Sat, Jan 11, 9:39 AM CST

Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL



Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum

Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom

Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 11 12:18 am)



Subject: Windows 2000 vs Windows XP for POSER 5 : )


kim258 ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 5:16 PM · edited Sat, 11 January 2025 at 9:37 AM

Greetings, My computer has been acting up we`re thinking of putting in windows 2000, does poser 5 like win 2000? I know with win ME it just about shuts down. any coments would be great, thanks all : )


TheJoker ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 5:42 PM

Works perfectly on Win2K SP4. TJ


kim258 ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 6:09 PM

OOOOOOOO, THANKS! : )


SamTherapy ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 7:09 PM

XP is more or less Win2K anyhow. My P5 is perfectly happy with it. ME is a joke, and not a very funny one at that. :)

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery


Ajax ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 8:23 PM

If you have much more than 128 meg of ram on your machine, you'll see a big improvement in Poser performance when you upgrade windows. I'd go for XP, myself (and do take the time to work out how to turn off all the RAM eating doodads it comes with) but even win2k should be a big improvement. Depending on how much RAM you already have, you might want to expand that at the same time. One to two gig is good for P5. I have 1G and I often think about upgrading to 2G. I couldn't cope with less than 1G.


View Ajax's Gallery - View Ajax's Freestuff - View Ajax's Store - Send Ajax a message


Dizzie ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 8:57 PM

my Poser 4 and 5 works just fine with Win ME and Win XP...if yours is shutting down with ME then it's your system not the OS.


kim258 ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 9:12 PM

Dizzie, beleve it or not it was the cureous labs folks that gave me that advice to use win xp because of the ram usage. Ajax, will win 2000 handle more than 128mb of ram, i have 768mb and another 256mb if it is not defective : ) thanks all of you this info is verry helpfull, kim


Ajax ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 9:20 PM

Yep, win 2000 will be fine and will handle all the RAM you have. ME restricts each application to using just 128 mb regardless of how much RAM you actually have. I just think XP has more to offer generally, but if you're worried about hard drive space then win 2000 may well be a better option for you.


View Ajax's Gallery - View Ajax's Freestuff - View Ajax's Store - Send Ajax a message


Dizzie ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 10:16 PM

I certainly can't argue that XP or even 2000 is better...I just am one of those few (so I've been told by the tech guys) that never had any trouble with ME..


who3d ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 10:48 PM

XP is more-or-less 2K with lots of RAM-gobbling pretty bits added - most of which you'll probably turn off to speed the PC up. In wich case, you're probably better off going with Win2K Pro in the first place :)


RealDeal ( ) posted Tue, 20 April 2004 at 11:15 PM

Obviously some people aren't going to agree with me, but... My MS certified System Engineer# is 1765052, so I count as a professional on this one. WinME/98 can handle 512mb of RAM; if you have more than that, you have to tell the sytem you only have <512, because thats all it can address. a Process can use more than 128mb, but only through various registry tweaks that can destabilize your system. There is no real upper limit to how much RAM Win2k can handle, at least none you are likely to encounter; I use 1GB. WinXP is a fancy interface and integrated DRM on top of Win2k. thats it. A Win2k Pro system is inherently more stable than a WinXP system, Win2k is the workhorse platform, WinXP is the "ooohhh pretty!" platform; just starting it uses more system resources than win2k. The only "benefit" to running XP over win2k is the bundled apps (all of which are available for free for win2k, they just aren't installed by default), the lower price (you get what you pay for), and the simpler default interface (good for Mac users and newbies). Oh, yeah and product activation. we all love that. oh yeah, it's not "better for games", either; it's the same core, anything that will run on XP will run on Win2k, unless it has been specifically crippled in order to keep it from doing so. Final thing: XP home doesn't support dual processors, WinXP pro ($230, $185 upgrade) does. Win2k Pro ($215, $185 upgrade) of course, is multiprocessor.


teyikung ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 12:36 AM

I agree with RealDeal actually. I used a WinXp pro for my new workstation at home in the beginning, pissed off by all kind of merging problems associated with the stability of my Poser 5 and other 3D programs when dealing with multiple figure scenes, high-resolution textures and complicated material settings, so I took the advice of my system engineer to change back to my old Win2K Pro. Now I am a much happier renderer most of the time. You can download all those freewares to make your win2000 pro look nontheless fancier than winXP, anyway. ^_^ TK


Rendy ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 3:40 AM

Has any of you seen the problems that arise from using more than 1GB memory in Poser?


Silke ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 3:45 AM

My 2 cents. I installed WinXP Pro in December after everyone was telling me I'm too biased and it's great and sooo stable and better at memory management and.... it has collapsed in a heap no less than 5 times since, the last time (2 days ago) it took the harddisk down with it. I mean DEAD as a doornail. So, I regret my decision to the tune of around $150 because it murdered my SATA drive. Not to mention I am sitting there, with a dead PC at home until the new drive arrives. (Tomorrow) Prior to December I ran Win2K Pro, without any glitches, problems or mishaps, stable and clean - for nearly 4 years. I give you 3 guesses which OS will go on my machine tomorrow. And I run 2gb RAM on an AMD64 FX51. Another note... Those CD's you write on XP Pro? You know, the "Send to CD" ones? If you don't finalise the CD - they can't be read by anything other than an XP machine. (One of our governers here overruled me to insist that 700 PC's shall be running on WinXP Pro. The machines vary from Celeron 400's (ya right.) to various P4's. None have more than 512mb RAM but they want to do graphics on them. (Ya right) He made that decision because "XP will let me write a CD without a program" throws hands in the air)

Silke


Ajax ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 3:53 AM

Well, that sure sounds like a lot of good reasons to go with win 2000. Rendy, There are no problems until you reach 2 gig. After that you need a special free patch from CL. I'm not sure what the problems are that you get beyond 2 gig.


