ok I have win98 on here right now....I have just gotten a 60gig HD{woooooohoooooooooooo} and am going to update. I want win2000 but was told xp was better as win2000 wouldnt run poser. iiiiiiiiiiiisssssss this true? I reaaaaaaaly do not like xp and am hoping to be able to use 2000 also on processors....athalon xp2400? do they work with poser? was told they didnt work well with poser. do I need a pentium?

I'm running an Athlon XP1800+ and Windows 200 Pro and it runs Poser just fine. It sounds like someone is trying to sell you new stuff or is just messing with you.

Poser runs GREAT on 2k... I had a dual-boot with 2K/ME before XP came out, I used ME only for gaming, & 2K for everything else. Also, Poser ROCKS hard on an Athlon XP2400+, is what I upgraded to from a 950 Duron about 6 weeks ago :o) Only advise I have is this, make sure the motherboard can support the XP2400+, & flash your BIOS, to prevent system hangs. Hope I helped a little, Thomas

Poser 4 and 5 run fine with Windows 2000 pro. I have an XP2800+ with win2kPro. I don't see the necessity to upgrade to win xp

ohhh GOOD...athalons are cheaper then pentiums...whooooooooohoooooooooo! yup slowly working on an upgrade...and found some great prices.......now I can take my moped of a puter and make it a vw of a puter! LOL

ooooooh just realized I will be able to finally use Highres textureeeeeeesssssss

Poser runs much better on NT based operating systems (NT/2000/XP), so you will b ehappy changing to 2000. The lousy memory handling in Win 98 cripples Poser. Jim Burton had a benchmark recently letting people compare render times in Poser 5, he did the same thing last year with Poser 4. It seems that Poser 4 is faster on AMD's but that Intels are faster on Poser 5. Anyway, the difference was not that huge in any case.

Some have said that P5 runs better on W2k than XP. XP is a bit more flexible for games and such, so if you have a lot of programs that liked 98 and didn't like NT, you'd be better off with XP. On the other hand, I think W2k is a little less of a resource hog, but I'm not entirely sure. W2k and XP are about the same as virus catchers.

Maybe so, there are a lot of bells and whistles in XP that must eat resources. The first thing I did in XP was going back to the "classic" Windows desktop, the XP desktop just looked too much like a cheap amusement park in the design, LOL. From what I heard, you save quite a lot of resources disabling the XP desktop theme...

And another way to avoid XP is to set up a dual boot with 98 and Win2k. That way you keep =all= your backwards compatibility with the 98, and have 2k to run the graphics goodness with. Although be warned, you'll have to add a line to your system.ini in 98 to set the vcache limit if you have a gig of ram, and if you go over that gig, you run a good chance of 98 choking, period. Hadda give up my 98lite dual boot cause I did a mobo upgrade and went over a gig... :(

You may not be able to easily buy Windows 2000 any more. Microsoft likes to ensure that old operating systems and office suites are hard to find. Windows XP Home Edition will do just fine. It's easier to use than Windows 2000, and you can configure Windows XP so it looks and acts just like old versions of Windows.

IMHO XP sux, I like 2k better.

Attached Link: http://www.pricewatch.com

I did the dual boot thing while using the "Preview" version of Windows XP. I never had a reason to go back to Windows ME. When I bought the commercial version of Windows XP Home, I wiped the hard drives, and installed Windows XP all by itself. I've never had any regrets. On the other hand, I used Windows 2000 briefly, and found it rather confusing. I looked for advice on the Windows 2000 newsgroups, but people there were rather snobbish. The said "You should already know this stuff." Windows XP is much easier to use, since it works like previous versions of Windows in some ways. We have "msconfig" to setup our configuration in XP. We don't have msconfig in Windows 2000. Besides, I don't want a 4-year-old operating system.

Everyone has their preferences. Since 2K was supposed to be a "professional" OS, I imagine there might be a bit of attitude in some groups catering to those users (Kinda like asking about Poser in a Lightwave forum). I used 98 and NT before upgrading and didn't find anything confusing about 2K but then I've been fooling around with software since before DOS. I don't think there were any really significant changes to the kernel between 2K and XP. XP allowed Microsoft to marker a single core OS for consumer and professional use so the age isn't really a big factor in terms of the core OS. The primary factor, is will it run the applications you need. XP is probably going to be more appropriate if you have games or newer multimedia apps. K runs everything I need, including the ancient Falcon 4.0 flight simulator but other people's needs will differ. In my view, the system restore function is the best thing that XP has over 2K and certainly worthwhile. Either choice is vastly superior to 98. If you've got the bucks and don't mind the more limited software selection, get a Mac. If you're really adventurous, get Linux.