Which OS would you use with this

[Comptech]

:lick:
Here are my specs and what I use my machine for. Asus P4C800 deluxe,1Gig dual channel 400 DDR, P4 3.0E,ATI 9800 Pro, onboard sound and lan,74 gig raptor for OS drive, 80 gig Maxtor IDE for storage, 250 gig maxtor firewire external for storage,DVD burner,DVD rom and floppy. I also have a Happauge capture card. All I do is browse the net, capture video and burn to DVD, and load machines for my buisness from my storage drive. Not a single game installed. Now the question, I am ready for a reformat, should I do XP again or Win 2000? I am thinking that video conversion might go faster with 2000 because it uses far less resources. What do you people think?

 

[soldier1st]

i would use xp+sp2,use professional,not home edition.2000 is old,you can tune xp to use less resources.

 

[Keshik]

i would use xp+sp2,use professional,not home edition.2000 is old,you can tune xp to use less resources.

I'm with him :dead:

 

[melon]

Windows 2000 sucks ass when it comes to multimedia.

Of course, it was never made to handle it.

Melon

 

[soldier1st]

actualy it can but 2000 was never designed for it,i had 2000 running with multimedia and it worked good but xp is better at everything.

 

[vivid_vibe]

Yeah, one more vote for Win XP Pro, definitely.

 

[Glaanieboy]

Why Pro? He could do just well with Home Edition, as I don't see he is gonna use it with 10+ users and a domain... And he saves some money too :yes:

 

[Eagle710]

Yah XP + SP 2 sounds good ....im using that

 

[sharob]

XP Professional with SP2 is feature rich (with the stuff that's useful) and very stable when using a lot of Multimedia Products such as Adobe and Macromedia.

 

[762x51]

+1 for XP Pro SP2. Why go with pro over home edition? Personally....I don't see the point in using a deliberately crippled operating system. :lick:

 

[Glaanieboy]

Home and Pro are exactly the same, with the exception of better user-managment and networking-apps for Pro. You can see Pro as a kind of Home+, their code-base is exactly the same, Pro isn't more stable than Home, that's a lie.

I don't see the point in using a deliberately crippled operating system.

Crippled? WTF? OK, in the most crude sense it is crippled, but for a home-user (without a domain and a gazillion users) XP Home is enough, hence the name. As I said earlier, the extra's Pro offers are in user-managment and the ability to work in Domains. They haven't tampered with memory-managment, the NTFS file-system, they way it interacts with drivers etc etc, the stability is the same.

*sigh*

 

[762x51]

Missing functionality = crippled. My point being, why choose the lesser of the two operating systems?

Some things missing besides support for domains:

Remote Desktop, Automated System Recovery, Multi-processor support, Dynamic Disk Support, Built in fax support, IIS, File-level access control, Boot Configuration Manager, File encryption, Multiple Language Support, Upgrade Paths, Administrative Tools.