View Ajax's Gallery - View Ajax's Freestuff - View Ajax's Store - Send Ajax a message


who3d ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 5:29 AM

IIRC Windows 2K has "issues" beyond 2 gig, as do many motherboards (I've not reached that yet, being stuck at a mere 1.5 GB which Poser 5 seems to quite like). Cheers, Cliff


layingback ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 10:35 AM

No one program on a Windows system is going to handle more than 2GB. 32-bit apps can only address 4GB, and Windows NT/2K/XP (like other OS's) splits that 50/50 between itself and the application. So 2GB is the application's absolute upper limit. More real/virtual memory than that will only be used by separate applications running at same time. Re XP vs 2K, if product activation / sell-your-soul-to-Billy-for-resale isn't enough to direct your decision, then simply consider that there is less code in Win2K than XP! But OTOH you need to be aware than some applications - Adobe Premier Pro comes to mind - are being written for XP only, they will not run under Win2K. I presume this is to reduce Adobe's support costs, but there might be a technical reason for it. One thing to seriously consider when "upgrading" your OS from Win 9x/Me to NT-based is to not upgrade at all, instead do a clean install. A pain - not doubt - but clearly, and in practice, a fresh install allows a better choice of settings/configuration by the OS than adapting to the choices made originally by the Win 9.x installer. Finally it's really best to start with a new PC for the new OS, but if using an older PC and/or peripherals for this upgrade, be careful to check ahead of time for any old devices, for which drivers may be unavailable or just plain poor (eg. HP multi-function printers).


who3d ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 1:40 PM

DAZ have recently said something like "Linux is a possibility after we get DS to v 1.0, if there's sufficient interest".


Silke ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 2:43 PM

WinXP Home is the devil. Do NOT go there, unless you are desperate to tear your hair out. Repeatedly. Daily. XP Home is ME for XP. The debil! Trust me. :) If you do have to go for XP, then go for Pro. Never NEVER for the Home version. Course, if you go for Pro.... find yourself a good XP Hack site and go through the loooooooong list of dumping all the crap out of it to get a workable system. But first and foremost - GET A VIRUS CHECKER AND A FIREWALL! Firewalling preferably on the router. Don't rely purely on the XP firewall. It's better than nothing, but it's not terribly good. Friend of mind found himself watching himself on his own webcam... Next step - go to an XP site which lists tweaks and go through the list of services you need to disable. (I am not kidding. You don't need half the stuff XP has turned on by default, and some of it is downright dangerous to have on.) But... lol... I remember a linux system I received which had the same problem. Absolutely everything was turned on. We ended up hacking through it for a day to turn all the stuff off we didn't need running. I'd rather get a message saying "this isn't enabled, would you like to enable it?" when I hit something that NEEDS it running, than trying to secondguess the operating system and whether or not I caught all the bits it keeps turning on. I agree with the "Don't upgrade". For one thing - you cannot upgrade 95/98 to XP at all. It has to be a clean install. You will likely have problems with Win2K on that front as well should you choose to upgrade. Bad idea. Do a clean install. If you can, get a new drive, stick it in, save all your data onto it (And don't forget the mail and address books and whatnot!), then format the old drive. That way your data stays intact. You will have to reinstall programs no matter what in a lot of cases due to registry settings. Some may not run at all on WinXP, tho Win2K doesn't really have that many issues, since it still has DOS. Both Win2K and XP Pro have their pro's and cons. But you have to ask yourself one thing.... Why are so many businesses now moving to Linux? At least for the servers, I know some desktop as well. Why - if you walk into most businesses - are they all on Win2K rather than XP Pro? Yes, Adobe may go the "We will only build for XP" route but I think they are shooting themselves in the foot and may come to regret that decision. I know the day Photoshop demands to run on XP is the day I won't upgrade anymore and start to seriously look at Apple or Linux. After all, if I have to buy the software new - I might as well buy it for a different OS. Silke

Silke


Silke ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 2:57 PM

Attached Link: http://users.accesscomm.ca/gbraun/wxp/

Forgot to post this. Tons of links on that page if you want to tweak stuff on XP. Silke

Silke


who3d ( ) posted Wed, 21 April 2004 at 2:59 PM

"If you can, get a new drive, stick it in, save all your data onto it (And don't forget the mail and address books and whatnot!), then format the old drive." Or, better still (and faster) buy a new drive and use it. Your old data is still on the old drive and can be copied across, leaving the original copy of the data on the older (probably smaller and maybe slower) drive. If the WORST comes to the worst and things go badly wrong, put your old drive back in and you're back to where you were before making any changes. Sweet :) Cheers, Cliff


herr67 ( ) posted Wed, 28 April 2004 at 6:08 PM

Attached Link: http://www.intel.com/support/platform/ht/os.htm?iid=ipp_htm+os&

This is from the Intel web site... Microsoft* Windows* Operating System Desktop Based PCs The following desktop operating systems include optimizations for HT Technology and are currently eligible to carry the new Intel Pentium 4 Processor with HT Technology logo: * Microsoft* Windows* XP Professional Edition * Microsoft* Windows* XP Home Edition The following desktop operating systems are not recommended for use with Hyper-Threading Technology. If you are using one of the following desktop operating systems, it is advised that you should disable Hyper-Threading Technology in the system BIOS Setup program: * Microsoft Windows 2000 (all versions) * Microsoft Windows NT* 4.0 * Microsoft Windows Me * Microsoft Windows 98 * Microsoft Windows 98 SE


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.