Just built a new system

AMD 2200+ w/HHC-001 fan
PC2700 512m ECC Crucial
KX7-333R
120G IBM HD
Radeon 8500

Which OS would be better suited performance wise.

I'm leaning towards 2000 because I've heard a lot of bad things about XP and drivers for it.

The system will mainly be used for graphic oriented programs, video & sound editing.

I was planning on running Windows ME, but heard it's still limited in memory recognition. (like 98SE is)

Any thoughts???

Oh and yes it has to be a Microcrap OS. :p

If you're going for all out performance, then 2000 is more frugal with resources. I've had no problems with either OS; both have been very reliable and rock solid. XP is a little more resource-intensive, but the numerous small improvements are worth it IMO. Personally, I noticed no speed difference on my P2-400 w/ 256 RAM.

I would go with XP. And i have noticed a difference between XP on both highend processors and lower end. XP respondes better to higher end
processors then the lower. But thats just my experience. IMO get XP you won't regret it!

I'd say 2000 for now, if you are really wanting XP go with the pro edition.

I'm runing 2000 and I'm looking at 21 days and 10 hrs of uptime right now

-Pete

I'd say XP. It's so much more stable than 2000, and I find that it uses resources much better.

Here:

I say 2000. XP has some nice features but its performance degrades over time. I have been using 2000 for months without one single problem.

I've got both running in front of me right now. Windows XP Pro uses fewer resources on my system (1.2 GHz, 512MB Dell Inspiron 8100) and is a bit more stable than a similar system (IBM A21 1.2GHz, 512MB) loaded with Windows 2000.

I'm running pretty much the same workload on each and I'm seeing better performance and better resource allocation on the XP side of the house.

Huh? Have proof? In general, performacne degrades over time with any OS because users keep adding crap that slows it down. But I've never seen the OS to blame for that.

XP is a good choice if you turn off all the crap for visualizations and extra services that don't need to be running. But after all of that wouldn't it mostly be Win2K anyway? Your choice.

I'd just go for XP, they're just about the same thing anyways. If you had 2000 already I wouldn't bother with XP, but if you are getting a new OS, just go for XP.

As far as uptime, my machines at home run 2000 24/7 and I haven't had any bsod's in months (last time one of the motherboards died).

Are you talking about me??

There really isn't much of a difference between XP and 2000, as long as you're talking about XP Professional and not XP Home. XP has more eye candy, but will also likely be around longer than 2000. Avoid WinME, for more reasons than just memory recognition.

XP as long as the software and hardware are compatible. Meaning you can find the right drivers and such.

I've been running XP Pro for 2 months with no issues.

XP is a far superior OS. Stability is about the same as 2000, but XP boots faster and will support more home computer type applications like games, etc. If you looking for graphics and video editing, definately go with XP. I ran 2000 Pro before XP Pro came out, and I am much happier with XP.

Also XP Pro has a huge driver database. 99% of any hardware component I install on a computer (I do this for a living) running XP there will already be a driver for it.

Windows ME was a joke on Microsofts behalf. You know something is wrong when they discontinue the OS after only a few months.

2000, I am a consultant..Not that that means anything....XP will be good when they fix all the bugs.

soyo dragon + Mobo
AMD 1700+ (1.47 ghz)
256 mb crucial ddr

XP pro and it rocks. I have a ME machine (I know), a 2000 machine, and a XP machine with the above spec and I have no problems with drivers or stability. All of the subtle differences from 2000 make it a much better total package.

And the degradation is indeed due to one choking up the system with installs and crap/not defragging hard drives etc. The OS does not degrade over time.

SVTMike- Question, Why do you think 2000 can't handle games and other home apps? I've built tons of machine using 2000 and XP, and from what I've seen everything works the same on them.

As far as the fast boot up time it really depends on what the system has. My wifes machine boots faster then my everytime and hers is a 2000 system with a 5400RPM drive and mine is a XP system with a Raid 0 Array on 7200PRM drives.

Also the driver database your so proud of is also availible for 2000 it's just not built in. Most XP drivers are just optimized 2000 drivers built in at the time of release.

Sorry to contradict everything you said but it's just not as cut and dry as you would make it. I, even now after running XP since release, would not recommend XP for any Business application. On top of that the Aqua interface is just too comical and confusing for most people to take seriously.

You can take that theme off ... it's an option in the Control Panels (I think under Display, but not sure), and revert to normal-Windows-style if you want. It's not that hard to make the visual differences between XP and 2000 undetectable.

My slower system at home runs better on XP Pro than my faster 2000 Pro system at work ...

A few of my older games like NFS Porsche Unleashed do not work under 2000/XP. I'm guessing a lot of DOS games are out of the question as well, but I think I'm the only one who still plays those, heh.

XP is Luna. Aqua is that silly Mac interface... :p

louisw- He's saying that XP runs apps better then 2000, not Dos related etc. But I've found if it doesn't use a Dos memory manager the programs will run O.K.

My bad on the naming. OS X and XP were in development at the sametime and I followed both...

98 SE- Yeah I know that's how I run mine.

I dual boot 98 and XP, I did this incase XP turned out to not be as reliable/compatible as I hoped it would be. I havent touched 98 in months.I have been running XP for months now...6 months or more. I had a hacked version of XP professional before XP even came out. I 've never had a driver problem, it's never crashed, I havent found anything that wasn't compatible that I couldn't live without. The resource stuff is bunk...turn off unused services. My 700mhz duron system is up and running in 20 seconds or less.

2K Professional. Its built on the rock solid NT architecture.

As a video editor, neither my Avid nor Premiere systems have crashed under the weight of some serious graphics, transitions, etc.

Thanks folks. Great info!

I have a copy of 2000 Pro so I will just use that. Matter of fact XP is the only OS I don't have at the moment.

Maybe after the first service pack is released (couple months) I might try XP...

Which is what XP is based off.

Yeah, so is XP. Not only that, XP (professional) offers dual CPU support, and pretty much everything Win2k SERVER offers. It's a no brainer IMO. Turn off all the in your face stuff...and you're set. Not to mention the better hardware support, build in CDRW support, etc. Just a more robust OS. I can't say win2k has ever crashed on me, but I have had MANY software issues.