Win XP: Home Edition or Pro?

What’s your opinion ? Which is more stable? Never tried Home, but the Pro version sucks big time! :frowning:

home and pro are pretty much the same

pro has more options for networking and there are some security changes for network and sharing files.
but for the other part its the same as home

Maelstrom is right on.

I’ve ran both and they are the same.

XP is the best OS that I’ve ever had on my PC. IMO :slight_smile: (let the flame war begin…lol)

It’s rock solid stable on the 4 diffrent machines Ive put it on. (all intel based motherboards though)

You may want to look at some hardware drivers or bio’s updates to make it more stable for you.

I have XP Professional on three AMD systems, and all of them run very well. Both professional and home run very stable, but get professional if you have a large-than-normal network.
I agree with Richzilla; XP also runs games better than the other operating systems.

I have both Pro and Home , both are rock solid !

If you already have XP Pro no need ta get Home cuz they’re pretty much the same as the others have stated.

Originally posted by RedHatted
Never tried Home, but the Pro version sucks big time! :frowning:

Sounds like user error to me. Got WinXP Pro SP1 installed on 3 AMD XP systems, all smooth. What kinda problems are you getting? Did you do a clean install of the OS? NTFS format?

Originally posted by RedHatted
What’s your opinion ? Which is more stable? Never tried Home, but the Pro version sucks big time! :frowning:

Hm… Your avatar is the Red Hat Linux icon… hm…

Hate to burst your bubble, even though I love Linux, XP is actually pretty stable. I’ve never had the home version but only got the pro version but it is damn stable. Of course, not as stable as Linux. I’ve had a linux box that’s been on for over a year that hasn’t crashed or anythingh on me. It is used as a firewall/router and has been runing fine . Of course, XP is made by MS, which is bound to crash eventually.

Anyways, I think XP is pretty safe of an OS to run, be it Pro or Home edition.

Originally posted by yyao
XP also runs games better than the other operating systems.

if by ‘other’ you mean previous windows versions - im going to disagree - as XP is a lot of bloat. make sure you have at least 256 mb of ram before you even think about running xp.

i’m running windows 2000 with sp 3

the SCSI performance under win2k is better than with xp
gaming performance is the same, run the unreal2k3 benchmarks under xp and win2k. results are the same.

it’s personal but i like 2k more than xp

Originally posted by ckin2001 if by ‘other’ you mean previous windows versions - im going to disagree - as XP is a lot of bloat. make sure you have at least 256 mb of ram before you even think about running xp.

Normally I would hate to disagree with a mod but in this case, no. If you know how to tweak the OS then you can run it on less than 128Mb When I boot up I am using 80 Mb of memory and a friend of mine has his stripped down to ~60Mb at start up. I just have not taken the time to do all of his tweaks.

Originally posted by Maelstrom
[B]i’m running windows 2000 with sp 3

the SCSI performance under win2k is better than with xp
gaming performance is the same, run the unreal2k3 benchmarks under xp and win2k. results are the same.

it’s personal but i like 2k more than xp [/B]

Wrong with SP3 for 2k , 2k now has the same problems with SCSI as XP See StorageReview for futher details.

www.storagereview.com/

Originally posted by Sorondil
If you know how to tweak the OS then you can run it on less than 128Mb

thats exactly whats wrong with it. you have to tweak it to get it to run on less. its BLOATED.

//stops repeating self.

even if you get it down to 80 mb or so, the first application you open is going to take 10+ from it. if you use IE, expect more.

i have xp installed on a pc that barely meets the minimum requirements. we never reboot it - because it takes 5 minutes to boot.

The only time I use IE is when I want to save a page with pictures as one file. Normally I use Mozilla and Opera depending on what I am doing. Try not to use bloatware and if I do then trim iot as much as possible. Besides if you know how to network properly with Pro it is a lot more secure then Home. :eek: :wink: :smiley:

S.
:stuck_out_tongue:

Most people don’t need all the extra bloat (extra services) that startup by default in XP PRO and don’t need the extra network and security either (firewalls please).

Because of this, XP home will perform slightly faster, but don’t hold your breath. XP PRO will page out the unnecessary stuff (programs/services) to the HD then run like xp home anyway. So it’s only the inital startup of programs / games that will be faster.

Long term response will be the same for XP home and pro.

