WinXp Vs Win2000 Vs Win98

[Lima]

I'm going to reinstall my daw and I have to take a decision about which OS I should install.

Right now I've installed in my pc 2 OS: winxp and win2000, but I'm not completely satisfied because the machine doesn't seems very stable.
I've ACPI installed and some IRQ conflicts, so maybe that's the cause.

Which OS do you suggest to install? There's some features a OS gives that I really need and I miss if I will use another OS (like installing win 98 instead of winxp for example)?

My situation is the following:
my pc isn't updated: Asus Cusl2C with pentium3 800, matrox g450 and 512 MbRam. At the moment I haven't money to change it. I don't need Vst's or any other evolved CPU intensive programs (like the last sequencers for example) because I do everything (except recording) with scope.
I use the PC only to make music.

Last question: which SFP software? Can be senseless to install the 3.1c instead the SFP 4.5? I've read in different topics that the last scope is the same of the 3.1c, but someone have experimented troubles in win xp but not under win2000 (I've got in mind the Aries's strings). Can be possible that in the last release some dsp files are different?

Any idea is well accepted! Thanks!

[Aries]

but someone have experimented troubles in win xp but not under win2000 (I've got in mind the Aries's strings).

I think that Win 2000 would give the same troubles as Win XP, I am using Win 98SE. I changed the chorus to get it to work in XP.


I am going to get Win XP Pro when I upgrade my computer. Win 98SE is stable but has limited USER & GDI resources.

Running Scope with a sequencer uses up a lot of graphics and eventually uses up the GDI resources, affecting screen redraws.

Win XP has unlimited USER & GDI resources.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aries on 2006-03-27 10:17 ]</font>

[garyb]

xp for sure, home or pro is fine.

[H-Rave]

Win xp in acpi mode is fine,be careful not to be on the same irq as the graphics card,at least if there's a problem you'll see it, and turn off graphics acceleration if you have any other problems.

[astroman]

if there's not a program or a piece of hardware that absolutely requires XP I would install Win98.
The box got only 512 MB anyway and has formerly not been stable with XP/2K.
I have a TUSL2c with SFP 3.1c under '98 - I could as well write under 98 MByte (for the OS)

cheers, Tom

[Lima]

Seeing that my setup is very similar to the Tom's one and seeing that I've not yet tried win 98, I'll try it this time.

Thanks to everyone!

[Aries]

On 2006-03-27 17:16, astroman wrote:
if there's not a program or a piece of hardware that absolutely requires XP I would install Win98.
The box got only 512 MB anyway and has formerly not been stable with XP/2K.
I have a TUSL2c with SFP 3.1c under '98 - I could as well write under 98 MByte (for the OS)

cheers, Tom

Have you experienced the screen redraws under Win98 of slow to stop?. I experienced this when I increased my Scope cards?. Win98SE limited GDI forces a reboot from time to time.

[garyb]

hmm, 98 is pretty stable with scope as i remember. xp IS easier, though. i never had screen redraw problems except in very heavy projects with lots of vsts.

[garyb]

On 2006-03-27 09:42, Lima wrote:
I've some IRQ conflicts, so maybe that's the cause.

that's certainly the cause!
fix that before doing anything, and you'll likely have no more troubles. install another os and just go back where you started...

[astroman]

On 2006-03-29 09:49, Aries wrote:
...Have you experienced the screen redraws under Win98 of slow to stop?. ...

not at all - I have TripleDat, CrusherXLive and DevineMachine as native apps, system contains 2 Pulsar Ones and a huble Radeon card.

...Asus Cusl2C with pentium3 800, matrox g450 and 512 MbRam. At the moment I haven't money to change it. I don't need Vst's or any other evolved CPU intensive programs...

I suggested '98 because I don't see how XP could handle this setup any better with less resources - and I never had a problem with IRQ setup under 98 with that mobo.

Gary, what do you think makes XP easier ?

cheers, Tom

[symbiote]

'98 (the whole win16 family actually) is plain unstable, a bit of a hack and is still based on old 16-bit legacy code. If you only have like 2 applications installed, and only run a sequencer + SFP, then it should be ok. Just make sure you ghost/backup the partition after installation and setup, because you will need it in a few months .

I ran XP for years on a pretty similar setup (Asus CUSL2, P3-700, 512mb RAM, Scope cards) and it's always been very nice and very stable. I've installed XP on a 350mhz/128mb laptop even, and while being pretty slow, it works fine.

Unless you absolutely must squeeze every tiny little possible drop of processing power from your setup to run native effects/stuff, go with XP. Even then XP is a *lot* more stable than '98, so you'd be giving up stability for speed.

[Aries]

On 2006-03-31 08:29, stardust wrote:
cubase sx is supported only for xp.
And i guess also sonar.

Yes, Sonar since version 2.2.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aries on 2006-03-31 08:32 ]</font>

[garyb]

On 2006-03-29 14:17, astroman wrote:
Gary, what do you think makes XP easier ?

cheers, Tom

well, i just do so much less tweaking. yes, it's heavy, but memory is cheap and the os is very stable. the main thing is to just disable all the fancy graphics stuff and it just works. yes, 98 can be cut down to nothing and it's very stable then, but xp takes less knowledge. also, most peripherals like memory sticks, etc, are already supported so there's much less need to track down drivers...

[ARCADIOS]

i do not now what better result can be seen if graphics accelerator is reduced.
for me it was always worse.
it is better with graphic card acceleration full.

[garyb]

i'm not talking about graphics acceleration, i'm talking about things like sliding buttons on the taskbar, 3d xp style windows(instead of the '98 style) and other performance stealing "eye candy" under the advanced button in the system box in the control panel.

[astroman]

On 2006-03-31 12:43, garyb wrote:
...yes, it's heavy, but memory is cheap and the os is very stable. ...

well, PC133 SDRAM for the P3 isn't that cheap, but the CUSL only supports 512MB anyway...
Of course XP would be simpler if one already runs another XP installation and the included drivers are in fact very convenient.

On the other hand in a synth box (so to call) the user management, network and strange services wouldn't be much appreciated.

I admit that I valued my time more than 50 bucks (or whatever it costed) and aquired a bundle of XP/98Lite to do the stripping of the OS.

The XP box in the office isn't any more stable than it's Win98 and Win2K collegues.
Imho any version works as long as not too much is installed/uninstalled - otherwise sooner or later ANY version of the registry gets messed.

I don't see it as a dogma, so anyone should decide what fits his or her needs best

cheers, Tom

[Lima]

Wow, big response and I'm stil a bit confused... Anyway I would try win98SE firts; but I've got a doubt: can win98 support disk bigger than 100 Gb? (A friend of mine tells me he's not sure about disk of >137 Gb)
Actually I've got an 80 Gb maxtor but another friend ask to me to buy his second hand 200 Gb maxtor.
Is it supported?

[astroman]

good point - and a chance to even add more confusion regarding <a href=http://www.allensmith.net/Storage/HDDli ... .htm>drive limits</a>

you don't need to read through all of it, just the bottom mentionings.
Yet I found it really nice and comprehensive - and it demonstrates the level of sophistication the designs of a certain software company usually have

under Win98 you'd have to split the 200 GB disk at least in 2 partitions (according to the FAT32 limits), but I'm still not sure if the onboard controller will deal with the drive...

cheers, Tom

[bronYaur]

I remeber win98 midi timing is rocksolid in old machines,win xp need more power to have the same serious work

[Lima]

Ok, thank you very much.