybody, while Home will stay "at Home".

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:16 pm

Still using win2000 sp4 here. I do have xp pro but have found no reason to upgrade yet. The DAW has been running flawlessly. There use to be a limitation on the number of midi devices under win2000. I don't know if that is still the case with sp3/4 (I don't think it is) but it didn't bother me.

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:34 pm

Guys,

Thanks for your replies. Sounds like if I do XP, I should get Pro, just to be safe.

But... Bassdude, I'm very curious--- I already own win2k pro which I use for development, (but the studio PC is still on 98). I had assumed that (because of the # MIDI ports issue, and perhaps tweaking issues) that I'd need to switch to XP. But you're saying that win2k is fine... I don't really WANT to pay $$$ for XP, if I don't have to!

So, can you give me a little bit of your experiences with win2k? Anyone else have any comments on the suitability of win2k?

Pulsar drivers are stable and happy on win2k? Performance is similar to XP?

Thanks!
-John

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:42 pm

On 2003-10-18 03:52, Rob van Berkel wrote:
I'm curious about your motivation to say goodbye to Logic... Ok, it's a dead end street, but for me it works. Ok, no 32 bit recording but I can live with that. What's the reason for the switch John?

Good question! I'm still running LAP 4.8.1. So I'd need to pay out some $$$ anyway to upgrade to the final version of LAP/Win. If I'm going to spend some $$$, I'd rather invest in a platform that will be supported and continually upgraded. Also, I was always a cubase user until a few years ago, when friends convinced me that LAP was better for audio. They were right at the time! But I never really loved LAP, and now that Cubase's audio support has improved so much in SX, I don't feel as committed to LAP anymore

And as I mentioned in a <a href="http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 15">recent thread by samplaire</a>, disruption can be good for creativity - I'm actually excited to learn a new workflow and see if it helps my lossy inspiration flow

But unfortunately, as I mentioned, I'll need to upgrade Windows, and I'll need to get a new midi interface, since my old MusicQuest 8portSE isn't supported in XP/2000. I'll be getting the MIDEX 8. Hopefully the whole changeover will be smooth......

-John

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:59 pm

Also found this thread over at cubase.net, which was miraculously up for a few minutes tonight (their service SUCKS!)

http://forum.cubase.net/forum/Forum2/HTML/048014.html

Sounds like there's an equal success rate with Cubase SX between XP users and Win2k users.

So that just leaves the question of how Pulsar performs on Win2k vs XP!

-John

AndreD · Post by **AndreD** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:56 am

home runs smoother for audio apps...

...just a feeling here... no tests

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:58 pm

The limitation of 10 midi ports in win2K (10 x 16 Channels) may still be there but I remember reading somewhere that this limitation was removed with SP3. I can't find any confirmation about this on the Microsoft web site though so who knows. It hasn't been a problem for me though as 160 midi channels is more than enough for what I do.
As far as stability and performance of Pulsar on win2k though I'm very happy with it. I just did the normal tweaks which mainly amounted to setting priority to background tasks and turning off services that are not required for DAW operation and it has all been running smooth for over a year now. SFP 3.1c seems very stable as I have had no crashes or quirky problems. So I really can't see myself moving to XP any time soon as there doesn't appear to be any great need.

Maybe give it a try?

PS I'm running win2k pro.

[ This Message was edited by: bassdude on 2003-10-19 20:00 ]

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:44 pm

Thanks bassdude.

I'll start with win2k pro, sp4, since I already own that. If I run into any issues, I'll consider XP...

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your replies!

-John

AndreD · Post by **AndreD** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:25 am

there is no hyperthreading support in 2000.

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:25 pm

I don't believe that's true. Windows 2000 supports multiple processors. I did a search on windows 2000 and hyperthreading and found this doc:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/do ... eading.doc

It implies that windows 2000 treats hyperthreading "logical" multiple CPU's exactly as it does physical multiple CPU's...

The only problem with that is that if you install dual physical CPU's that both have HT, then Win2k may think it's 4 CPU's and exceeding the license limits of Win2k pro. More on that here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3451

Not sure how XP pro treats all this, if any differently...

Cheers
-John

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:16 pm

XP Pro recognizes the distiction between 'physical' cpu and 'logical' cpu now, thereby allowing up to 4 'logical' cpu's but only 2 'physical' ones.

Its worth noting too that while win2k isn't horribly far behind, winXP does offer a few extras in its HAL (hardware abstraction layer).

First off, it does appear to have better scheduling of HT when it comes to load balancing multiple threads compared to win2k. However I wouldn't recommend using HT unless you're running the latest versions of cubase/nuendo and want to take part in that experiment. HT only allows for additional integer math execution units and shouldn't dramatically speed up unoptimized audio applications (Logic/SFP/etc).

Second, XP's HAL has a *far* superior ACPI implementation, which means that win2k hobbles along on the 'standard pc' allotment of 16 irqs (ACPI often has issues under win2k). However, provided your motherboard supports APIC 2.0 or greater (almost all mobos from the last 2 years or more should) then winXP actually seems to run better with ACPI than standard mode, giving you 24 irqs and seemlingly no sharing problems. At least this has been my experience between the 2 OS's.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:54 pm

I think XP is a better option, even if it costs money, because there seems to be a lot of software/hardware these days that only support XP/OSX. W2k is going out.

Shayne

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:34 am

if this can be of any help, i used to run win2k/sp3 until last march and had a stable setup using a via chipset. Then there was all the fuss about xp so i moved on. If there are differences in term of stability or performance i couldn't tell.

jabney · Post by **jabney** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:00 am

John,

I bought the OEM version of XP Home and I did not like it at all (the words "hate, loath and despise" come to mind). I went back to 98SE.

It took a leap of faith for me to later buy the OEM version of XP Pro, but I finally did. And guess what? After a couple of clean installs, it's not bad at all. Of course it's still no comparison to the elegant and non-annoying Amiga OS - nevertheless I kinda like XP Pro. In fact I bought another copy for a different machine. As for my copy of XP Home? It's in a CD folder somewhere.

In all fairness to XP Home, the XP Pro(s) did include service pack 1, (the Home did not) and some (OK - lots of) hardware did change.

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:17 am

We certainly need SFP for Amiga! man that would b nice.