I am now _very_ close to putting in my order for my video workstation. The OS of choice is XP Pro 32 bit.

i)PURCHASE:

I am starting to become anxious, as I have recently read that XP (PRO)is no longer being sold by Microsoft. If so, then I am screwed, as I do not wish to use Vista, and there seems to be no other viable alternative in the windows platform.

Can someone here in the film world set me straight on the continued consumer/shop front and/or reseller (channel) provision of XP Pro 32 bit or otherwise? And if still available, for how long?

ii)NETWORK:

I am setting up a network of 3 computers--

+ main machine (video editing-contains the XP Pro 32bit OS)
+ download-only machine (WIN 2000 OS)
+ printing/scanning, digital graphics machine. (XP [not PRO] in a foreign language)

What problems can I anticipate with this set-up, if any? And solutions to these?

Thanks.

Going for WinXP 32bit is the wrong choice, I think. For Videoediting these days you are lost without 64bit and support for more than 3GBs of RAM.
I'd suggest you either go with Vista 64 bit and more than 4 GBs or RAM or you wait till Windows 7 comes out at the end of 2009. It's supposed to be much better than Vista - at least as far as we know from using the beta at this point.
Also having your download-only machine Windows 2000 is a bad idea. Win 200 is old and unsecure. You'd be far better of just putting some Linux-Distro like Ubuntu on there. It's very easy it use, fast and works just fine on older hardware - and it's safe! Have been using it for the past months on my main machine and my laptop, love it!

It really depends on what you're editing. My workstation (HP Dc7700) is XP Pro32. It serves me just fine, but I am still running standard definition. If it starts to bog when I make a switch to HD, then I'll consider a 64-bit OS. But I don't anticipate needing an HD upgrade for quite awhile.

And steer clear of Vista. XP64 is still the most compatible with what's out there. I'd wait for Windows 7. It's what Vista should've been.

And I agree about Windows 2000. You'd be better off with a free Linux distro. Linux has come a very long way over the last couple of years. I've been playing with SLED 10SP2, SLED 11 RC2, Ubuntu, Debian/Etch and Lenny for awhile now, and I am impressed.

I'm a computer guy who has always played around with video editing and became really avid about filmmaking a couple years ago when I got my own camera. I just finished a project on a 64-bit Windows Vista Machine with one of the fastest Daul-Core 64-bit Intel processors and 8GB of RAM!!!! And I had a migraine the entire time I worked on the project.

My suggestion to you.... get a Mac. I too have been looking into purchasing new setup and have looked heavily into Macs to see if they really are that much better than Windows-based PC's for video editing and creative media-based tasks and my general consensus so far is they are far superior in this area.

I've seen Final Cut Studio do some amazing things and the real kicker was it was doing them on Apple's ENTRY-LEVEL notebook compupter, the new White MacBook. I can only imagine what an MacBook Pro, iMac, or Mac Pro can do.

Going for WinXP 32bit is the wrong choice, I think. For Videoediting these days you are lost without 64bit and support for more than 3GBs of RAM.

I'd suggest you either go with Vista 64 bit and more than 4 GBs or RAM or you wait till Windows 7 comes out at the end of 2009. It's supposed to be much better than Vista - at least as far as we know from using the beta at this point.

Thanks.

However, my initial question concerned your knowledge of whether XP Pro 32 bit is still available from stores if I wanted to buy it today, or only available from other places. And if you have any idea if Microsoft is still manufacturing it or not?



Also having your download-only machine Windows 2000 is a bad idea. Win 200 is old and unsecure. You'd be far better of just putting some Linux-Distro like Ubuntu on there. It's very easy it use, fast and works just fine on older hardware - and it's safe! Have been using it for the past months on my main machine and my laptop, love it!

Yes. This may be so, but assuming that I will proceed with the network setup as is, what problems--and their solutions--do you see??

Many thanks again.

