Windows XP Home or Pro? Which is the way to go?

[zackatack]

Having a new computer built and thinking about either XP Home or Pro. Anyone help with the pros or cons of either or both? Any help would be great! Hope this is in the right room!

[+ deej]

Go with XP Pro.

 

Home comes with a backup utility, but no restore. Home doesn't allow you the full range of networking that comes with XP Pro.

 

There are just too many features missing from XP Home that you'll miss but won't know you miss them until after they're gone and it's too late.

 

My newest computer came with XP Home and I left it figuring "what the heck?"

 

I regretted it and within two days installed XP Pro.

[+ Hoover42]

I use XP Pro, and prefer it over the Home edition.

 

XP Pro provides a number features not found in the home edition, including:

 

- Remote desktop support: Control your computer remotly from any XP-Pro machine, or control other Windows 2000 or XP computers from your own computer (once they have been setup to allow it).

 

- Encrypted files: Protect sensitive file data from prying eyes

 

- Offline files: Work on files store on another machine while disconnected from the network

 

- IIS: Host your own web site locally

 

- Multi-language user-interface support: Change the Windows interface to display help files, dialog boxes, etc to any supported language

 

- Dual processor support: Allows the OS to run on dual-CPU machines

 

- File access control: Restrict access to any individual file or group of files to specific users on the machine.

 

and more, including:

 

- Ability to join a domain

- Support for group and local policies

- Kerberos authentication and single-sign on capability

- Centralized administration

- Roaming user profiles

- Remote installation service

[JamesK840]

XP Pro is better, the most important difference for me is User Manager. But this, and all the other things we've cited are really only needed by tech-heads, or if you want your computer to participate in the network at work. My understanding is that you can add the full NT Backup utility to XP Home with 'add remove programs' then 'add/remove windows components', under accessories, iot's there to be added just not installed by default (stupid choice MS, prevent instead of encourage home users to backup...). And home does support one physical CPU *acting* like two (Hyperthreading).

 

But now is the time to choose, and if these or any other features listed above sound like something you may need spring for the extra and go for it, because the XP Home ot XP Pro step-up (cheap upgrade) that MS announced seems to have never happened. Otherwise save the cash or put it towards a nice DVD/CDRW drive or more RAM or somthing.

[JamesK840]

XP Pro is better, the most important difference for me is User Manager. But this, and all the other things we've cited are really only needed by tech-heads, or if you want your computer to participate in the network at work. My understanding is that you can add the full NT Backup utility to XP Home with 'add remove programs' then 'add/remove windows components', under accessories, iot's there to be added just not installed by default (stupid choice MS, prevent instead of encourage home users to backup...). And home does support one physical CPU *acting* like two (Hyperthreading).

 

But now is the time to choose, and if these or any other features listed above sound like something you may need spring for the extra and go for it, because the XP Home ot XP Pro step-up (cheap upgrade) that MS announced seems to have never happened. Otherwise save the cash or put it towards a nice DVD/CDRW drive or more RAM or somthing.

[JamesK840]

Maybe Hooboy should make a point to install and use backup on his replacement computer? }(

[+ deej]

ROFL!

 

Trust me, he's heard it before. :+

[ready182]

My advice would be to avoid anything produced by Microsoft -- their marketing slogan should be "hopefully less defective than our previous product".

[Guest msclonly]

Right on!

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Linux

 

Buy a supported version, such as from Red Hat. For one thing, your computer will be far less vulnerable to hacking and viruses....

[+ deej]

RE: Linux

 

And it will have fewer applications that will run on it and your license may be revoked at any time by litigation.

 

Linux is a VERY shaky platform at the moment.

 

(Yes, I'm running Linux. Just not on a production machine.)

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

The Linux Lawsuit

 

The copy which presently owns a version of the Unix system and which is basing their litigation has received a "license fee" of a substantial amount from Microsoft. Coincidence?

 

No one else has yet paid the fee and most of them will not do so. The attorneys for SCO (the company in question) presented some code as proof which turned out to be code from other software not presently owned by SCO. As one attorney put it, given the time they had to present some substantial evidence to back their license requirement claims, they failed to do so.

 

There are some interesting links here, for those who wish to do more reading: http://www.software-x.com/software-x/lawsuit.html

[Guest pyell]

RE: The Linux Lawsuit

 

Buy an iMac. They're so much easier to use!

[JamesK840]

(cr)Apple and Linux

 

Neither of these sentiments are good advice for 90%+ of the population. Apples appear 'so easy to use' because they obscure most of the functions you may want control over and omit basic OS functions like defragmentation or real file system repair (not good considering how fragile the file system is!). I've used every major OS of the last 20 years except Atari's, and I've never been as frustrated as I am on even a modern Mac. Plus they keep charging for much-needed bug fixes to OSX. On XP we've had one free service pack, another is on the way, free upgrades to the pretty cool Media player 9 and good new things.

 

Linux is, well, Linux. Might tech-heads be able to use it, sure. Would those of us with more experience then idealism ever recommend it to family members or the like who'd be calling us for support or to ask why they can't do X (play this, install Reader Rabbit for little Joey, etc, etc...) every five minutes? Not on a dare. Neither have the software available you want to run. I'm not saying XP's anywhere near perfect, but the devil I know, and more importantly other people know. Even if I was a Linux or Apple expert (I'm actually not bad at figuring out OSX), it'd be pretty selfish to make other dependant on me even if I didn't mind supporting the OS of my choice ad nauseum. What if they move, or need to connect to the network at work, or must run a particular application?

 

Due to Apple's ever-shrinking (yes, Apple's worldwide percentage is at it's lowest ever) user base nothing new is coming. Even Adobe's not putting some new things on the Apple, Premier Pro is the first example. The latest MS Office for the Mac will be the last, other things like IE and Media Player aren't going to be improved any more, and that's by a company that owns Apple stock and needs Apple to succeed somewhat to keep the appearance of competition. The only reason to buy an Apple is the way they look (hence popularity in a segment of our community) and the software they artificially keep exclusive to themselves such as Final Cut Pro. But the low-end Avid software is getting really competitive, and runs better on the much more powerful PC hardware. (Jobs is full of it with his most powerful BS... read the legion footnotes about the things they disabled on the PC, obscure compilers used, and then compare the price difference, especially since they never compete with the latest top of the line PC in the first place! Not to mention, sure you can buy a G5 for under $X000, but that's with almost no ram, crap graphics, and even something simple like upgrading the optical drive yourself is going to be nearly impossible, because Apple put form well above function as usual.)

 

Why do I hate Apple so passionately? Because they could be so much better, giving us a real alternative, instead of the crap they are. The devoted hope it'll improve, paying at least $100 every couple months for a slightly less buggy OSX, but most of us that've watched long-term are skeptical to say the least.

[Guest BJohn4567]

Bounght a new HP computer with XP Pro installed about a year ago which replaced a Dell (Top of the line model) 2-year old computer which had XP upgraded from ME. Its hard drive died. Prior to its untimely death, the Dell was extremely unstable, internet signon was a nightmare. Problems became progressively more severe. Besides the HP having XP Pro, I now maintain my large files on a separate external harddrive, leaving the main unit not encumbered by having to think through large file areas. I have not experienced the multitude of inexplicable problems with the new computer, basically problem free with some minor maintence provided by Symmatec virus and maintenance programs added on. The XP Pro addition was about $80 at the time of purchase. I have not regretted laying out the extra