Get PRO - there are simply too many additional features that home doesn't have, such as multiple processor support.

I agree with JetDV. You will be glad you paid the extra bucks! There are features that Pro has that are very useful. See above posting for specifics...

dave

OK, multi-processor is great, of course, if you HAVE multi-processors. What other features would you buy pro for? I've got several machines here, one with Pro, and I never feel the need to put it on any of the other windows machines (definitely never feel the need on the Linux units :). Unless you want to access the Pro machine from another system via your LAN, I don't see much reason for it. A list of features is impressive only if the features are relevant.

While I don't have multiple processors, I STILL use the pro version. Pro just offers much more flexibility.

Do you want to network your computer? If the answer is no, will you want to in the future? Pro has many more options. For example, in Win95, Win98, WinME, WinNT, and Win2K, you can right-click a drive and choose "sharing" to share the drive on the network. In WinXP Pro you still can. In WinXP Home - it isn't there.

This is just one example. There are lots of little things that are turned off in home that work as expected in pro. Home just feels like "windows for dummies" to me - pro gives the power I'm used to seeing.

I've been considering upgrading to XP too, and from what you just said, XP Home actuatly has LESS of the little frills then Win2k pro or 98se (Kinda like how Win2k has a SUCKY defrag compared to Win98)?

Of course you can right-click a drive in XP home and get to network sharing, I do it all the time (and just did it). There is virtually no difference in the network functionality between Home and Pro, most of the Pro stuff has to do with Enterprise software and PC management and maintenance, which hardly any home user needs. Calling Home a "limited" version is ridiculous, you could just as easily say Pro is a "bloated hog" for most home users. So that's one feature difference you've mentioned, and it isn't correct. So far we're 1 for 2 (the one being multi-processor - which hardly anyone has).

Granted, it's been all of a year since I was CTO of a publicly traded company and oversaw thousands of systems on multiple platforms, but these particular facts haven't changed since then. For a summary, I suggest you go to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.asp before and review before posting further.

If someone needs the items mentioned on the Pro side of the above list, then it may make sense to buy it (if all you need is the remote access, there are several very good and cheap shareware programs that will do the same for less overhead and much less cost). But buying Pro just because it's "Pro" is silly, like buying High Octane gas just because it's "better" (when 90% of cars don't need it). If it weren't for the added stability XP provides (a "feature" that should have been fixed long ago) by finally giving us a kernel-based protected mode operating system (which still has flaws that allow for crashes), most folks wouldn't need more than Win 98, and their systems would run a lot quicker and without all the monstrous bulk of XP.

Don't make a decision based on some of the comments above, they are incorrect. Go to the link I provded, make a fact-based decision.

I use WindowsXP Home edition and when I build another computer I will probably still buy another (OEM) version of it for that. While XP Home doesn't support Dual processors it does support hyperthreading (or virtual dual processing) and that is the future for me (and I'm sure many others).

As far as comparing XP Home to Window 98SE, there is no comparison. My Windows XP Home is the best OS I have ever worked on (and I've been on about all of them). It is both functionally and aesthetically excellent. I've never had a crash and have forgotten about them as being part of computing.

Both XP Pro and Home are great!

Here's another link to look at: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

I supposed Msft appeals to certain ego's with the "power user" item, but I challenge someone to provide a REAL example of something they can do with Pro that cannot be done with Home and is something most folks actually need (unlike IIS server integration/support -- most people don't even know what that is).

