Sharing XP-RC2 experience

[hapz]

I'd like to open a thread dealing with the upcoming OS WinXP. The current RC2 is most likely pretty much what we can expect to see with the official release, so I think it is prudent to figure out how our Matrox hardware and software will perform in this new environment.

I have a G400DH+RRG combination with an Intel 840 chipset based mobo, a IDE Ultra 66 HD, a SCSI 160 HD, and a Fasttrack 100 Raid0 array combining two Ultra 100 HDs.
An Ethernet card, SB Live Value for audio, a SB DVD player, and an HP SCSI CD RW burner complete my configuration.

So, what's my experience so far.
The clean installation of XP from my primary HD under Win2000 to a separate partition went very smoothly.

I had to update my Fasttrak100 drivers to the newest version for Win2000 before XP accepted them. So far the array seems to be working flawlessly.

I used the newest Matrox Win2k_537016 display drivers and I experienced my first error. When selecting DVDMax I got a dll error. Strangely enough, the setting seems to have been accepted anyway.

Not so much luck with the Video tools. Matrox was not kidding when they told us that they will not support XP. When I tried to install vt_204005 the installshield wizard bombs. It claims it "was interrupted before VT could be completely installed."

Surely enough, there is no video tool as software available after the failed installation. However, the display properties now list the RRG and the MJPEG compressor/decompressor. So something was installed after all. Hopefully that partial success will lead to something positive eventually.

I tried to play some avi files that were created either with Matrox VT MJPEG or with AVI_IO and HuffYUV. None of them plays with the XP supplied WMP. It tries to download a codec but then fails with a download error message.

That's my status so far.

Maybe somebody has mre to share? I am looking forward to it

[wkulecz]

Windows Product Activation is a feature that will make me ignore XP and stick with W2K.

I see no improvements in RC2 over W2K, WPA is a royal PITA when you jack around with the hardware as much as I do, and lots of stuff will need new drivers, that won't likely be forthcomming -- planned obsolesence in action! I see all pain and no gain, unlike the switch from NT4 to W2k (or Win9x to W2K) where there was plenty of pain but also major gain.

OTOH, if you love the Fisher-Price interface look of Win ME, you'll love XP.

I was hot for "Remote Desktop" (an X windows like remote program execution feature). Unfortunately perfomance sucks and the free VNC package (vncserver & vncviewer pair) performs much better on RC1 & RC2 that the built in Remote Desktop!

They seem to have gone out of their way to make it hard to use legacy hardware -- my ISA SB16 at least is found by W2K but you have to manually install the driver. XP doesn't show the device at all! Athough once I manually installed the driver (that's built in!) it seems to work fine.

Two Thumbs down to XP!

--wally.

[Dr Mordrid]

"Fisher-Price interface"....I love it

Given all the compounded problems in XP I also see no reason to "upgrade" to it.

What I find hilarious is that MicroCrap actually expects 85% of all XP capable systems to be updated. Or at least that's what they told the market gurus in their last conference call.

When pigs fly......

Dr. Mordrid

[hapz]

Guys, don't be so negativ. MS bashing seems to be en vogue, but in the long run MS still put out the best software when others just cash in and run.

A year ago most people in this forum that voiced an opinion had not a good word for Win2000, promoting Win98SE instead. Tides have changes and it seems that Win2000 is in. At least it is taken more seriously.

However, the problems with Win2000 have not changed, lack of support for divers from highly praised software companies. Is that MS's fault? I don't think so.

Here comes XP. Software that finally tries to consolidate the OS base into one. Instead of praise MS is chided again. Seems to be lucrative sport for some, others just repeat that nonsense.

I am running XP. Try it yourself. It is way faster than Win2000 in many respects. And it runs most drivers Win2000 runs. Matrox, as usual, is an exception. But what else is new.

And with respect to the Mickeu Mouse interface, you don't like it, change it. Yes, it is that flexible.

[wkulecz]

Nope! I've been telling everyone that W2K is was the way to go over Win9x since it first came out. And immediately junked my G200 Marvel rather than go back to Win9x. I certainly never kept quiet about my displeasure over the lack of W2K drivers from Matrox!

I praise MS when they deserve it, and bash them when they deserve it. Same with Matrox, I bash them over the Marvel W2K driver fiasco, and praise them for the G450 DVDmax dual head feature (although I hear there are serious DVDmax problems in PAL land).

XP offers no benefits over 2000 but many extra hassles due to WPA. Either is "better" than win9x. But if you don't grab w2K now you may regret it latter. I disklike wasting my time futzing around changing things to get a usable "look" -- X windows on Linux is far more "flexible" if you've got time to waste mucking with the "look and feel". I just wiped XP RC2 and put back W2K and with the minimal changes I make to "the look" (seeing extensions and hidden files, turning off power management, creating a user for file sharing, turing off "effects", enabling auto-hide .... it still wastes too much time!).

