Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is Windows 2000 still a good choice for audio?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:59:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I bought Windows 2000 Professional because I got a great price. I
thought it would work fine for audio recording, but several people
tell me XP is a much better choice.

Any advice or opinions? I'll be recording mostly solo guitar, won't
need lots of tracks.




Windows 2000 Professional w/ service pack 4
ASUS P4P800-E DELUXE mainboard
P4 2.8EGHz
1GB Mushkin 2-2-2 Dual Channel PC3200
Aspire 520 watt psu
WD 80 GB hard drive IDE
Liteon 52X CD-RW
Apollo Geforce 64MB video card


I'm going to add an ESI sound card and 1 or 2 SATA hard drives.

+

Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
http://johnnyasia.info

"When a man describes himself as a "guitarist from
the future" the warning bells go off,
.... But Johnny Asia really sounds like he's doing
something new. .....Check the mans' music out
and hear something different."
- Nick Dedina, Staff Writer, Listen.com
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:59:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Philipp Wachtel wrote:
>
> XP is overall better than Win2000!

It's an incremental improvement based on the same kernel. The activation/registration stuff and its general newness held me back for a couple of years but this weekend I took the plunge on my new machine, mostly because we now have a corporate license.

The main benefits of XP as I see them are:

Somewhat better IRQ/ACPI handling.
Restore Points.
"Group similar taskbar buttons" helps reduce clutter somewhat.
Better handling of removable disks (no idiot box popping up when you unplug a FW or USB drive.)
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:59:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <4173f651.27621143@news.mybizz.net> pope_about_town writes:

> I bought Windows 2000 Professional because I got a great price. I
> thought it would work fine for audio recording, but several people
> tell me XP is a much better choice.
>
> Any advice or opinions? I'll be recording mostly solo guitar, won't
> need lots of tracks.

In that case, you don't need a "better" choice. One nice thing for
Win2K if you're an experimenter is that you (or your computer) doesn't
phone home and tell Microsoft that you're running it on a different
computer than that of the initial installation. Change too many things
and WinXP suspects that you've installed your copy on a second
computer and should be paying for another license. I don't know of
anyone who has ever been trapped by this, but it's an annoyance.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Related resources
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 10:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I would prefer 2000 over XP - 2000 Professional was the last great Microsoft
product. I have been running mine for six years without a blue screen.




<pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com (Johnny Asia)> wrote in message
news:4173f651.27621143@news.mybizz.net...
> I bought Windows 2000 Professional because I got a great price. I
> thought it would work fine for audio recording, but several people
> tell me XP is a much better choice.
>
> Any advice or opinions? I'll be recording mostly solo guitar, won't
> need lots of tracks.
>
>
>
>
> Windows 2000 Professional w/ service pack 4
> ASUS P4P800-E DELUXE mainboard
> P4 2.8EGHz
> 1GB Mushkin 2-2-2 Dual Channel PC3200
> Aspire 520 watt psu
> WD 80 GB hard drive IDE
> Liteon 52X CD-RW
> Apollo Geforce 64MB video card
>
>
> I'm going to add an ESI sound card and 1 or 2 SATA hard drives.
>
> +
>
> Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
> http://johnnyasia.info
>
> "When a man describes himself as a "guitarist from
> the future" the warning bells go off,
> ... But Johnny Asia really sounds like he's doing
> something new. .....Check the mans' music out
> and hear something different."
> - Nick Dedina, Staff Writer, Listen.com
>
>
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 10:10:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

XP supports hyperthreading which will ease your cpu load by 20 - 30% if you
use software like Sonar 4 which supports it. If not I see no significant
improvement in how my audio software runs in XP over w2k.

