View Full Version : Win 2K vs. Win XP for 3D

03 March 2003, 06:45 PM

I am currently running Win 2k and I have found it extremely stable (both in terms of the OS and third party drivers/hardware).

I am planning to purchase a new machine for Maya and was debating going with XP. I have heard that XP, being newer, is still a bit buggy. I am curious what other people's experience has been. Thanks.


03 March 2003, 07:46 PM
no probs with XP

its works great, i can do everything (3DMax, Photoshop, games) and i never have to reboot (normal uptime 2 weeks for me - i restart sometimes to change bios/switch plugs)

and its not that new, SP1 is out for quite some while

03 March 2003, 09:41 PM
I'd stick with Windows 2000 unless you need a specific feature of XP.

(Like Hyperthreading Support for Xeon's)

03 March 2003, 09:48 PM
XSI is faster according to a number of users in XP. Both XSI and Houdini run well under XP. I don't really notice a dif but appreciate the speedier start up and shut down and default device compatibility.

If its a new machine including OS, may as well go with XP

03 March 2003, 11:38 PM

I know you have a lot of workstation experience. Why do you recommend staying with 2000?



03 March 2003, 12:17 AM

Its less bloated. Windows XP requires a good deal of tweaking to reach near Win2k memory usage/effeciency. You pretty much disable everything that makes Windows XP unique from 2000.

The main reason I said stick with well you already have 2k. If your app doesn't require Windows XP, then why waste the 100 or so USD on a new OS license...could upgrade a piece of hardware, or buy a plugin.

Of course if your a student, you can probably get XP free from the university, or at least for an extremely low cost.

03 March 2003, 10:28 AM
you guys in the US are lucky to get MS software so cheap from unis. here in australia it's full price or tough luck. :(

btw: greg, at time of writing you've hit 1337 posts! l33t h4x0r!!1!

03 March 2003, 06:50 PM
hahaha, that's tight... 7331!!!.... anyhow, yes, I stick with Win2K because XP's memory management is a tad bit much. I think the one thing you may lose out on in XP is how it allocates sections of memory specifically for certain applications so that if an application crashes, it does not crash the entire system, and allows you to close the single application with no major incident. And that whole bit with saving user settings so you can switch back and forth without closing any programs is a little much ... especially if you are the only person using the system. But yeah, all the flash and flare effects they included in XP drag down performance quite a bit ... like a wise nerd once said: "XP used to be a perfectly good mango that Bill Gates raped until it popped ..." :surprised

Win2K r0x0rs!!!! :buttrock:

03 March 2003, 07:47 PM

Finished all the screen captures, writing the article now.

You can get it pretty close to default win2k specs for ram usage...just takes alot of disabling :).

03 March 2003, 09:25 PM
I think Greg is totally right. There is no need to upgrade to XP. Personally, I've setup only five times XP for testing purposes only. It has very useful toys but not for 3D Wks. eXPig memory tweaking is loss of time. It's my POV. ;)

You've Xeon thing!

04 April 2003, 02:02 PM
I did upgrade to XP and now I am back on Win 2000. The interface of XP is more snappier and responcive, of course after disabling all the fancy staff, but when running apps it is slower. Plus, there is still lot of problems. To match usless staff in it. It look like it is more for multimedia or internet systems not for Pro Workstation. So in my case after switching back and fourth I just wasted my time. Did not cost me any extra because I am MSDN subscriber so I get all the OSs as part of the subscription.

04 April 2003, 05:25 PM
XP for me, very reliable!!! both 2k and xp is good for 3D, but i suggest xp.

04 April 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by HapZungLam
XP for me, very reliable!!! both 2k and xp is good for 3D, but i suggest xp.

Have you read the previous posts? What makes you suggest XP over 2K? :shrug:

04 April 2003, 11:20 PM
wow Greg, please let us know when the article is done and up, im interested in the optimizations you did.:thumbsup:

04 April 2003, 11:33 PM
I'm on page 2. Its so boring to write :).

04 April 2003, 12:26 AM
Haha, i bet.. does it feel like a research paper for school yet?:hmm:

04 April 2003, 07:48 AM
I just realised, i have had 1 'crash'(you could not even call it a crash, it was a typical Max bug) in the last few months.
I'm running W2K.
stable as a rock.

might also be the ECC memory though.

04 April 2003, 12:07 AM
Thanks to everyone who replied. I will stick with Win 2K


04 April 2003, 12:30 AM
yeah. Win2k is great. Very very stable and seems to have better support for older programs than XP does. I know XP has some backwards compatability thing, but from my experience it doesnt really do that much, probably makes things worse. Plus XP is very bloated, gotta spend ages disabling things to get it to run like 2k. The only time 2k has become unstable was when i was overclocking things abit too much, needless to say an 2700+XP running at 2.405ghz is nothing to frown at (it runs very stable at this speed). hmm that was kinda off topic.....