Serious gamers will likely want to keep Win98se or setup dual boot. I have no games -- never even tried that game that came with the Marvel. The quys that upgrade and swap things around willy-nilly to get a few more FPS in the current hot 3D game will really go nuts over WPA. Microsoft could quickly lose all the gamers if Sony is serious about their "linux for playstation" option.

--wally.

[hapz]

Well Wally, you are one of the few ones that runs and recommends Win2k. I can't even count the number of times I have been told in the last year directly or indirectly to stay with Win98SE.....

I run all of them in parallel. I know how fast Win98SE is, how well ME works, how stable Win2k is, and how well XP is performing. And it is amazing how much BS is being communicated, not just in this forum, about how bad ME and Win2k are. Now it is XP. I can only repeat myself, a lot of misinformation is just repeated over and over. But that does not makr it true. It happens with other issues too, so software is not special in that respect.

Take Ch. White's article mentioned in the other XP thread. What a piece of misinformation. He can write, granted. But instead of citing facts he is just revealing his attitude about MS. And he obviously has never worked in and never cared about certain work environments. Yes, the features he talkes down will help a lot of people. And not everybody has the money to shell out hundreds of dollars just for video editing software. Obviously he can. He probably gets it for free, or he charges it to the company he works for. But what about us common folks? The video editor that comes with ME can do thingd neither premiere nor MSP can.

I agree with White on one thing: "we need to keep that BS detector mounted up high on our dashboards." And that includes his and similar fictional articles/comments that pretend to be "test" reports.

[wkulecz]

I've helped several people dump Win ME and move to W2k or go back to Win98se. WinMe seems to be working OK for my sister, but she does little more than Word, Outlook, MSIE, and use a flatbed scanner. Win95osr2 worked great for her too until she pickup a virus -- lost her Win95 CD so she bought ME -- this is the only winME success I've been involved with.

My personal experience is WinME is the worst of the Win9x series, so I don't recommend it. YMMV.

You want opinions from people with actual experience using this stuff, I call 'em as I see 'em. Other than my G200 Marvel I've had near zero troubles with W2k. Tons of trouble on the much of the same hardware with Win9x before W2K was released.

If you can live with the hassles of WPA you likely will be happy with XP. I can't.

Personally, I think you've been getting bad advice about staying with win9x over W2K. I'd say buying ultra SCSI for win9x is pretty much proof the people advising you have their own agenda, not your bang for the buck at heart. Hopefully you're using your expensive SCSI drive for NT or W2K. I'm not anti-SCSI, I run SCSI for scanners and, CDROM and CR-RW to keep the IDE ports free large cheap drives, Ultra SCSI makes sense on a transaction server runing NT (or W2K) server or Unix/Linux. The benefits of SCSI hard drives for personal computers pretty much went away with introduction of UDMA33. OTOH if you're getting them for free or have money to burn, they might buy you bragging rights on certain benchmarks.

I'd sure like to know what MovieMaker can do that Premiere or MSP can't! I musta missed it somehow.

--wally.

[BrianP]

I have recommended Win2000 to almost everyone. The computer I built for my parents has Win2000 on it. The computer I am building next week for my inlaws will have the same. It's a stable performer with good hardware support. And it works great in a professional environment. At my day job, my colleagues who are running Win98 reboot literally 3 or 4 times a day. I surreptitiously loaded Win2000 on my workstation and leave my computer on for weeks at a time.

I have no intention at all of trying WinXP. Not when I have a very stable OS that doesn't have all that extra "baggage."

The only group of people who would benefit from NOT having Win2000 are gamers. For them, Win98SE is the way to go (I never tried WinME but I have heard plenty of horror stories). But heck, I play a pretty good share of games on Win2000 as well. I just don't see the incentive to switch.

[hapz]

Wally,

Moviemaker separates scenes automatically, which neither Premiere nor MSP can do.

Don't get me wrong, I have been running Win2000 from the very beginning. At that time I heard the same complaints about Win2k (and ME) I am hearing today about XP. Unfortunately, Win2k does not run everything, so I had to keep 98SE and ME to be able to run everything I want. That problem will go away eventually, hopefully.

BrianP, I agree with you. I wouldn't replace Win2000 at this time either. That's why I am running 4 of them.
By the way, it is very interesting to observe the same software under 4 different operating systems. It also cuts pretty fast through the BS some software vendors give as "solution" if their product does not run as expected. It might not solve the problem, but at least you know that they are giving out BS.

[MultimediaMan]

WinXP = The Great Unknown, WinMe = Microsoft's Edsel.

Let's be frank...NOBODY like the even the premise of WPA.

Many of the new "features" of XP have Orwellian undertones...in effect, we are being forced into BUYING something just slightly to the right of Adware to get "the latest and greatest"...but I digress.

IMHO, Win2K is by far the finest business-oriented operating (Desktop/workstation) system I have yet seen. For over 80% of home users this is also the case.