Neil R

"Troy Hamsfeld" <tbtb@juno.com> wrote in message
news:MGTcd.386620$mD.23471@attbi_s02...
>I would prefer 2000 over XP - 2000 Professional was the last great
>Microsoft
> product. I have been running mine for six years without a blue screen.
>
>
>
>
> <pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com (Johnny Asia)> wrote in message
> news:4173f651.27621143@news.mybizz.net...
>> I bought Windows 2000 Professional because I got a great price. I
>> thought it would work fine for audio recording, but several people
>> tell me XP is a much better choice.
>>
>> Any advice or opinions? I'll be recording mostly solo guitar, won't
>> need lots of tracks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Windows 2000 Professional w/ service pack 4
>> ASUS P4P800-E DELUXE mainboard
>> P4 2.8EGHz
>> 1GB Mushkin 2-2-2 Dual Channel PC3200
>> Aspire 520 watt psu
>> WD 80 GB hard drive IDE
>> Liteon 52X CD-RW
>> Apollo Geforce 64MB video card
>>
>>
>> I'm going to add an ESI sound card and 1 or 2 SATA hard drives.
>>
>> +
>>
>> Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
>> http://johnnyasia.info
>>
>> "When a man describes himself as a "guitarist from
>> the future" the warning bells go off,
>> ... But Johnny Asia really sounds like he's doing
>> something new. .....Check the mans' music out
>> and hear something different."
>> - Nick Dedina, Staff Writer, Listen.com
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 12:36:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> Any advice or opinions?

If you are going to record 24/96 you might get some problems since some of
the win2000 drivers (was it WDM or MME?) do not support this.
The files are recorded in high resolution, but with a lot of empty bits. No
fix from microsoft. I had to move to XP for this reason.

Sune
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 12:36:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:36:13 +0200, "Sune T. B. Nielsen"
<suneni@get2net.dk> wrote:

>
>>> Any advice or opinions?
>
>If you are going to record 24/96 you might get some problems since some of
>the win2000 drivers (was it WDM or MME?) do not support this.
>The files are recorded in high resolution, but with a lot of empty bits. No
>fix from microsoft. I had to move to XP for this reason.
>
>Sune
>
>

Windows® 2000 Professional:

Support for this platform is provided through the WDM Audio driver,
which includes ASIO™ support. MME drivers are no longer supported on
this platform. Customers who cannot use the WDM Audio driver can
continue to use the existing MME drivers. No bugfixes will be
available for these drivers. Please note that this platform requires
Service Pack 3 (or later) to be installed for full driver support.

See Microsoft Knowledge Base article 308883 for further information.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308883


CAUSE
These problems occur because the kernel does not deal well with high
sample rates and concurrency.

RESOLUTION
To resolve this problem, obtain the latest service pack for Windows
2000. For additional information, click the following article number
to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
260910 How to Obtain the Latest Windows 2000 Service Pack


STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft
products that are listed at the beginning of this article. This
problem was first corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3.
+

Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
http://johnnyasia.info

"When a man describes himself as a "guitarist from
the future" the warning bells go off,
.... But Johnny Asia really sounds like he's doing
something new. .....Check the mans' music out
and hear something different."
- Nick Dedina, Staff Writer, Listen.com
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 1:12:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 18 Oct 2004 16:59:34 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In that case, you don't need a "better" choice. One nice thing for
>Win2K if you're an experimenter is that you (or your computer) doesn't
>phone home and tell Microsoft that you're running it on a different
>computer than that of the initial installation >>

That's one reason why I got Windows 2000. I like to tinker with
my computers.

The other reason is I got it for $75, an OEM CD.
+

Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
http://johnnyasia.info

"When a man describes himself as a "guitarist from
the future" the warning bells go off,
.... But Johnny Asia really sounds like he's doing
something new. .....Check the mans' music out
and hear something different."
- Nick Dedina, Staff Writer, Listen.com
October 19, 2004 1:21:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com (Johnny Asia) wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2004 16:59:34 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In that case, you don't need a "better" choice. One nice thing for
>>Win2K if you're an experimenter is that you (or your computer) doesn't
>>phone home and tell Microsoft that you're running it on a different
>>computer than that of the initial installation >>
>
> That's one reason why I got Windows 2000. I like to tinker with
> my computers.