It really depends on what you're editing. My workstation (HP Dc7700) is XP Pro32. It serves me just fine, but I am still running standard definition. If it starts to bog when I make a switch to HD, then I'll consider a 64-bit OS. But I don't anticipate needing an HD upgrade for quite awhile.


This is one of the things I am trying to determine. In other words, XP Pro 32 bit is fine for editing SD and ....what other formats??



And I agree about Windows 2000. You'd be better off with a free Linux distro. Linux has come a very long way over the last couple of years. I've been playing with SLED 10SP2, SLED 11 RC2, Ubuntu, Debian/Etch and Lenny for awhile now, and I am impressed.

I should be clear -- Win2K is for use in a download-only machine. But, in the set up I have outlined, what problems can I anticipate, if any? And solutions to these?

Many thanks again.

I'm a computer guy who has always played around with video editing and became really avid about filmmaking a couple years ago when I got my own camera. <snip> I can only imagine what an MacBook Pro, iMac, or Mac Pro can do.

Thanks. But practical considerations, and much research and planning have gone into my decision, and it is too far along to change now.

Also, do you have any knowlege of the availability of XP Pro 32 bit for general purchase, and if Microsoft is still manufacturing it?

I second the mac suggestion because they really can handle today's digital footage. Right now I am using the brand new top of the line macbook pro for editing a project that was shot on the RED camera. I am able to review .R3D files with no problem and edit the transcoded Pro res 422 HQ files without breaking a sweat. If you spent about the same and got yourself a macpro you definitely would have all the power you need. I'll also state that I have XP 32bit on here. It runs great but does not recognize all of my RAM, a simple upgrade to 64bit would solve this.

First, for your initial question, Windows XP in either 64- or 32-bit is NOT currently offered by Microsoft for sale. Microsoft is forced to support the Operating System because of customer demand due to the fact Vista hasn't done so well. However, there are a few online retailers out there that claim they have valid copies of XP for sale, but I would be VERY CAUTIOUS. I seriously doubt any of the retailers are legit. I do not know of any legit retailers (online or offline) that sale Windows XP in any form. They only way to get it now is to buy a new computer that still comes with it (like netbooks) or a pre-loaded Vista machine with an XP downgrade option.

Second, as for your use of Windows 2000 for the download-only machine. The problems you can anticipate are hundreds of security holes that can leave your download-only machine uselessly infected with thousands of viruses because the OS has un-patched holes in it. Since Microsoft doesn't support Windows 2000 anymore, no patches for these holes and exploits will ever be programmed and the only "solution" is to use a newer, supported OS like the suggested Ubuntu Linux.

Third, you say that you have put a lot of research and careful consideration in choosing the setup you have so my question to you is this: why PC? Why NOT a Mac?

Forth, and let me just start by saying I do not mean to undermine the work you've put into researching this nor do I want to offend you, but you should probably research using Windows 2000 more thoroughly. Microsoft has stopped supporting the Operating System which means either working on the server yourself every time it's hacked and taken down or paying someone who specializes in outdated operating systems a lot of money to fix it every time it goes down and it will go down. It hasn't been updated in years and thus may not be compatible with the latest Internet technologies, namely the newest standards in video streaming and downloading. And if you say download-only as in file server, you sure DO NOT want to use Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is NOT a safe as an FTP server these days.

Please don't be offended or discouraged. You asked for advise and I'm simply giving my opinion (along with a few hard facts) and Linux is a much easier-to-use, more secure, and free alternative to all Windows Server Operation Systems.

I'm very curious and look forward to reading your reasoning for choosing a Windows-based PC for Post Production over a Mac.

I would also like to reiterate that windows (just about any flavor from xp) will run on mac natively. I have xp, windows 7 beta, and linux (ubuntu) running on one machine. I can definitely understand reasons to go with pc for the price...but if you can go with mac...you can have the best of all 3 worlds.

No, Microsoft is not selling any version of Windows XP. It is still available from a number of reputable online vendors...

Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00022PTI4?tag=intensitymedi-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B00022PTI4&adid=0MY07340K4N0TDMGYSZY&) has the full version with SP2...

Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16837116196) has the upgrade version for quite a bit cheaper...

etc.

First, for your initial question, Windows XP in either 64- or 32-bit is NOT currently offered by Microsoft for sale. <snip>Since Microsoft doesn't support Windows 2000 anymore, no patches for these holes and exploits will ever be programmed and the only "solution" is to use a newer, supported OS like the suggested Ubuntu Linux.

Thanks very much for this.This is the kind of detail & 'guiding light' that i have been seeking.


[L]et me just start by saying I do not mean to undermine the work you've put into researching this nor do I want to offend you, but you should probably research using Windows 2000 more thoroughly. Microsoft has stopped supporting the Operating System which means either working on the server yourself every time it's hacked and taken down or paying someone who specializes in outdated operating systems a lot of money to fix it every time it goes down and it will go down. It hasn't been updated in years and thus may not be compatible with the latest Internet technologies, namely the newest standards in video streaming and downloading. And if you say download-only as in file server, you sure DO NOT want to use Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is NOT a safe as an FTP server these days.

Thanks very much again for this & the effort.

As to Windows 2K, yes, I haven't done the research on this mainly because I have been told by two others in the computing industry (one a long time friend and the other a chap working in a computing consulting company) that simply for downloading video as well as word documents etc, Win2k is suitable for my purpose. I do not know why, but none of them have raised the issues you have. And I know that both --or certainly one--of these people know well enough about Linux.

(There may be something else going on here, maybe a cultural difference, or perhaps they're lazy and simply don't wish to tell me lest I ask them to assist me to resolve the anticipated problem/s. I live overseas, and the local people are a bit finicky when it comes to helping friends or business people. You would have to live in this part of the world for a lengthy period of time to fully understand my comment.)





Please don't be offended or discouraged. You asked for advise and I'm simply giving my opinion (along with a few hard facts) and Linux is a much easier-to-use, more secure, and free alternative to all Windows Server Operation Systems.

No offense taken, as this was the kind of information I had been seeking.


[Y]ou say that you have put a lot of research and careful consideration in choosing the setup you have so my question to you is this: why PC? Why NOT a Mac? I'm very curious and look forward to reading your reasoning for choosing a Windows-based PC for Post Production over a Mac.

Essentially, it boils down to money. Macs are more expensive, & the people I had discussed the matter with simpy could only afford to loan me enough for a PC & what I call a 'training' camera.As part of the plan, sufficient experience gained with a 'training' camera would warrant later trading up to a professional camera. --And that's the situation in a nutshell...

If your machine will be capable of running a 64bit OS, this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116378) is the one I would get..

If your machine will be capable of running a 64bit OS, this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116378) is the one I would get..

Yes, as you can see in Newegg.com comments section, there is a shortage of software suitable for 64bit. This is the problem I had encountered in my research. So, all things considered, it was 32bit or nothing.

However, I believe that I have been reliably informed by someone who is Japanese and works in a Japanese electronics firm marketing department, 64bit is the way things are going and to anticipate a much larger range of tools and software supporting 64bit over the coming two years.

Well, my brother is running Vista 64bit on a Quadcore with 4GBs or RAM and afaik he hasn't had any program not work on his 64bit system. There were problems with older programs but running the programs in compatible-mode seemed to fix the problem.
So I wouldn't worry about software not being supported. Especially if you're dealing with video editing software!

I'm curious to see how Windows 7 turns out. The website doesn't really tell me much, other than, "we listened to your feedback". Oh yeah? Well what happened with Vista? I have not heard one positive review on Vista, although I'm not sure if people just are not comfortable with the vidual changes or if it's actually disatsfaction on a technical level.

Well, my brother is running Vista 64bit on a Quadcore with 4GBs or RAM and afaik he hasn't had any program not work on his 64bit system. There were problems with older programs but running the programs in compatible-mode seemed to fix the problem.
So I wouldn't worry about software not being supported. Especially if you're dealing with video editing software!