Back on track now, But as some of the other guys said, if your new machine is going to have a CPU thats support HyperThreading...i.e. Pentium 3.06ghz and above, plus the latest xeons, then you will need to use XP to get the most out of the HyperThreading technology, infact 2k doesnt support it at all.

04 April 2003, 07:00 AM
but is hyperthreading really that important, I mean, isn't stability more important, hyperthreading is very suttle in its speed increase, it doesn't even add speed, it takes it away, HT is about suttle responsiveness. So maybe it's just better to go with w2k even if you have HT

04 April 2003, 10:51 PM
Hyperthreading can increase render performance anywhere from 6 to 30% depending on the application your using.

Considering upgrading an entire stepping of cpu tends to give less then 5% increase in performance (aka going from a 2.4 to a 2.53 P4), the fact that merely enabling hyperthreading can cause upwards of 30% increases is absolutely incredible.

Hyperthreading is very powerful, and should not be ignored or bypassed as second thought.

The original data on hyperthreading from a year or two (where it actually slowed down applications) no longer applies to the current generation of xeon's/p4's.

Starting in May, there will also be a 3.2 HT and possibly a 2.8 HT processor as well (for single cpu systems).

Hyperthreading is supported under windows 2000. The limitation however of win2k prof, is that it counts the logical cpu in Hyperthreading towards its two cpu limit. So if you have a Dual Xeon, that means you lose the abiliity to enable HT, as its past the 2 cpu limit in win2k.

This is fixed in Windows XP, and can utilized under Windows 2000 server, which allows for a 4 cpu configuration.

04 April 2003, 03:15 AM
simple answer, Hyperthreading is great, especially if your using 3d apps and video editing. I dont think the increase in game play is quite as much.

Thanks for clearing up the win2k bit, i didnt think it was supported at all. But it an extent.

04 April 2003, 03:27 PM
Hey DaForce,

You were initially completely correct with regards to the Hyperthreading capability of Windows 2000. Before Service Pack3, the OS couldn't differentiate between logical and physical processors.

With Win2k SP2, if you happen to have a Dual Xeon with HT enabled, Win2k will actually assign CPU Slot 1 to the First physical processor, and Slot2 to the first logical processor. As you would guess, this caused quite a large decrease in system performance.

SP3 addressed this, but still didn't add true HT support to the OS, as now Win2k sees 2 logical and 2 physical, but only allocates the two physical chips.

Of course if all you have is a single HT processor (Like a P4 3.06), it will detect and utilize both the physical and the logical processor.

04 April 2003, 03:51 PM
Hey Greg,

Ahh ok cool, noted noted and noted :-)

04 April 2003, 02:56 AM
I had a newer Boxx system (dual 2.8) and when I would submit jobs on Smedge (a Maya render manager), it would submit 4 jobs because of hyperthreading. Even though I had 2 Gb of ram, I would run our of memory because there were 4 renders going simultaneously. Several software makers need to release patches to work hyperthreading in their workflow, otherwise it can be impractical (I had to turn it off so I could render two jobs at once).


04 April 2003, 05:04 AM
not like my input matters as i just switched to 2k, but i think both os' def have their benefits, and win2k seems great. i have had crashes, nothing serious but definate crashes. some wierd problems with maya and my softquadro as well. i just installed litestep and boy is it neat(yea 50's lingo), its like a flash interface, very simple and nice. so i would recomend checking that out, apparently ram usage is better with it, although i dont think its quite as stable yet, correct me if im wrong. anyway, yea stick with 2k.

04 April 2003, 09:37 AM
what problems have you found with softquadro?

04 April 2003, 06:30 PM
this wierd thing happens where if i bring any menu up(from just right clicking on the desktop to maya windows), while maya is open, the screen goes black for a second as if its changing resolutions and then comes back. problem is fixed when i close maya. now i dont have the absolute latest drivers for my nvidia card because im using the ones that work with softquadro so that could account for something. but i def need softquadro, without it maya doesnt run as well, esp artisan. once again im gonna plug litestep, its freakin cool.

04 April 2003, 07:12 PM
wait, whats noxy talking about?
Im about to upgrade to a 2.4Ghz Xeon so i can hyperthread.... whats this crap about it causing freezes? Im confused now... (I dont use smedge if that means anything) :curious:


04 April 2003, 10:24 AM
lol greg based on that taskman ss wanna loan me your computer?

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 07:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.