windows 2000 or win xp/...

# 1 30-03-2003 , 06:28 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 43

hey which one is better for maya... win 2000 pro or win xp..?
which oone will be rendering fastewr.../

Quote

# 2 30-03-2003 , 06:47 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Mar 2003

Location: Ohio, USA

Posts: 119

Windows 2000

Is Windows 2000 compatible with other systems currently used on campus? Yes! Windows 2000 is compatible with Novell Netware, Norton Anti-Virus and PeopleSoft. Windows XP is not.

Windows Xp

Windows XP is now available for purchase, but there as several drawbacks to being the first in your office to purchase it:

We do not have the latest version of Norton AntiVirus for XP available. Running a computer on the campus network without virus protection is dangerous. Not only does it put your data at risk, but also everyone else on the network.
Our PeopleSoft applications are not yet certified to function properly with Windows XP.
There is no Novell client for XP.
Since it was just released, the HelpDesk is not prepared to respond to any questions related to Windows XP.
No on-campus training is available yet.

I would say 2000 pro, only get xp if you are going to get the pro version. The home version of XP sucks. It also doesn't support dual-cpu's || Not that you have duals but if you were to. Also the fact that 2000 is more widely used on work stations, at least that I have heard of. You will also find that most places do you use 200 compared to XP, just for the fact that they have no reason to sped a couple thousand on licences for xp. Most schools that have pc's and not macs usually use 2000. If you had the linux version of maya, you could go with that. I have also had problems with maya crashing on me like crazy on xp, but thatr's because I have the crappest graphics card ever. It also has problems playing dvd's. There are also a few good points to it also. It makes it easy to add a device and usb pherparials user added image

Automaticly detects the usb ports and other devices. In my personal opinion I would suggest you go with 2000 over XP. Or even go dual boot to see which on you like better.
Summary:
In conclusion, 2000 and Xp both have their points, good and bad. At least you didn't ask about mac user added image

I mean yea 2000 vs XP, 2000 is the better choice. Hopefully this helps.
Here's a link for you:
https://www.zdnet.com/products/storie...760379,00.html

-Josh LaRoe

Last edited by jklaroe; 30-03-2003 at 07:10 PM.

Quote

# 3 30-03-2003 , 09:39 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Faringdon, UK

Posts: 1,480

win2000

- Simon

My Website: www.Glass-Prison.com

Quote

# 4 30-03-2003 , 10:35 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Minnesota, USA

Posts: 3,709

Really?

Xp pro has been bulletproof for me, even on the crappyest of my machines..

crappy box specs:
Dual P3 1gig each, 1.5 gig o' ram, crappy Oxygen 32 meg vid card etc....

I've had zero problems installing and using Xp personnaly.

I guess I'm one of the "weird" ones... hehe...

Israel "Izzy" Long
Motion and Title Design for Broadcast-Film-DS
izzylong.com

Quote

# 5 30-03-2003 , 11:22 PM

SM Tea Boy
Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Prague

Posts: 3,228

Win 2k gets my vote, ran XP for around 3 month's, as a system admin that uses a wide variety of PC's / OS's my professional opinion of XP is, its shit.

David user added image

From a readers' Q and A column in TV GUIDE: "If we get involved in a nuclear war, would the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?"

Quote

# 6 31-03-2003 , 12:02 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Faringdon, UK

Posts: 1,480

lol
i dnt see much wrong with XP, the thing that put me off it was the bulkyness of windows (when using an XP theme) and it was rather slow compared to 2k

- Simon

My Website: www.Glass-Prison.com

Quote

# 7 31-03-2003 , 12:33 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Mar 2003

Location: Ohio, USA

Posts: 119

see, see I told you so user added image

I am just one of the unlucky ones user added image

But if it were up to me, there wouldn't even be a microsoft, just linux user added image

And definetly no mac. No offense mac users.

Quote

# 8 31-03-2003 , 12:37 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Minnesota, USA

Posts: 3,709

I have to agree with you all on that one user added image

hehe...

I DO have to say that even tho I'm running XP at the moment, my 2K box NEVER had any issues either user added image

So, personal preference I guess, but, I would have to side with Dave as he's got more tech experience than my sorry a$$ user added image

hehe...

Israel "Izzy" Long
Motion and Title Design for Broadcast-Film-DS
izzylong.com

Quote

# 9 31-03-2003 , 01:40 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 1,253

hmm XP has pro's and con's, 2000 has pro's and con's... conclusion: Use any according to your personal preference... XP was absolutely immortal on my PC, if you like having a "cowfield" as a desktop and some "fisher-price" looks... go for XP, if you are a "9de-8" guy... go for 2000.... both are stable, i would chose XP if i were you (but i dont like the "cowfield"!!!)

Quote

# 10 31-03-2003 , 02:35 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Mar 2003

Location: Ohio, USA

Posts: 119

Yea the cow field. Now think of it, antartician ice fields with penguins user added image

Quote

# 11 02-05-2003 , 03:03 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003

Location: Chicago, IL

Posts: 3

XP will speed up if you turn off all the multimedia crap. It's got some cool features, but it really is the Fisher Price OS. I use and prefer W2K, too. user added image

-Bad Mange

Have a bad mange!

Quote