[safaa]

HELLO

is win nt htpc friendly,i have most hardware nt ready,but is htpc software nt compatible, pdvd, windvd,pstrip, beside will win nt recognize a large size hard disk or its limited to under 5 gig,

the reason i`m asking because i just tried it out building web server for a friend, so after i finished install every thing for him.

i hooked it to my router, and i turn all my pc`s on xp pro , xp home, me, 98se, this web server found all my pc`s with different OS. which i have problem with xp and me and 98se on home network as far file trancefer not logging to the net, thats ok ,

so is it good OS to be htpc friendly, even if i get to service pack 6.0a

thanks

 

[melechmet]

Do yourself a favor pass on NT. get 2000 get XP get Linux get OS X....you want USB problems choose NT, you want barely supported product choose NT, you want a multimedia hampered OS choose NT...I have one RAID server that is NT...I'd nuke it if I could but I'm to lazy to burn all those backup DVD so NT lives another month!

 

[vairulez]

NT will never be pcht friendly, get XPpro and forget this very bad idea.

 

[EricN]

NT4 was a decent OS years ago, but it will not be sufficient for an HTPC today...the driver support for modern hardware is non-existent. Even 98SE is a better choice. If you prefer Windows, then get XP. The Home version is okay if you are on a tight budget, but Pro is definitely preferable.

 

[Ultrix]

A big problem is that directx is not supported on nt. So pretty much multimedia is non-existant.

 

[SHS]

EricN is rigth safaa I would jump on Win2000 over XP any day

 

[jcarlsony2k]

Let's put it pure and simple:


Windows NT 3.5x/4.0 - no plug and play


Windows 95, 95SE, 98, ME - not a real 32 bit OS


Windows 2000 Pro/Srv - excellent, fine choices in an operating system. Stable, well thought out, plug and play, multi-media friendly. Best in breed.


Windows XP - installing guarantees insanity; avoid at all costs. Spyware from Microsoft. Destroy upon first sighting.


Linux - far, far greater than anything we'll ever know from Microsoft. Too bad it's completely mismanaged and will never be as coordinated (if you can call M$ coordinated). The coolest OS with the worst support system.


MacOS - they still make Macs?


DOS - father of all OSes, king of the hill. Can output sounds via PC Beep Speaker. Excellent ASCII art renditions.




Hope this helps. LOL.



Jeff

 

[melechmet]

Quote:

Originally posted by jcarlsony2k ... MacOS - they still make Macs? ... Jeff

Yes they do and they're selling like hotcakes! I use everything you list to my chagrin (programed vb for a while in fact..)...OS X there is no substitute.



Gentoo comes close though, but I agree with you, minus concerted efforts by a company like IBM the extraordinary effort is nearly futile.

 

[builty]

Windows NT 4 actually does support DirectX, but its version 3 and not upgradeble. As mentioned no USD support either.


Consering most DVD player software uses the Directshow architecture (needs DX8) you're not going to get far.


Don't believe the hype; Windows XP is actually the best choice of OS for 95% of users (especially for HTPC.) The other 5% are best off using Macs (if you havn'et got the mental agility to handle more than one button on your mouse) or Linux (if you love command lines and building your own kernel just for the fun of it.)

 

[jcarlsony2k]

Gotta disagree.


Based on personal (and professional) opinion/experience, I really believe that Windows XP is simply a Windows ME redux.


E.G. Windows ME was Windows 98 with a multimedia facelift. Similarly, Windows XP (Pro) is Windows 2000 (Pro) with a multimedia facelift. In fact, the codebase is only a .1 difference between the two (2000/XP).


Personally, I dislike WinXP so much because I feel it attempts to provide the computer experience that Microsoft wants -- fully customized and ready to roll. But what if I don't like the way XP does things?


I mean, some folks like the bare bones approach to computing, and I'm one of those. I just need the base OS, and I'm quite satisfied. I'm a kernel compiling guy on linux ('cause I like to roll my own), and I also happen to like things like 98 Lite (which allowed complete customization/minimalization of the 98 environment).


In fact, since they're working on XP lite, I might just consider XP at that time. What does it REALLY offer above Windows 2000?

 

[trailergod]

winNT is too old !!!, it like trying to play Doom 3 on a 486DX2..


and Windows XP is NOT a Windows ME redux !!!.


WinXP is pure 32bit, and has one of the best multimedia support for any OS out there. And next week WinXP 64 bit for the AMD 64 FX will be released !!!!! ...


now where's that paper release of the OS X 64?

