Win2k or XP?

[Liquid Len]

I am doing a lot of tweaking of my system because I am getting a lot of glitches. I find the system gets a bit 'iffy' when I hit 'record', in particular - the meters freeze in Scope until recording stops, things like MIDI get especially sluggish. I also suspect (constantly used) Sonic Timeworks' plugins are causing a drain, I have the idea they are hard on PCI bandwidth? I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with my system, I'm not interested in that last 5% of performance, I'm wondering why I have a hard time using 20 tracks of 24-bit ASIO. I'm considering installing windows XP on the same system - would I get better performance than Win2K?

- Cubase 2.2
- Windows 2000
- Asus P4T-E (Intel I850 chipset) - I've been told to adjust the PCI latency timer, I find it works best at 64.
- Western Digital WD1200JB Caviar
- 768M RAM - DDR RAM is so expensive, but I'm thinking this might be optimization number one, really
-1.60GHz
-NVIDIA GeForce FX5200
-Universal Audio card in one slot

I left the network card in the machine. I find it a real PITA to work without a network card (though nowadays with USB hard drives, it might be different), I usually have the network card driver disabled but will the fact that there's another card in the slots steal PCI resources? I'm talking about a 20% loss, not a 3% loss. Will I really get a NOTICEABLE difference between disabling USB and not, or removing that network card physically?

[sunset070]

I think windows xp professional is better than win2k ,the XP core kernel and ACPI system I think is more stable than win 2k

[darkrezin]

Have to agree - WinXP is a much better OS at this point. If you're concerned about graphical excess - you can turn off the ugly 'shiny' theme and make it look exactly like Win2K. Virtually any driver that works in 2K should also work in XP.

[King of Snake]

XP has been good to me for a long time now