Originally posted by debro
Most people don’t need all the extra bloat (extra services) that startup by default in XP PRO and don’t need the extra network and security either (firewalls please).

If you go to a lan party then you will want the extra network security (no firewalll). A friend of mine found out this at a lan party. He was using XP home with its’ “Simple File Sharing” :rolleyes: :Z and I was using XP Pro With “Simple File Sharing” turned off. I was able to do anything I wanted to his shares that I wanted to even without a user account created on his machine.

Originally posted by ckin2001
[B]

thats exactly whats wrong with it. you have to tweak it to get it to run on less. its BLOATED.[/B]

No thats exactly whats right with it , XP allows you to tweak too your tastes or needs

even if you get it down to 80 mb or so, the first application you open is going to take 10+ from it. if you use IE, expect more.

Hmm I think thats the case with any OS…unless there’s an OS that allows you to run applications for free ?

To say XP is nothing but “Bloat” is crazy…that’s like saying that you’d rather drive a 1967 VW beatle than surround youself in the bloat of a new 2002 BMW

Win 2000 is great…but it wasn’t that way upon release , remember History ! it took 3 service packs too get where it’s at today !

Win XP is the most stable , most versitile OS ever by M$ !

BTW I can’t afford a new BMW so I think I’ll jump in my bloated Mustang GT and run down to Best Buy…ta see what’s on sale :cool: oh and like XP & Ram…my Mustang run’s like crap on low grade fuel…

and yet you cant uninstall all of the microsoft programs until you install sp1, and there are still the hidden microsoft api’s…

if tweaking was what was right about it - tweakxp would have no market.

but im biased. sorely. in the anti-them direction. oh well.

and the final piece to my rant - when does xp stop being a beta? :smiley:

>and the final piece to my rant - when does xp stop being a beta?

Three (four?) years on IDsofts Quake 3 is still releasing patches.
Not bad for something which has a lifecycle of about 6 months.

The OS is something that should last for about 3 years!

its not like they discovered all of these bugs after releasing xp…

and shame on you for trying to compare a game to an OS release. how many of these patches that quake releases are to prevent someone from gaining control of your machine remotely? and a game has a shelf life so long as it is popular - not 6 months.

if microsoft kept their word - we’d have had dos free, stable windows back in the mid 90’s.

ugh, im not coherent at the moment. this probably made no sense. but in conclusion - xp is too buggy for a final release.

Originally posted by rag

To say XP is nothing but “Bloat” is crazy…that’s like saying that you’d rather drive a 1967 VW beatle than surround youself in the bloat of a new 2002 BMW

Let me disagree here whith your vehicle analogy :wink:

WinXP would be more like your modern day SUV (more convenient but energy inefficient) whereas older OSes are more like my old Diesel Land Cruiser. The latter is simpler, just as rugged, will run on a low budget (AKA computers) but true, is less idiot proof.

Personnally I feel insulted whenever someone designs and markets a product for “consumers”. The average IQ of a “consumer” must be 50 from reading the owner’s manuals. Actually no, the average “consumer” product starts from the premise that the “consumer” has no common sense, can’t read and has the mind of a sheep and should be insulated from any technical details by any means possible. That’s what “new and improved” means most of the time. Consumers are not supposed to use a product outside what the marketer intended (and that is clearly stated on many user manuals).

That is why I’m so resistant to this stupiditis and any product that stresses “ease of use”. One more step to take control away from the user :frowning: . I guess that’s Bill’s agenda after all. If I had wanted this “convenience” in the first place, I would have bought a Mac :bigsmile:

Originally posted by animecabbit
[B]’

Hm… Your avatar is the Red Hat Linux icon… hm…

Hate to burst your bubble, even though I love Linux, XP is actually pretty stable. I’ve never had the home version but only got the pro version but it is damn stable. Of course, not as stable as Linux. I’ve had a linux box that’s been on for over a year that hasn’t crashed or anythingh on me. It is used as a firewall/router and has been runing fine .[/B]

Just out of curiosity… how much “stuff” do you do on your Windows box that you don’t do on your Linux box? eg. install/uninstall programs, beta test software etc. And how often do you do that stuff on the Windows box?
It’s amazing that you’ve had the Linux box on for a whole year, but I’m just wondering how much of that is because it’s a firewall/router and (possibly) never gets touched?