stuxxx
Hi all
Well my old laptops has finally given up the ghost and I have to purchase a new one later this week... I have a few in mind but one comes with windows XP on it and I have been running 2000 for some time now on my desktop without any Atomix problems. (well not to many anyway !)
Has anyone got thoughts or feedback on this subject because the laptop will be the workhorse for Atomix out in the field so to speak and I'm not sure wether to dump the XP and load 2000 on it imediately or run with XP..
I can not afford to have problems while running live !
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated
Thanx all
STU
Well my old laptops has finally given up the ghost and I have to purchase a new one later this week... I have a few in mind but one comes with windows XP on it and I have been running 2000 for some time now on my desktop without any Atomix problems. (well not to many anyway !)
Has anyone got thoughts or feedback on this subject because the laptop will be the workhorse for Atomix out in the field so to speak and I'm not sure wether to dump the XP and load 2000 on it imediately or run with XP..
I can not afford to have problems while running live !
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated
Thanx all
STU
Posted Mon 25 Feb 02 @ 7:00 pm
I just install XP to my computer. It is running fine, but since you are doing this live, I think you should stick to Windows 2000 or at least have dual boost system.
If you have a friend who use XP, I suggest you to test out the software with his computer as well.
best wish of luck
If you have a friend who use XP, I suggest you to test out the software with his computer as well.
best wish of luck
Posted Mon 25 Feb 02 @ 7:48 pm
I made a test with both systems (running the demo, but anywat it's the same with the full version) on a Compaq laptop. Atomix is experiencing some problems with XP (skips, noises) and 2000 seems to be sure. I personnaly recommand W98 like many others here, because the system is much lighter - no memory lags .
If you have a full version of the prog. you should wait the 2.1 update - seems to be much ehanced for new systems.
Wait and see
RvN
If you have a full version of the prog. you should wait the 2.1 update - seems to be much ehanced for new systems.
Wait and see
RvN
Posted Mon 25 Feb 02 @ 8:20 pm
trip_likeido
I'd personally go with XP. I have had both systems on my Duron 800 with 192 megs of ram ..... Although 2000 is based on the NT Kernel, I have experienced far less problems with XP.
Both OS are great as long as you don't have any other programs which can possibly cause it to crash. JUST DON'T GO WITH ME or 98 !!!
Hope this helps.
Dave.
Both OS are great as long as you don't have any other programs which can possibly cause it to crash. JUST DON'T GO WITH ME or 98 !!!
Hope this helps.
Dave.
Posted Tue 26 Feb 02 @ 3:28 am
trip_likeido
Sorry ... and the reason why it's not good to go with 98 or ME is that 2000 and XP make best use of the systems' resources. Atomix ran faster when I went from 98 to 2000.
Posted Tue 26 Feb 02 @ 3:30 am
stuxxx
Thanx for the advice Dave
The pooter I think I am going for is the recent introduction by advent (PC Worlds own label) It a pentium 4. 2gb with 512mb off ram so I shouldnt have any problem with speed.
I havent had any major problems with windows 2000 on my old lap top, I just set up a different profile when i am running live so that Atomix is the only program running.. If there is a definate benefit to go with XP, I'd go down that road and keep the software bundled with the package, but I have all the relevant drivers etc for 2000 and it seems logical to keep both the operating system on my desktop and laptop
the same.
Thanx again for your advice
STU
The pooter I think I am going for is the recent introduction by advent (PC Worlds own label) It a pentium 4. 2gb with 512mb off ram so I shouldnt have any problem with speed.
I havent had any major problems with windows 2000 on my old lap top, I just set up a different profile when i am running live so that Atomix is the only program running.. If there is a definate benefit to go with XP, I'd go down that road and keep the software bundled with the package, but I have all the relevant drivers etc for 2000 and it seems logical to keep both the operating system on my desktop and laptop
the same.
Thanx again for your advice
STU
Posted Tue 26 Feb 02 @ 9:42 am
98 is as good as 2000 or XP, when optimized with the newest directx. Although 2000 and XP have better memory managment, 98 is really lighther than both systems (98 using all the time just 20% of the memory - 2000 using 90 Mo).
BUT between 2000 and XP, I personnaly would use 2000 with a system like yours (because of my problems with XP).
RvN
BUT between 2000 and XP, I personnaly would use 2000 with a system like yours (because of my problems with XP).
RvN
Posted Tue 26 Feb 02 @ 11:09 am
I tried all of them (98,ME,2000,XP) and 98 gave the least problems - no clicks and the smoothest. My PC is not very fast or big - cel 433, 128 meg of ram and 60 gig HD. No problem with Atomixmp3.
Cheers
DJ Jack
Cheers
DJ Jack
Posted Tue 26 Feb 02 @ 8:15 pm
nate
XP - one of the things I notice with XP is improved sound functionality, even compared to directX 8 on 2K.
-nt
-nt
Posted Tue 26 Feb 02 @ 9:33 pm
trip_likeido
I see what everybody is saying that Windows 98 is "lighter".
But come on guys .... Would you want to be running 98 on a Pentium 4 ??????? That's like having a 3-speed transmission on a ferrari .... you have all that power, but you have to use it wisely (that's the best example i can come up with).
But what i have heard is 50/50, some people love xp or hate it. I for one, have had both and from MY personal experience have had way less problems with XP. XP is also known to have directx optimizations ... ????
And one last thing to conclude .... 2000 and XP are GREAT operating systems, so i am sure you'll be satisfied with either of them. In terms of reliability, both will give you similar results.
Glad to help stu
Dave.
But come on guys .... Would you want to be running 98 on a Pentium 4 ??????? That's like having a 3-speed transmission on a ferrari .... you have all that power, but you have to use it wisely (that's the best example i can come up with).
But what i have heard is 50/50, some people love xp or hate it. I for one, have had both and from MY personal experience have had way less problems with XP. XP is also known to have directx optimizations ... ????
And one last thing to conclude .... 2000 and XP are GREAT operating systems, so i am sure you'll be satisfied with either of them. In terms of reliability, both will give you similar results.
Glad to help stu
Dave.
Posted Wed 27 Feb 02 @ 2:50 am