Which version of Windows XP

[ShannonLi]

can anyone in here tell me what the difference between windows xp corporate , windoes xp pro, and windows xp multimedia edition what are the differences and which on is the best for proformance and speed

Thanks

[doctorgonzo]

Windows XP Media Center is supposed to be for computer entertainment centers, not normal computer use as far as I know. Windows XP Corporate is the same as Professional, without the activation (it is meant to be installed on many computers in corporate environments). That means your two real options are Home and Professional. Since both are based on the same kernel, there are no real performance or speed differences. You simply get the version that suits your needs best.

If you tell us what you need (like increased security, multiprocessor support, the ability to log in to a domain, etc.) we can tell you which one is better.

[Hi Ho]

I have never heard of XP corporate. XP Multimedia Center edition is basicly a fancy TIVO. You cannot buy it seperatly. It only comes with boxed PC's. As for XP Home/Pro, the only real difference is that XP Pro is more optimized for businesses and large networks. Pro is really not worth the extra money for most users. I'd say XP Home is the way to go.

[bigandy]

You may want to check this page out from MS.

Hi Ho: As Gonzo said, Corporate is for businesses that will be installing the OS on many computers, and it doesn't require activation. I believe that the only way to get it is if you are purchasing for a business. And I'm not sure, but I believe that it would also be more expensive.

[Hi Ho]

Hi Ho: As Gonzo said, Corporate is for businesses that will be installing the OS on many computers, and it doesn't require activation. I believe that the only way to get it is if you are purchasing for a business. And I'm not sure, but I believe that it would also be more expensive.

I know, he posted at the same time as me.

[ShannonLi]

thanks for the information

I would like an operating ststem that is bareb0ne it has none of that fancy crap that takes up resources

[bigandy]

Originally posted by Hi Ho I know, he posted at the same time as me.

Doh, didn't even check the times of the posts.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by ShannonLi I would like an operating ststem that is bareb0ne it has none of that fancy crap that takes up resources

Neither Home or Pro is better than the other here. Your best bet is to get Home, which is cheaper, and tweak things to get as much performance as you can.

[glc]

I would like an operating ststem that is bareb0ne it has none of that fancy crap that takes up resources

Then you don't want XP of any flavor. Get Windows 2000 Pro.

[ShannonLi]

hey thanks that sounds good but do most programs work with it? or is it up to date etc hey what a bout WINDOWS 2003 SERVER whats that windows about?

[Confused]

If you are a gamer do some more digging before you rush out and buy WIN 2000.

XP has a large footprint but if you throw at least 256K (512 is better) at it you will be fine. Very stable. XP Home is fine for most users.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...choosing2.mspx
Chas

[ShannonLi]

WINDOWS 2003 SEVER is that like a barebone system

[doctorgonzo]

As far as I know, Windows 2003 is not a barebones system. It is the latest server version of Windows. Unless you need the specific capabilities that Windows 2003 Server has, there is no reason to get it.

[mairving]

You can get XP Home for around $90 in an OEM version. Windows 2003 Server will cost you $500-600. No it isn't a barebone system.

[doctorgonzo]

Perhaps it would help if you described the system you are planning on running Windows on and exactly why you need it to be barebones. Is it for gaming? Something else?

[ShannonLi]

i just want a fast system I want to boot windows faster

[Hi Ho]

Windows XP boots in less than 30 seconds. Notthing to worry about there. I have XP Home and even with WindowBlinds running it boots up in about 15 seconds from the time I press the power button. XP Home would be a good option.

[DesertEagle]

Just get Home edition. It's easy to work with with. (exept the fu***** media player).

[Hi Ho]

(exept the fu***** media player).

What is wrong with WMP? I think it is very decent player. It works great and is feature rich.

[bigandy]

Hi Ho, DesertEagle's been having some problems with his WMP recently.

See these:

http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.p...hreadid=101712 (was derailed, so there's a lot of non-sense to sift through)

http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.p...hreadid=101905

[Hi Ho]

How could i forget.... I couldn't figure out what exactly was going on in that first thread.

[ric449]

If you do decide on Windows 2000, then make sure you aren't running a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading. It doesn't support it.

[lil Jimmie]

Originally posted by ric449 If you do decide on Windows 2000, then make sure you aren't running a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading. It doesn't support it.

There is nothing wrong with running 2000 on a cpu that has hyperthreading, it just won't take full advantage of the feature on the performance side.

Go with XP Home and trim the fat.

[ric449]

That's what I mean, the OS will only see one CPU, which is wasteful if you have a HT processor.

[glc]

LJ: Correct.

Ric: Incorrect. It sees it as 2 CPU's and uses them both. Yes, there are performance issues, but please don't make incorrect statements.

[ric449]

Really? Then why don't Intel list it as an OS useable with HT?

*Edit* I found out why Intel don't list Windows 2000 as compatible, because it simply sucks when it comes to Hyperthreading:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...cle.php?id=229

[glc]

I read that too - have you read the M$ document referenced in there yet?

I would not agree with your observation that it "sucks" - but I will agree that there are performance issues. There are enough synthetic benchmarks in your article that show full benefit to make it better than just "sucks".