XP Home or Pro

TheSmJTheSmJ
edited August 2004 in Science & Tech
So Tony keeps bitching at me about using XP Home on all my home machines. He states that it's "Not made for networking" and "It just sucks". I tell him that it's been able to do everything I've wanted to with it (including network it) and it doesn't cost $200 for a freaking upgrade CD.

He still says I'm being an idiot for not using Pro, even though I have a legit version of Home, and he doesn’t even pay for Pro in the first place.

So what do you all think? Do you people think Home is a POS all the way around, or it works just fine for 90% of in-home users?

Comments

  • test_tube_tonytest_tube_tony Dallas TX Member
    edited August 2004
    in my personal experience of working on computers for people, the only computers i ever have to do any serious work on are xp home computers. i usually upgrade them to pro, and they never call me again. its almost as if they made home edition buggy so companies could make more money off tech support or something. i have NEVER had an issue with pro.
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited August 2004
    What sort of things were "fixed" by them upgrading to Pro? Are you SURE they diddn't just need an OS reinstall?
  • KingFishKingFish
    edited August 2004
    Dunno about XP Home being buggy but I think the OS choice should be based on what you plan on doing with it. There are certainly more networking features in the pro version. For the vast majority of users Home vers should be fine. Around here most are PC enthusiasts and would actually use many of the features that the pro version has to offer. Although I personally choose to use pro I believe it depends for each person's needs.

    KF
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited August 2004
    The only networking you really lose is the ability to attach to a domain which is how they keep it out of a work environment. But their is one feature available with pro I just can't imagine living without and Home doesnt alllow repair installs which I do all the time because I jack around with my boxs. I have not had to do a fresh install in years on anything but a new box. It's got to be really fubar'd to not get fixed with a repair install which keeps all your programs and stuff installed.
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited August 2004
    Home can do repair installs. Whoever told you it couldn't?
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited August 2004
    I have tried it several times and never get the option. I can go to recovery console but don't get the option to do a repair install.

    Tex
  • ClutchClutch North Carolina New
    edited August 2004
    And you loose dual processor support in home. But I mean if you paid for it then use it. I paid for my version of Pro and I use it because I paid for it. There is so secret ubber club for using Pro even though most people think so, I say stay with the home bro, get your money worth.
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited August 2004
    After the setup load from boot, you press Enter (rather than R), hit F8 to agree to the "terms", select the instalation you already installed (or want to repair) and THEN press R (as it states on the bottom of the screen).

    I've done repair install with Home many times. I assure you it's there and works well.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited August 2004
    maybe its changed as I stated I tried it on a half dozen machines when XP was first released and it never offerred the option to repair the existing install. Glad to hear your having better luck

    Tex
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    The only things pro can do that home can't:

    Connect to an active directory domain
    Utilize more than one processor.

    The end.

    Tony, sorry, you're full of crap. They're the same exact OS, except for the two items above. :)
  • PressXPressX Working! New
    edited August 2004
    Most of the differences relate to active directory access, as prime pointed out.

    THIS is the short list from M$
  • test_tube_tonytest_tube_tony Dallas TX Member
    edited August 2004
    i realize its supposed to be the same os except for certain features, but it truly seems like xp pro works alot better than xp home. there are alot of things left out in home that i would think are important. i agree most people dont need active directory unless ur gonna be takin your computer to work, but still, there are alot of things not there. i never was about leaving things out of hardware/software. it just seems to make things not run as smooth. like the cellron for example. take out half the cache memory and make the chip a pos. iduno. it just seems shady. what about remote desktop, i use it all the time. andc what about file encryption. ive used that before to keep my sis outa my crap (she knows how to use the c$ share to snoop). access control would be great for people with young kids. and roaming profiles is always handy for homes with more than 1 pc. thats my 2 cents worth.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    I have Pro, just becuase.... I may upgrade to a Dual Processor system, and I had the money at the time I bought it.

    But I have never had any problems with Home that I didn't have with Pro. It's all in your head, I use home for any system I build for someone else becuase it's just cheaper.
  • GobblesGobbles Ventura California
    edited August 2004
    primesuspect wrote:
    The only things pro can do that home can't:

    Connect to an active directory domain
    Utilize more than one processor.

    The end.

    Tony, sorry, you're full of crap. They're the same exact OS, except for the two items above. :)

    I have to disagree... Those are 2 rather large features that effect many sections of windows os. Your talking a completely different or extremely crippled network module, and a totally different HAL. Its like when xp first released. People stated that it was just 2000 with a new gui... oh so wrong. Being based on another OS does not equate to the same as that os.

    XP home and xp pro are not the same.

    xXUSERXx
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    For all practical purposes. The question was not about the differences, the question was stated clearly in the poll:

    Which is better for general use?

    I've never met a home user that needs any feature from XP Pro, MAYBE excepting EFS.

    Those ARE large features, I agree, but not for the home user.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited August 2004
    The biggest difference I have found (in everyday use) is that Pro installs the Windows Backup by default whereas with home you have hunt around on the CD to find it. This wouldn't be a big deal, except the Windows Backup program is surprisingly good for the price. :)
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited August 2004
    I've never met a home user that needs any feature from XP Pro, MAYBE excepting EFS.

    < voice="timid" >Uh, Prime? Yeah... I'm a home user (last time I checked) and I kinda need XP Pro... see, XP Home doesn't do SMP, and 3 of my desktops are duallies... :-x < /voice >
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    okay, you're one in a million. But then again, I wouldn't count you as a HOME USER - you're a geek ;D

    Honestly though, home users buy their computers at retail stores.. I mean, come on... Realistically, you can't find a home user that NEEDS dual processors. If they need dual processors, then they are a professional (rendering, photoshop, video editing, etc.) and then they need Pro. You guys are not understanding the basic home user and what their needs are.
  • JengoJengo Pasco, WA | USA
    edited August 2004
    you forgot the "I rarely use Windows XP or any windows at all because they are garbage "

    ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.