XP Home or XP Pro?

[rjc7394]

I havent' read any good comparisons between the two. I have Pro and I like it. I guess Pro has more features which can be tweaked like the firewall, etc. If anyone can add to this I'd like to hear it. I don't use much of the MS features except realplayer, Word, maybe media Player and the browser. I have to decide on an OS soon. The Help section in Pro is pretty good. I usually have to go to the net to get my answers.

[spyder003]

Unless you need to log on to a domain I really don't see a need for Pro. The only other feature in Pro that I would use is Remote Desktop, but there are 3rd party apps available for that. XP's firewall is available in Home too, it's part of Service Pack 2.

[macko72]

Go with Pro there are many reasons check treads, it's more stable and flexible than Home.

[rcvalencia9]

There is an advantage of Windows XP Pro when using Microsoft Visual Studio .Net. You can't create ASP .Net and XML Applications in XP Home. The IIS Server feature in Windows XP is not available in XP Home. You might wanna think about that.

[HAL9000]

Originally Posted by macko72 Go with Pro there are many reasons check treads, it's more stable and flexible than Home.

More stable is a load of bunk. It's based on the same kernel and shares the same stability. All you get with Pro is the ability to log into a domain, some better file encryption if you're really concerned about people on your network, dual processor capability, so called bragging rights by saying "Pro" and a higher price tag. If you don't need those things, Home is all you need with the SAME stability.

[ComputerNut]

Also, some I've heard people say that Home doesnt support intel's Hyper-Threading. I think this is false because 1) when HT is on, task manager and device manager reports 2 processors and 2) when I turn HT off, there is a significant perfornace drop.

HTH,
CN

[glc]

Other than the ability to log into a domain, the only other reason I prefer Pro is the ability to disable simple filesharing and use NT-style security/sharing. For a standalone home machine, there is no reason whatsoever to prefer Pro unless you have specific things that require Pro.

[Rick Hall]

If you have hyperthreading and have XP home, hit your CTRL-ALT-DEL and go to the performance tag and see if you can see 2 windows under CPU usage history. I bet not. With XP Pro you will see 2 and this means that the machine is actually fully hyperthreading.

I have seen the odd installation of home show the 2, but the majority do not.
I set up my daughters machine with XP home and hyperthreading and did not see a performance increase. I then set it up with XP Pro and in fact the machine was faster and it really should have been slower all things being equal.

[ComputerNut]

Originally Posted by Rick Hall If you have hyperthreading and have XP home, hit your CTRL-ALT-DEL and go to the performance tag and see if you can see 2 windows under CPU usage history. I bet not. With XP Pro you will see 2 and this means that the machine is actually fully hyperthreading. I have seen the odd installation of home show the 2, but the majority do not. I set up my daughters machine with XP home and hyperthreading and did not see a performance increase. I then set it up with XP Pro and in fact the machine was faster and it really should have been slower all things being equal.

Well I guess I was one of the lucky ones, because even with XP home, I get a good peformance increase (especially in games), and in the task manager, i get 2 CPU windows. I wonder if it would have to do with it being a Dell release of windows (since it is a dell system), but I figure, Home is Home, right?

CN

[HAL9000]

Every machine that I have put out of my shop with hyperthreading and XP Home shows two processors. XP Home DOES support hyperthreading.