OS Question: XP Home vs. XP Pro

Rob Babcock · « **on:** 26 Jan 2004, 02:47 am »

Disregarding for a moment the price difference, would I gain anything over Windows XP by 'stepping up' to XP Professional? Is it more stable? XP is already lightyears ahead of 2000 in that regard, at least in my experience. Does XP Pro add any features that a home user would want?

The reason I ask is that down the road I plan to set up my current PC as a burner (remove all programs not needed to burn discs, disconnect it from the internet, etc). I'll be building a new PC for my normal stuff- gaming, websurfing, Word, etc.

Any opinions would be welcomed.

Brad · « **Reply #1 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 02:54 am »

Are you asking about XP Home vs. XP Pro?

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #2 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:00 am »

Yeah, Home vs. Pro.

mgalusha · « **Reply #3 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:00 am »

Rob,

The biggest difference for me between XP Home and XP Pro, which I think is what you are asking about, is the ability to join a domain. If you are a home user and don't have a network full of PC's (unlike some of us), then XP Home should be just fine.

Here is Microsoft's page to guide your descision: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

mike

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #4 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:03 am »

That's what I was wondering. The OEM versions aren't priced differently enough be make much difference, and I don't know what I might want to do as far as networking and stuff right now (already got 4 PCs in the house.

).

BTW, I changed the header of my post to clarify the question. Thanks, Brad.

Brad · « **Reply #5 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:04 am »

Here's a link I found:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

The Dynamic disk and the multiproc support are the biggest issues I'd have.

For a normal user, I don't see much benefit to spending the extra $$ for Pro.

Here's Microsoft's take:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #6 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:06 am »

So is the extra encryption and security featues a true reason to upgrade or just hype and smoke from MS? And in daily operation, is the interface pretty much the same, ie as easy to use?

Brad · « **Reply #7 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:11 am »

The interface is pretty much the same.
Of course, you can make it look like whatever you want it to.

Dynamic disk is nice if you want to add a 2nd hard drive and have the system see the drives as one disk.

Don't see a lot of benefit to the encryption crap for the home user.

MS plans on differentiating some more between the 2 when SP2 comes out - but it's anyone's guess what they'll change at this point.

EchiDna · « **Reply #8 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:19 am »

early days of XP home showed a limitation in the number of component changes one could make before the system was considered to be a new box, and hence a new licence was needed, hence the system asked you to re-register your software and pay another licensing fee....

I've never seen anything to prove or disprove this though...

I do have a friend (using XP home) who claims that he updated drivers for his video card using generic nvidia and not the product specific driver from the card manufacturer, later he updated the drivers again using the manufacturer's drivers...
in the meantime he added a cdrw and a hard drive...
then he upgraded his video card only to be informed that he had used his 5 component changes and now the windows config had been locked and further changes would require a new licence.... true or false, I have never substantiated this...

IMHO, XP pro is the simple choice especially at OEM prices.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #9 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:30 am »

Having Windows see the two drives as one would be a nice feature. I don't know if there's any validity to the rumor of needing another liscense- my brother changes hardware in his XP Home machine like most guys change socks, and it's never told him to revalidate. Could be true, but I'm guessing not.

BradJudy · « **Reply #10 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:42 am »

Revalidation of the Windows XP license is true (in both Home and Pro), but you do not have to purchase a new license, just call and get it revalidated. I work almost exclusively with volume license copies that lack this 'feature', so I don't have a lot of experience with it.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #11 on:** 26 Jan 2004, 03:48 am »

Huh. Didn't know that- you must have to make a lot of changes to run into that issue. That's good to know, though.

Ferdi · « **Reply #12 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 12:05 am »

Hi Rob, weather has cleared up nicely again. Thanks for lifting the curse!

Are you in any way wedded to XP? If you just want to have a burner platform, you could also consider Mandrake Linux for instance. I am too lazy to go and look what programs mine has but it does quite fine for ripping and burning.

No licence BS and easy to use.

(I am not a Linux Zealot. company machine:W2K works well, private laptop Apple OSX Panther, Main private desktop: dual boot W2K and Mandrake Linux 9.2, Dad's machine that I support: XP-home, Sister's laptop: W98.)

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #13 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 12:55 am »

I'm completely ignorant of Linux (among other things!

)- can you run Windows software on Linux? I'm pretty much planning to stick with Windows since I have zero experience with anything else, and I AM married to Nero Burning software, so I have to be able to use at least that. Plus "BeSweet" & SureThing.

Ferdi · « **Reply #14 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 09:59 am »

Hi Rob, there are ways to run Windows software on Linux but to me they are in the category "neat!" or "you just have to".

If you go to Linux, you're better off sticking with Linux applications.

I use this as a burner for Linux:

http://www.k3b.org/

There is also an analog to EAC:

http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/

As I understand your needs, this might be enough. Not pushing you to switch. There IS a learning curve. Given that all this is a free download away, why not?

Monolith · « **Reply #15 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 01:22 pm »

FYI:

REMOTE CONNECTIONS

If you ever intend on remotely accessing your computer, it has to run Windows XP Pro. However, the computer you use to connect to your computer does not have to have XP Pro. Non-XP machines require some client software that is easy to install and run.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #16 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 06:46 pm »

I would consider someday trying it, but right now there are four PCs in the house, all running Windows XP Home. They're not all networked yet, and I'm not sure if I'll go that route or not, but right now having one using a different OS would be a hassle.

Like I said, though, I'm a Nero junkie- I wouldn't use anything else. There are a couple peices of software for Windows that I just couldn't live without.

cyounkman · « **Reply #17 on:** 3 Feb 2004, 03:00 am »

Don't worry about adding/changing hardware--call ms and they will re-validate, if necessary (we do this all the time when we drop our copy of xp onto customer systems).

The main differences I tell people about are a) encrytion (you can encrypt only in pro) and b) file sharing/security. The one curse of Home is that you are stuck with 'Simple File Sharing'. In Pro you can (and should immediately) disable simple file sharing in favor of the [usable] w2k-style model. Certain security experts actually write about simple file sharing as a security whole that should be turned off before rolling the system out anywhere... (hee hee)