I am sure that you and all others here appreciate that if one has unlimited resources ie money, then one can spend one's way to a machine and system that is a video editor's wet dream!!

In contrast to your brother's system, my own will utilise Premiere Pro 2.00. PP2 works well with XPPRO 32bit, as far as I know.

No, Microsoft is not selling any version of Windows XP. It is still available from a number of reputable online vendors...

Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00022PTI4?tag=intensitymedi-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B00022PTI4&adid=0MY07340K4N0TDMGYSZY&) has the full version with SP2...

Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16837116196) has the upgrade version for quite a bit cheaper...

etc.

Ah...fine. Thanks.

You can find the 32bit version at www.tigerdirect.com. Some places still sell copies of it. If you are adamant about finding a 32 bit OS for some reason, you can still find copies of it, however, Microsoft does not actually develop the 32bit anymore, by customer demand, they still support it however due to the failure of Vista, at least until Windows 7 comes out (from my understanding).

Yes, as you can see in Newegg.com comments section, there is a shortage of software suitable for 64bit. This is the problem I had encountered in my research. So, all things considered, it was 32bit or nothing.
XP64 runs 32bit software and 64bit software simultaneously, and it's a much more supported, stable, and lower overhead system than vista -- and a better option than regular 32bit XP64.

Keep in mind a lot of the people who comment at Newegg aren't necessarily as smart as they want to sound. ;)

XP64 runs 32bit software and 64bit software simultaneously, and it's a much more supported, stable, and lower overhead system than vista -- and a better option than regular 32bit XP64.

Keep in mind a lot of the people who comment at Newegg aren't necessarily as smart as they want to sound. ;)


Hmmm...this is invaluable information-thanks.I am slowly coming to the realisation that the great part of my research which relied on my long-term friend's knowledge may not have been such a good thing.

To be fair, he doesn't work with video editing on a daily basis, & I would say that his level of knowledge in this is good but...well, his knowledge in the past has been suitable for my simple requirements/solutions, so...

I would also add that I have had my proposed configuration (both stand alone box & with network) 'put up' for evaluation on one or two other related sites, and have been told that things were ok. As well, I took the proposed configuration (for standalone box) to a friend who _does_ work in the indie film scene, and who works during his day job as a hands-on manager in the technical/computer section of a major US institution. He is 'driven' when it comes to all things technical/computing. He thought that my configuration was acceptable. His own system uses XP PRO 32bit. I do remember that he did mention some situation or an oversight he had with the 32bit that would require him going to 64bit, and for me to avoid the same situation.

I do remember that he did mention some situation or an oversight he had with the 32bit that would require him going to 64bit, and for me to avoid the same situation.
There's just no good reason not to, especially if you intend to work with large amounts of data (video, audio, large photoshop images, etc) because being able to access more memory is tantamount.

True, most of the software is still 32bit at this point, but that is changing. Photoshop cs4 is 64bit, and premiere & after effects, while 32 bit, will launch multiple instances each able to address ~4gig of ram for rendering...

32bit work fine, sure, but it's a dead end road.. better to put your money toward something that will be usable for longer.

There's just no good reason not to, especially if you intend to work with large amounts of data (video, audio, large photoshop images, etc) because being able to access more memory is tantamount.

True, most of the software is still 32bit at this point, but that is changing. Photoshop cs4 is 64bit, and premiere & after effects, while 32 bit, will launch multiple instances each able to address ~4gig of ram for rendering...

32bit work fine, sure, but it's a dead end road.. better to put your money toward something that will be usable for longer.

Without doubt, your point is valid.

There's the situation where the 32bit will be supported--or at least available via OEM or already installed on new machines, and in some cases, available for downgrade--until 2014, according to a number of reports.

Also, within this context, I have to wonder if XP PRO 64bit falls within the parameters? If XP per se is eventually going the way of the dodo, then surely XP 64bit will also be affected? This is a key point.