Gamers are better served using Win98SE than ME...I gave up on ME because it wouldn't run as fast and nowhere near as stably as WinME with most games. Regarding ME: Microsoft has all but made the admission of "certain problems" with memory management (No kidding?) and "other issues". I'd like to think that means there probably will be an SP1 for ME, and I might try that if and when the SP/update becomes available. (WinMe uses uses the excellent TCP/IP Stack of Win2K, and I like it's integrated file packer/unzipper)

When I built a PC for each of my Parents, I installed Win2K on them, same for my Wife's computer and my Workstation at home. Why? It works all the time, everytime.

My gaming computer runs Win98SE, and like most things one tinkers with as a hobby, I don't mind working on it all the time to see what I can do to make it faster or neater or to try something new or whatever: Reinstalling Windows on that machine is like adding fuel to a car...a fairly common thing (Though most of the time I COULD get away with not reinstalling, it's just a habit). I'd HATE to have to call M$ every other month for a new WPA number with me simply fiddling around under the hood.

With WinXP, M/S is again reinventing the wheel...and charging us out the out the ass for it. You would think with the computer industry in such a lurch that they would simply further consolidate their operating systems instead of introducing anther one, but this does not seem to be the case.

Time will Tell if XP is worth it, but in my mind, it is a solution in search of a problem.

[wkulecz]

And what does MovieMaker use to define a "scene"? I admit I missed this, I'll try to find time to check it out on RC2 this weekend. Although this is a useless feature for me as I capture whole tapes in one pass, unattended, and cut up the large files as needed in the editing-- trading file size for convienence, this of course don't fly on fat32. $200 80GB Maxtor's have been a godsend.

--wally.

[hapz]

Wally,

I can only assume that scene detection is based on changes in underlying video characteristics. It worked pretty well for me. VideoWave 4 has a similar feature, but in my experience Moviemaker's scene detection is more accurate.

You mention that you "capture whole tapes in one pass, unattended, and cut up the large files as needed in the editing."

How do you cut it up? How do you move scenes from one tape and mix it with scenes from another tape into the final product?

In principle, like you, I also like to capture whole tapes, but I have not found yet an efficient way to select single scenes from different tapes and mix theme together w/o having the "luxury" of software that automatically detects all scenes, labels them, and lets you print/export a copy of the list for management purposes.

[beppi]

WinXP

Hi,

Just my cent on XP issue, my first computer I had to build myself, came as a kit and had a whopping 4000 bytes and a expandable module in the works. hi. Still have DOS1 plus working computer, all the way up with every operating system till WinXP RC2. So far I have no problem with XP, or not more then with win2k. Everything is working without much trouble, except a 2gig file-limit in editing, not recording.

Tyan Tiger S1834
2 Intel 933Mhz CPU's
1 gig Sdram,
Matrox G450eTV
TDK burner 12 speed
Toshiba DVD player (no macrovision problem, regionfree too)
2 40gig Matrox harddrives (swappable with drawers) NTFS
2 more ready to swap in case 1 HD is full.

Dualboot my computer between win2k and XP, whenever I think something should be bether I boot to win2k just to find out no difference. So, what is wrong with XP (besides it's NEW and the activation) a cheeze screen. hi.

Good luck

[Bubba Feelgood]

MS does not release operating systems to solve problems. They release operating systems to stay in business and retain market share. Win XP is not a revolutionary product. It's an evolution and a weak one at that. It 's merely another in a long line of PLACEHOLDERS that MS has released with one goal - to hold onto Microsoft's position in the minds and pocketbooks of the average consumer. Win XP, Win ME, Win 98SE, Win 98... they're all the same - PLACEHOLDERS. These products are merely variants of Win 95 with ongoing bug fixes and technology enhancements. Oh, I almost forgot - between Win 95 and Win 98 we got Win 95B and Win 95C.

When we move to something else like we did when we went from DOS to Win3.1 or from Win3.1 to Win95 - that will be revolutionary. Win95 was a huge success not because it was the best but because everyone went out and got one. WinXP ain't headed in that direction. We waited with great anticipation for Win2K thinking that would be it but it ain't. All we really got was the old NT with bastardized plug & play integration and we got it 2 years too late. We wanted revolution but we got evolution instead.

When it comes to operating systems Microsoft is resting on it's laurels and that's all they have to do. They're stringing us along because they know we'll buy whatever they trot out hoping it will fix our current hardware/software dilemmas. They are fully aware of our short-sightedness and they exploit this to the fullest. It's called marketing.

Microsoft's Office products are the company's financial bread and butter. They have a virtual monopoly in the PP software field because they created the best PP software and almost every business buys it in spades. They buried Lotus, Word Perfect, and Corel in the process. MS Office has lots of demand, lots of cosumer loyalty, and lots of associated profit margin. By contrast their OS business operates on a tight margin so why should they R&D a revolution when they can slow-peddle the present product structure? As long as we rush out to buy why should they change? As long as their Office product structure is paying the bills, why bother?

Don't think XP is it? Don't think XP will revolutionize the industry? Never fear, MS has plenty of other ideas up their development sleve. Lots of evolutions but not many revolutions.

[hapz]

beppi,

what editing/recording software do you use under XP and what source do you use for recording?