 

[vairulez]

OS X 64 is already released with new power G5

 

[melechmet]

Quote:

Originally posted by vairulez OS X 64 is already released with new power G5

Not quite yet.. Jaguar 10.27 is 32bit os for g5. The next ver. (Panther or 10.3) has been said to be able to do very very limited 64bit operations- it's not a true 64bit os, yet. You have to go to Linux to get that today.

 

[DFA]

These OS discussions always get everyone hot and bothered, that and "best browser" discussions and even best software MPEG codecs!.


That being said, I have to say I am with jcarlsony2k on this. There is nothing XP can do that W2K can't do as well. XP boots faster but is not any faster beyond that (my machines are always on so that feature is irrelevant to me). The activation thing for XP is completely unacceptable to me and makes it a non starter even if it had a leg up on W2K. And by the time I stripped XP down so I could see the forest for the trees, it would be like W2K anyway so why bother?


I have never had a machine with W9X/ME so I have no nostalgic connection there (couldn't put up with the stability issues). I went from W31 to NT3.x to NT4 to W2K (and Linux). I think that a lot of people (not everyone, just a lot, so save it) who are very pro XP made the transition direct from W9X /ME to XP as MS intended them to do. MS put a W9X/ME face on W2K to sort of put out the welcome mat. These individuals are comfortable with XP, which is fine. I just hope that the activation trap does not spring on them down the road and find themselves paying annual or even monthly rental fees. But as far as XP being better than W2K, complete myth and MS hype.


As far as stability is concerned, my opinion and personal experience (which admittedly is limited with XP), I find W2K to be slightly more stable and tolerant if only because there is less meaningless stuff going on. Simplistically, the more bags-o-bits that are flying around, the more likely a few bits are to collide.


Disclaimer: These are my opinions and perceptions which I put forward in good faith and are not intended to inflame or draw ire. If offended in any way, my apologies.


And by the way (to stay on topic), NT4 is unsuitable as an HTPC OS.


Regards,

DFA

 

[trailergod]

does Win2k support 24bit/96khz/192khz?


i always go with the latest version... i'm a sucker for updates...


get the corporate version of WinXp.. no activation or serial keys needed..


btw.. MAC OS sucks with IVTC (inverse telecine) ... making DVD backups and transcoding them in the MAC platform is soooo limited... !!! 3rd party software support and freeware is almost non existent with the MAC OS X...


so, my point Hometheatre experience with the MAC is really limited..

does it even have soundcards that have SPDIF or 5.1 sound in digital or analog form?

 

[DFA]

Trailergod:


I was expecting the 24/192 comment as well as a couple of others; and it is not disputed.


Long time users of NT4 had many compelling reasons to adopt W2K. NT4 is crippled when it comes to multimedia. And there was a fundamental technical reason for that (native USB support was another matter and a sore point for long time NT users).


Between W2K and XP, technically, these are equally capable. But MS is and will continue to plow things into XP that they will not make available for W2K not because of any technical short comings of W2K but for marketing reasons alone. MS has to try to create as much differentiation between W2K and XP as they can; even if only skin deep. As I see it, they are having a hard time getting W2K users to adopt XP; there really is no technically compelling reasons to do so. Fast boots and 24/96/192 won't quite do it for me because I don't need it. Do you?


EDIT: W2K was originally to be designated as NT5 when MS was still thinking in terms of revisions before marketing straightened the engineers out. This was an appropriate rev. level for W2K. As far as core differentiation and improvement between XP and W2K is concerned, I agree with jcarlsony2k, I would call XP about a 5.1, 5.2 at best. At this time, my world is not turning on any of the dot one enhancements that XP has to offer and am happy to avoid what seems like GUI chaos to me (eye candy to others).


But agreed, corporate XP version is most recommended if XP is going to be your flavor. Avoid activation like STD's. In the future, "activation" may become better known as "deactivation". My paranoia and mistrust of MS ultimate intentions.


Regards,

DFA


P.S.: I suspect some brainiac could probably figure out how to get 24/192 over into W2K if the motivation and a strong need were there.

 

[Riktar]

Quote:

Originally posted by jcarlsony2k I mean, some folks like the bare bones approach to computing, and I'm one of those. I just need the base OS, and I'm quite satisfied. I'm a kernel compiling guy on linux ('cause I like to roll my own), and I also happen to like things like 98 Lite (which allowed complete customization/minimalization of the 98 environment).

98 Lite! I haven't seen that mentioned in a long time in any forum/NG. I wonder if I can dig up my old license and Win 98SE.