Given the success of XP (PRO), I can't see many who have it readily trading up to WIN7 which will be the OS of "choice". But this yet largely remains an unknown.

So, essentially, we have a situation where there's generally increasing movement toward 64bit, the 'stay of execution' for XP 32-and 64bit, and an unknown quantity in XP's replacement?

You really need to focus on what you need today and stop losing sleep over what you need tommorrow, which is an unknown. It doesn't matter what you buy. It will be obsolete in six months or less anyway. But even if obsolete, if it runs the programs you need to stay productive, then it doesn't matter. 64-bit operating systems have been around for several years now, but look how long it took for mainstream applications to catch up.

When Microsoft drops security support for XP, that's when you need to worry about it. And as you discovered it will be several years yet.

The only alternatives for PC right now are XP and Vista (or Linux). And I already told you my opinion of Vista.

I still run Premiere Pro 2.0 and After Effects 7. I don't need a 64-bit OS for those nor do I need more than 2-3GB of memory for standard definition. What I assembled over two years ago is still viable for what I need today.

I agree with Will and Thom 98. I wasn't aware that NewEgg or Amazon had copies of XP for sale and if you are going to buy and use a Microsoft OS, you'll definitely want to purchase the 64-bit version for you'll be thankful when the 64-bit versions of the software you use do come to light. And what most people mean when they say "it doesn't work on the 64-bit version of Windows" is they are trying to run a 32-bit program in a 64-bit operating system and they aren't seeing any "improvement in speed" or the program crashes because the user tried to run it natively (in 64-bit) when the program needs to be run in compatibility mode as Thom 98 suggested. Compatibility mode isn't just for older programs that won't run in XP or Vista natively, it's also for 32-bit programs that won't run on a 64-bit OS natively no matter which version of Windows you have (Vista or XP seeings how they are the only two consumer 64-bit Windows OS's).

And honestly, if you're looking short term, I'd go XP in either 32- or 64-bit and upgrade later to Windows 7. If you're looking for a long term solution, I'd wait til windows 7 comes out later this year or get a copy of Vista 64-bit, run everything in compatibility mode for now, and hope Microsoft follows through with it's "free upgrade from Vista to 7" plan that has the computer world a buzz.

For those who don't know, a lot of people complained about how bad Vista sucked and now they are rushing to get Windows 7 (which is supposed to fix everything and be a lot better) to replace Vista and now business and schools are complaining that they just finally bit the bullet and bought Vista because it is just now at a stable condition and now 7 is coming out in mere months... After much blog and forum talk, Microsoft hinted they might have a solution for the problem and stated they agreed with a certain blogger who started a petition for Microsoft to make 7 a free upgrade for legally licensed Vista users. We'll see.

I would be surprised if upgrading from vista to windows 7 is free, but it likely will be deeply discounted.

I'm also doubtful that an upgrade from Vista to 7 will be free as well, but that's what the computing world seems to whole-heartedly believe will happen.

As far as I'm concered Microsoft will make it available at the same $80 upgrade price they've always used. I don't have much faith in Microsoft.

I do wishe they would take a hint from Apple and make it a $10 upgrade like Apple did iLife & iWork '09. while those software suits are no where near as valuble as an operating system, if Microsoft is gonna put one out every three or four years, it might as well be the same principal.

I'm also doubtful that an upgrade from Vista to 7 will be free as well, but that's what the computing world seems to whole-heartedly believe will happen.

As far as I'm concered Microsoft will make it available at the same $80 upgrade price they've always used. I don't have much faith in Microsoft.

I do wishe they would take a hint from Apple and make it a $10 upgrade like Apple did iLife & iWork '09. while those software suits are no where near as valuble as an operating system, if Microsoft is gonna put one out every three or four years, it might as well be the same principal.

Although, now I think about it.. I'm pretty sure the upgrade to XPPro64 was free initially after its release, provided you returned your copy of XPPro32 to them.. I seem to recall having read something along those lines not too long ago.