Yep. It's the reason I got Linux too. And if I absolutely, positively
HAVE to do something on Winblows, I'll do it on Win 95.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 5:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:21:16 -0400, agent86 <maxwellsmart@control.gov>

>>
>> That's one reason why I got Windows 2000. I like to tinker with
>> my computers.
>
>Yep. It's the reason I got Linux too. And if I absolutely, positively
>HAVE to do something on Winblows, I'll do it on Win 95.
>
>

Which Linux do you recommend? Maybe I'll have a dual boot
with Linux on another hard drive.
+

Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
http://johnnyasia.info

"When a man describes himself as a "guitarist from
the future" the warning bells go off,
.... But Johnny Asia really sounds like he's doing
something new. .....Check the mans' music out
and hear something different."
- Nick Dedina, Staff Writer, Listen.com
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 6:04:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

BUT on my Win2k installation, my two Laylas, which are capable of 16 channels
in and out, can only do 12 because of a limit in 2k, multimedia drivers are set
to five devices, thats an OS limit. NOT in XP
HTH jerry, sundog audio chicago
October 19, 2004 3:49:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com (Johnny Asia) wrote:

> Which Linux do you recommend? Maybe I'll have a dual boot
> with Linux on another hard drive.


Depends on what you want to do. If you like to hack, most any distro will
do, since you'll probably end up with a more or less custom set up anyway.
If ease of set up & maintenance is important (or if you haven't used Unix
or a Unix-like system before), then Red Hat or Debian are good choices
because they have good package manager tools for software installation
(which makes updates much less of a headache).

For music & multimedia, check out the Planet CCRMA setup. It is
distributed by the computer music department at Stanford, and is based on
the latest versions of Red Hat, but use the package manager from Debian.
Find it here:

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/

Installation & setup for most current distros is (finally) almost as easy
as Windows, but there is still a lot of hardware for which no Linux drivers
exist. So, you'll want to check out http://www.linuxhardware.net/ (for
general hardware) and http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/ (for soundcards
etc.). RME is probably the leader for Linux compatible soundcards.

BTW, you don't even need a second hard drive to run dual boot. Most Linux
distro include at least one very capable boot manager.

Good luck & enjoy.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 12:01:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, to get it right, you mean 10 stereo inputs, however that is sliced,
which equates to 20 inputs. In XP it's 32, so there's still a limit. It
just exceeds what a lot of people have. One of the reasons that Paris
worked well for the time it came out. Hardware based CPU assisted meant no
limitations on inputs.

But, to be honest, you can see ALL your inputs but only actuate 20 at once,
so it's just as possible to do 20 tracks and then change your input
selections for other mic setups on overdubs. It's just a limitation to the
number of simultaneously activated inputs.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Sundogaudio" <sundogaudio@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041018220408.08241.00002114@mb-m10.aol.com...
> BUT on my Win2k installation, my two Laylas, which are capable of 16
channels
> in and out, can only do 12 because of a limit in 2k, multimedia drivers
are set
> to five devices, thats an OS limit. NOT in XP
> HTH jerry, sundog audio chicago
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:54:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Nick wrote:

> It is my understanding that it also creates restore points on a regular
> schedule. The amount of disk spaced used can be well over 10 to 20 GB on
> big drives. I think that's a lot.

You can tell it what percentage of your drive to use. The first thing
I do on a system is go in and tell it like 2% or 5%, depending on the
size of the drive.

- Logan
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 4:31:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:25:23 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
<neilrutman@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>XP supports hyperthreading which will ease your cpu load by 20 - 30% if you
>use software like Sonar 4 which supports it. If not I see no significant
>improvement in how my audio software runs in XP over w2k.

You do HAVE a hyperthreading processor, of course?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
October 21, 2004 8:01:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 20 Oct 2004, "Nick" <delonas@NOSPAMcultv.com> wrote in
news:gOCdd.33426$YM4.9961533@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

> It is my understanding that it also creates restore points on a
> regular schedule.

I don't think that's true, or at least it doesn't happen that way on
my XP machine. You can create a restore point at will, or sometimes
an application or installation will create one. Mine doesn't do it
on its own.

> The amount of disk spaced used can be well over 10 to 20 GB on big
> drives. I think that's a lot.

