Thread: Difference between Windows XP Home & XP Pro?

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.

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.