Difference between Windows XP Home & XP Pro?

Basically I am wanting to know a difference (or at least give your suggestion) the two. First off I use Windows 2000 Professional now but am looking to move up in the world. I play games, use ATI all in wonder, browse the 'net, etc. but dont do anything that fancy. My system is a AMD XP 1800, 512 DDR. I dont really think I need professional, 2000 pro because of the stability (which is far and away better than 98 which I had before this). Well, anyway, Ive decided to goto XP and want your opinion on the matter.

I can get XP Home for $89 and XP Pro for $149 so tell me the $60 difference if you would.

BTW, this is for my home computer, not in-car.

Thanks

PS Sorry to ramble so much.

Two things I cant think of are that you need XP pro to connect to a windows 2000 server domain, and XP pro supports more than 2 CPU's.

I wouldnt bother upgrading tho, unless you want your computer to be slower than it currently is. You said yourself you play games and surf, so why exactly do you want XP?

Dave

You know, there's a very detailed feature comparison on the Microsoft website...

FYI: XP is faster, much faster, than 2000.. I really have no Idea what you are talking about here. As far as stability: It's been installed for a year.. Uptime of 6 months before I started changing my hardware around, I've never had a bad error or anything that couldn't be resolved by restarting an application, but this is the same for every flavor of windows.

XP is much better with multimedia than 2000. I couldn't get DVDs or Divx to play well under 2000 on my carputer, with XP and 98se both play perfectly fine with out any tweaking.

XP does ask for a little more RAM, but with 512 you should have plenty.

I'm not saying it's necessary to upgrade. What I'm saying is that Dave's comment about XP being slower was absurd :)

well..
my games run a lot slower on xp...
some games runned without a hitch on 98se, now in xp i might get 5-8 fps....

So.. what's wrong... /me has installed the new drivers...

(btw... cell466 oc' 525 / 128mb ram / GeForce 2 200mx)

Greetz,

Those same games would likely have trouble under 2000 as well..

The one thing that makes XP super annoying is the liscensing.. if you change your hardware you may have to deal with an annoying activiation process. If you make a major hardware change (motherboard, system hard drive, etc) you'll definitely have to reactivate. I have never had to reactivate anything so I couldn't tell you much about the process.. so I really couldn't tell you how that process goes.

Ok, until Monday, I had never used XP Home, but never saw anything really that wrong with it. Now, its the devil. If you want to upgrade from 2000 Pro, go to XP Pro. Home lacks a LOT of the more advanced, more useful functionality. The straw that broke the camels back was that it only supports what microsoft dubs "simple file sharing," which means that when you share a file/folder via file sharing, you share read rights with anyone, and if they need modify/delete rights, anyone has them. There are also no NTFS permission settings in home, nor is there the remote desktop feature, which imo hobble the hell out of home. I've run 2k on my desktop since it came out (first dual booting with 98, then alone), and a few months ago, I tried XP instead, and while it has some really nice new features, but there were some things that irked me enough to go back to 2k. I do have (or should I say had, as the hd just died) xp on my carpc, which ran fine.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShinkunoNamida
XP does ask for a little more RAM, but with 512 you should have plenty.

I'm not saying it's necessary to upgrade. What I'm saying is that Dave's comment about XP being slower was absurd :)

---

He was wanting to upgrade his OS and not the computer as well, adding memory being a requirement to make XP faster, then in fact it is slower than 2000.
It's a well know fact that XP's requirements are greater than 2K's. There is much more crap running in the background, and if you install it on a 2K machine, you are likely to notice a drop in performance, assuming you dont already have a s***hot PC.

FYI: I have tried XP out, and I have administered it as well.
It's not all that good. I have a friend that always harps on about how good it is, and how much better then 2k, yet everytime he tries to show me something on it, it doesnt work, or crashes etc.
It isnt any inability on his part either.
Another friend I always play DoD against usually bogs out due to his PC crashing. Dispite re-installing everything from scratch twice. Under 2K its fine.

Stabiliywise it's far from perfect as well.
I run some bespoke software for home automation, called Premise. It is written by the win XP development team that left M$ to form a new company. It runs better on 2K server :rolleyes:

I dont apprecaite running software that babysits me, and doesnt let me choose what I want to do. XP is full of this crap.
And you are saying you need 512Mb to run it OMFG!

Each to their own erally. You say you aint had any trouble, all Ive ever heard from my friends, people I work with, and the IT industry in general is that XP sucks and they hate it :D

Bring back Amiga OS !!!


Dave

From my own experience windows XP is slower than w2k and bloated and you can't really do much more with it that you can't in windows 2000 except things like the desktop sharing wich in my opinion you won't need anyway if you are experienced with computers. (Besides there are 3rd party soft that can do this under windows 2000.)

So, my advice is that you don't "upgrade" to windows XP since you won't gain much anyway.

(That's only my opinion, you should really try first windows XP for a time and see if you like it enough to pay it's price.)

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mafri
From my own experience windows XP is slower than w2k and bloated and you can't really do much more with it that you can't in windows 2000 except things like the desktop sharing wich in my opinion you won't need anyway if you are experienced with computers. (Besides there are 3rd party soft that can do this under windows 2000.)

So, my advice is that you don't "upgrade" to windows XP since you won't gain much anyway.

(That's only my opinion, you should really try first windows XP for a time and see if you like it enough to pay it's price.)

Cheers

---

Actually, terminal services is better than any other RA software that i've used, and its exponentially so over less than lan connecitons. but besides that, xp does have more overhead, it has a 100+mb footprint in memory with nothing else loaded, but it does tend to handle media better from what i've read.