You can set a limit as to how much disk space will be used.

I think system restore is a good feature that seems to work as
advertised. It's one of the few advantages for me of XP over 2000.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 8:01:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:01:48 GMT, Nil <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
wrote:

>On 20 Oct 2004, "Nick" <delonas@NOSPAMcultv.com> wrote in
>news:gOCdd.33426$YM4.9961533@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>
>> It is my understanding that it also creates restore points on a
>> regular schedule.
>
>I don't think that's true, or at least it doesn't happen that way on
>my XP machine. You can create a restore point at will, or sometimes
>an application or installation will create one. Mine doesn't do it
>on its own.
>
>> The amount of disk spaced used can be well over 10 to 20 GB on big
>> drives. I think that's a lot.
>
>You can set a limit as to how much disk space will be used.
>
>I think system restore is a good feature that seems to work as
>advertised. It's one of the few advantages for me of XP over 2000.

System restore can be set to automatically create restore points.
This can use a lot of resources and in addition if left running in the
background could possibly disrupt audio recording, I have it turned
off on my machine.

Al
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 12:56:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On or about Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:12:30 GMT, pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com
allegedly wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2004 16:59:34 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In that case, you don't need a "better" choice. One nice thing for
> >Win2K if you're an experimenter is that you (or your computer) doesn't
> >phone home and tell Microsoft that you're running it on a different
> >computer than that of the initial installation >>
>
> That's one reason why I got Windows 2000. I like to tinker with
> my computers.

Running XP-Pro on my machines. Turn off error reporting etc. and they
never phone home to MS about what I do to them.


Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:10:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:47:24 GMT, "Nick" <delonas@NOSPAMcultv.com>
wrote:

>It is my understanding that it also creates restore points on a regular
>schedule.

It can, if you tell it to. The schedule is typically once a day.
This option is disabled by default.

>The amount of disk spaced used can be well over 10 to 20 GB on
>big drives. I think that's a lot.

There's a user setting for percentage of disk space available for SR.
On today's big hard drives this can indeed allocate a lot of space.
So set it lower.

One Service that it IS worth turning off (if you have drives formatted
NTFS) is Indexing. Rather like the old Microsoft Office FindFast,
this can make unwanted disk accesses. I suspect FindFast was
responsible for much of the folklore about not installing Office on a
music system. It's not there in later Office releases, and was easy
to turn off, anyway :-)

System Restore can save your life - or at least save you a lot of
time. Think very hard before disabling it on your system drive.
(Turn it off for data partitions. It has no function regarding data
files, so, if nothing else, save the space).


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:13:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:24:22 -0700, play-on <playonATcomcast.net>
wrote:

>System restore can be set to automatically create restore points.
>This can use a lot of resources and in addition if left running in the
>background could possibly disrupt audio recording, I have it turned
>off on my machine.

This is foolish. It's a very useful feature. The default setting is
not to create automatic Restore Points. Leave this alone. It uses
as much disk space as you tell it to. It's nothing to run scared of.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:32:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:13:30 +0100, Laurence Payne
<l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:24:22 -0700, play-on <playonATcomcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>System restore can be set to automatically create restore points.
>>This can use a lot of resources and in addition if left running in the
>>background could possibly disrupt audio recording, I have it turned
>>off on my machine.
>
>This is foolish. It's a very useful feature. The default setting is
>not to create automatic Restore Points. Leave this alone. It uses
>as much disk space as you tell it to. It's nothing to run scared of.

I don't really need MS restore as I can use other apps just as Norton
Ghost to back up my HD. And they don't run in the background.

Al
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 7:40:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Windows XP might be "better" but Win2K is just fine. I've been using
it for 4 - 5 years & doing some heavy audio work on it & it works just
great. One big advance in audio was the advent of the WDM driver
architecture was is there in Win2K.

The only thing I don't like about Win2K is you have to make sure that
you have all the MS security updates (which you don't have by
default). However, if this machine is not connnected to the internet
then you're fine.

Hope this helps.

Mike
http://www.MusicIsLove.com
!