I run a home network that right now has 8 or so machines on it (this number varies constantly). They are interconnected with 100baseT ethernet, 802.lla high speed wireless, and 10Mbit homepna. One of these runs 95 (one of the first LCD tablet PC's ever made and it can't handle more than that, but still runs nicely and is a reat portable web browser), two run 98, two XP home, one XP Pro, and three Linux machines (which run the best of all). My machine running XP Home has one 80GB SATA drive and two 160GB ATA133 drives set in Raid 0 array, 2GB of RAM, one 19" flat screen and one 17" tube running off my Radeon 9700 Pro card, four 1394 ports, six USB 2.0 ports, one CDRW drive and a Pioneer AO5 DVD+-R drive, powered by 2.4ghz P4 (probably need to upgrade this to a 3ghz with hyper-threading, I know). I built this machine one afternoon mostly from parts in my closet. I can access all from any of the others as a windowed remote console. I share drives in a rather complex round robin scheme between each of them and they are set to back themselves up to each other every night. I use java code to spawn and control applications on remote machines cross-platform. But, perhaps I'm not as much of a "power user" as jetdv and I'm missing something. Oh, it must be one of those nifty little windows utilities that lets you add logarithmic graphing capability to the system calculator (which I don't use anyways, since I always use a RPN calculator, of course).

It's sad that Microsoft has conned people into thinking of stability as a "feature". It's been a flaw for years, and finally got (mostly) fixed. And we all paid several hundred dollars in upgrades for the privelege. Now THAT's marketing you have to admire.

Oh yeah, as for the aesthetics, Windows has finally caught up in that regard with the 20 year old Mac I have sitting in the closet. :)

Okay!?!?

Windows 2000 is also very stable. Both XP Pro and Home are very stable (there is no more stability in XP Pro than XP Home).

One important feature that XP Pro has (for me) which Home doesn't is the IIS web server. The Remote Desktop feature is also cool, though there are other ways to do it (VNC).

-Jeremy

Yeah, the downside of Remote Control is that every machine you want to control has to have XP Pro on it (since really all it is is the Windows Terminal server function added onto XP). I like VNC for multi-platform, or Remoteaccess for Windows to Windows. Either is a lot cheaper than getting Pro just for remote access. And I agree that some folks will need IIS for local web publishing support, but not very many. And, if someone has to ask if they need Pro vs. Home, they probably aren't messing with IIS :).

Jetdv- Sorry for going off the deep end there, especially on such an off-topic (non video) related issue, but you hit a big nerve. :)

I've really appreciated the numerous posts of yours I've read in the various forums, they've been incredibly helpful. Would've sent you a direct e-mail, but apparently not possible here (what an odd forum system not to have that ability).

tlparker,

I was just reporting what I saw when I set up my dad's XP HOME computer to network with his Win98 computer. I right-clicked the drive to share it and "sharing" was not an option. I did find some sharing information but the described procedure didn't work. I end up with XP being able to access 98 but not 98 accessing XP (although it could see the machine). My XP Pro machine has the sharing option where I expected to see it. I truly believe that Pro is worth the difference over Home. Having said that, I would probably choose 2K over either one.

If you want to contact me directly, just go to TTS Homepage, download a newsletter, and use the address there.

Edward

What that means is that the networking services were not installed when XP Home was installed on his machine. Or, that file sharing and security are disabled (you enable these from network configuration). I can just as easily disable these in Pro as in Home, or, for that matter, any version of Windows from 3.1 to XP, that ability has always existed. It has nothing to do with XP Pro vs. Home.

I think that this statement really proves a lack of understanding of how operating systems work. Lack of stablility in previous operating systems was caused by the fact that rogue drivers and software could invade ring 0, thereby causing a kernel mode crash. Windows XP is designed not to allow third-party software to crash the operating system.

It's a shame that people believe that because Microsoft wrote the operating system, they are responsible for all instability in all software you install onto it.

Jim

Sure it does! Windows XP Home Edition does not allow you to disable Simple File Sharing which is what prevents this item from appearing on the menu. In Professional, you can disable Simple File Sharing.

Jim

By all means, get PRO... If for no other reason it has "System Restore" which Home doesn't. It is worth it for that alone!

related links...

http://winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/wxpdifs.htm

hope that (or this) helps...

"By all means, get PRO... If for no other reason it has "System Restore" which Home doesn't. It is worth it for that alone!"



WindowsXP Home has "System Restore" too...

You simply go to "Control Panel" and it's in "Performance and Maintenance". I never use it though as I prefer Ghosting instead...