View Full Version : windows XP Home VS. XP Pro

04-11-2006, 03:08 AM
note: in no way is this meant or intended to be a windows bashing thread.

in the 'which xp should i get' thread (or something to that regard) someone posted this:

here are the added features in xp pro according to wikipedia:

The two major editions are Windows XP Home Edition, designed for home users, and Windows XP Professional, designed for business and power-users.
Windows XP Professional offers a number of features unavailable in the Home Edition, including:
the ability to become part of a Windows Server domain a group of computers that are remotely managed by one or more central servers (many businesses that use Windows have a Windows Server and a domain)
the use of a sophisticated access control scheme that allows specific permissions on files to be granted to specific users under normal circumstances.
the Remote Desktop server, which allows a PC be operated by another Windows XP user over a local area network or the Internet
offline Files and Folders, which allow the PC to automatically store a copy of files from another networked computer and work with them while disconnected from the network
the Encrypting File System, which encrypts files stored on the computer's hard drive so they cannot be read by another user, even with physical access to the storage medium
support for iSCSI protocol
centralized administration features, including Group Policies, Automatic Software Installation and Maintenance, Roaming User Profiles, and Remote Installation Service (RIS)
Symmetric multiprocessing, allowing the PC to divide work between multiple processors (CPUs)
(Windows XP Home Edition does, however, support the Hyper-threading functionality present on some Intel microprocessors. Although it has been reported to work on some dual-core microprocessors available from both AMD and Intel, Microsoft has recommended upgrading to Professional Edition for improved stability and compatibility.)

it sounds like xp pro works better on multiprocessor machines, i don't know how that applies to the imac core duo maybe someone here can clear that up. personally id go with xp pro just in case.

which got me thinking a lot about why there are two windows xp's?

is xp pro so much more sophisticated and geared toward those 'powerusers' that the average user cant use it? or runs the risk of really messin stuff up?
it appears that some features might be needed for the average user?
and finally and really my main question.

why isnt there just one windows xp sold with all of the features in it? or maybe an option at install (or download) like the developer tool things that we have?


04-11-2006, 10:33 AM
The average person doesn't need networking capabilities, so they can save themselves about $100 by going with Home Edition. Business, schools, etc. need the networking and can afford (usually) and extra $100 for networking capabilities. It's basically a way for MS to make money in one market and save people money in another.

04-11-2006, 01:37 PM
2 versions of xp is nothing compared to the 8 versions of vista that are possible!

anyways, as described above there are 2 because they are targeted for specific set of users.

Why would your typical home user require multi CPU support? Why would your typical home user require the facility to attach to a domain and set up a active directory. they dont.

Microsoft define your typical home user as someone who plays the average game, uses windows media player and internet explorer.

Your business user ranges from a fully blown developer through to a GSX administrator all the way down to students and people in office work and back up to your average joe on the help desk (ie me but i do everything, developer, students, office work). In this range you will require support for active directory (this is targeted for large organisations with 400machines as an example), larger hardware ranges for examply multi-CPU as would be needed if your playing with ESX or GSX as ive learnt over the past few weeks.

If you notice XP prof is more expensive than home so they rip out the advanced networking tools which typically only your business users require and then they drop the price tag to the end home user.

You dont go and buy a car with 8 seats if you only need 3, see what im getting at?

04-11-2006, 03:04 PM
You dont go and buy a car with 8 seats if you only need 3, see what im getting at?

lol, im not sure if your analogy is correct becasue it seems that everyone in the world has a car with 8 seats but only needs 3...anyway i do understand what you mean.

i think i am more confused about a user who might fall in the middle of the two.

but, one version of the os just seems like a better thing to do IMO.

04-11-2006, 03:18 PM
its been a long day lol

i fall in the middle category so i just went with PRO the main reason was I rely on RDP with windows (mac i work around because of putty/ssh) for my work windows xp doesnt have RDP so no easy way to access your pc from a remote location

04-11-2006, 03:23 PM
but, one version of the os just seems like a better thing to do IMO.

MS has always had two versions of their OS. Well, since 3.0 anyway.

There was Windows 3.1 for the home, and Windows for Workgroups for the office.

Windows 95 and 98 for the home, Windows NT 3.5 and 4.0 for the office.

Windows ME for the home, Windows 2000 for the office.
(notice here they switched the "year" identifier to the office version and the "acronym" identifier to the home release, I always thought that was stupid. So many people thought Windows 2000 was the next release after 98 back then).

Windows XP Home for the home, Windows XP Pro for the office.

It used to be the office flavored Windows were genuinely different operating systems, fully 32bit and using NT technology. They finally based a home OS on NT (XP Home) as well, but felt they needed to maintain the home vs office thing. So instead of them being completely different OSes, they just have different feature sets.

04-11-2006, 03:31 PM
oh and those that are interested in the 8 flavours of vista

click here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/21/windows_vista_leak/)

04-11-2006, 04:32 PM
Concerning the 8 flavours vs. Macs 1 flavour (or two, if you count X Server as a seperate system which it really isnt):

It's fairly simple: Apple managed to package all power user features and all dummy-user featres in one OS so nicely that the dummy user won't get intimidated by power-user stuff. In windows vista ultima pro supersmart edition 4000 or whateveer the user will on the computer and the screen will go "Do you want to flash your BIOS and recompile the Longhorn kernel while I clean the core caches?"

And the Fisher-Price edition will go "Sit down and shut up" when I try to open an mp3. "This version of windows does not support "Opening Files", please upgrade ."

04-11-2006, 05:08 PM
Paul Thurrott (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions_final.asp) has a nice table with the descriptions of each version of Vista.

There are 8 different editions, but only 6, kinda, because 2 are available in Europe but not the US, and 2 in the US, but not Europe, due to antitrust rulings and whatnot over there.

Each edition is a step up from the other, Home Starter being for people who have no idea what they're doing, so I'd imagine that will only come with the cheapest machines. Not that you asked, but I plan on going with Home Premium.

04-11-2006, 05:14 PM
i guess i just dont understand...put it all in one OS and install as you choose to or need something.

04-11-2006, 05:21 PM
I believe you're going to be able to upgrade to a higher version when/if you want to. Each CD will have the ultimate version on it, but depending on the CD key you have, you'll only be able to install or use a certain amount of it... if that makes sense. You can upgrade through MS for a fee, of course, because they'll all cost different prices, obviously.

04-11-2006, 06:13 PM
ha bet the have massive phone homes on that

Also, I would be pissed. Why the flying-squirrel would anyone want to buy a version with less capabilities than the full version? it just seems down right stupid! I would be mad if there was a more 'advanced' version of osx.. i think i would switch to Linux right away, then atleast I wont have to pay for a decent version.