Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrading -- any need for XP Pro over XP Home Edition?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 4:31:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I have an opportunity for a cheap upgrade to Photoshop CS, which
unfortunately won't run on my WindowsMe machine. So additionally I'd have
to buy a Windows XP upgrade, and the ~$100 price difference for Pro might
push this out of feasibility. So I'm wondering if there is any real need
for me to blow for XP Pro, as opposed to XP Home Edition.

I've looked through a bunch of threads on this issue, and checked the sites
referenced, and am pretty sure that for my purposes XP Home will do fine,
but can anyone see something I'm missing?

-- Single user
-- No networking. one computer connected by dialup to outside world.
Might get high speed in moderate future.
-- Not a gamer. If I get a dual-cpu system, I can upgrade then :-).
-- Prefer to use 3rd party sw for sound, images.
-- Backup ... I backup my 'data' files, including a log of system tweaks,
directly to CDR or external HD. I figure a full system trash would
give
me a chance to clean up my system, only reinstalling junk I need.

Security -- Is encryption the only advantage for Pro (on a single user,
non-networked, system)? I don't encrypt folders on Me, so why would I on
XP?

One list of Pro's advantages (from PaulC) had
"8- Auto install, configure, repair, and removal of programs".
Is this just something for system/network admin, or useful for the lone
user? I notice on the MS site it's under "... Servers and management
solutions".

Even if features don't push one to Pro, one poster (Lightweight) on August
23 claimed "Home ... has way more bugs." Is this actually the case?

Oh yes, and how typical is it that 3rd party programs (or MS ones for that
matter) will need an upgrade to work with Win XP?

My hardware:
--Athlon (?GHz), HP Pavilion 7950
-- 640 MB
-- 60 GB internal, 160 GB firewire external
-- CDRW, DVD, floppy, bunches of ports, simple sound and graphics cards.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 4:31:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Most 3rd party software is designed for xp,home vs pro stability isnt
an issue at all,home is as reliable as pro.Pro has encryption home doesnt,
Pro can perform advanced tasks home cant (making a dynamic hd,group
policy,etc),but for normal ops,they both run the same.Pro has advanced
.NET capabilitys for servers home doesnt.

"ggull" wrote:

> I have an opportunity for a cheap upgrade to Photoshop CS, which
> unfortunately won't run on my WindowsMe machine. So additionally I'd have
> to buy a Windows XP upgrade, and the ~$100 price difference for Pro might
> push this out of feasibility. So I'm wondering if there is any real need
> for me to blow for XP Pro, as opposed to XP Home Edition.
>
> I've looked through a bunch of threads on this issue, and checked the sites
> referenced, and am pretty sure that for my purposes XP Home will do fine,
> but can anyone see something I'm missing?
>
> -- Single user
> -- No networking. one computer connected by dialup to outside world.
> Might get high speed in moderate future.
> -- Not a gamer. If I get a dual-cpu system, I can upgrade then :-).
> -- Prefer to use 3rd party sw for sound, images.
> -- Backup ... I backup my 'data' files, including a log of system tweaks,
> directly to CDR or external HD. I figure a full system trash would
> give
> me a chance to clean up my system, only reinstalling junk I need.
>
> Security -- Is encryption the only advantage for Pro (on a single user,
> non-networked, system)? I don't encrypt folders on Me, so why would I on
> XP?
>
> One list of Pro's advantages (from PaulC) had
> "8- Auto install, configure, repair, and removal of programs".
> Is this just something for system/network admin, or useful for the lone
> user? I notice on the MS site it's under "... Servers and management
> solutions".
>
> Even if features don't push one to Pro, one poster (Lightweight) on August
> 23 claimed "Home ... has way more bugs." Is this actually the case?
>
> Oh yes, and how typical is it that 3rd party programs (or MS ones for that
> matter) will need an upgrade to work with Win XP?
>
> My hardware:
> --Athlon (?GHz), HP Pavilion 7950
> -- 640 MB
> -- 60 GB internal, 160 GB firewire external
> -- CDRW, DVD, floppy, bunches of ports, simple sound and graphics cards.
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 4:31:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

ggull wrote:
> I have an opportunity for a cheap upgrade to Photoshop CS, which
> unfortunately won't run on my WindowsMe machine. So additionally
> I'd have to buy a Windows XP upgrade, and the ~$100 price
> difference for Pro might push this out of feasibility. So I'm
> wondering if there is any real need for me to blow for XP Pro, as
> opposed to XP Home Edition.
>
> I've looked through a bunch of threads on this issue, and checked
> the sites referenced, and am pretty sure that for my purposes XP
> Home will do fine, but can anyone see something I'm missing?
>
> -- Single user
> -- No networking. one computer connected by dialup to outside world.
> Might get high speed in moderate future.
> -- Not a gamer. If I get a dual-cpu system, I can upgrade then :-).
> -- Prefer to use 3rd party sw for sound, images.
> -- Backup ... I backup my 'data' files, including a log of system
> tweaks, directly to CDR or external HD. I figure a full system
> trash would
> give
> me a chance to clean up my system, only reinstalling junk I need.
>
> Security -- Is encryption the only advantage for Pro (on a single
> user, non-networked, system)? I don't encrypt folders on Me, so
> why would I on XP?
>
> One list of Pro's advantages (from PaulC) had
> "8- Auto install, configure, repair, and removal of programs".
> Is this just something for system/network admin, or useful for the
> lone user? I notice on the MS site it's under "... Servers and
> management solutions".
>
> Even if features don't push one to Pro, one poster (Lightweight) on
> August 23 claimed "Home ... has way more bugs." Is this actually
> the case?
>
> Oh yes, and how typical is it that 3rd party programs (or MS ones
> for that matter) will need an upgrade to work with Win XP?
>
> My hardware:
> --Athlon (?GHz), HP Pavilion 7950
> -- 640 MB
> -- 60 GB internal, 160 GB firewire external
> -- CDRW, DVD, floppy, bunches of ports, simple sound and graphics
> cards.


Upgrading to WinXP Pro would accomplish nothing for you, based
upon your description of the situation.

The two versions are _identical_ when it comes to performance,
stability, and device driver and software application compatibility,
but are intended to meet different functionality, networking,
security, and ease-of-use needs, in different environments. The most
significant differences are that WinXP Pro allows up to 10
simultaneous inbound network connections while WinXP Home only allows
only 5, WinXP Pro is designed to join a Microsoft domain while WinXP
Home cannot, and only WinXP Pro supports file encryption and IIS.
(Oh, and WinXP Pro usually costs roughly $100 USD more than WinXP
Home.)

Windows XP Comparison Guide
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosi...

Which Edition Is Right for You
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

Windows XP Home Edition vs. Professional Edition
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro...

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 8:52:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote
....
> Upgrading to WinXP Pro would accomplish nothing for you, based
> upon your description of the situation.

Thank, Bruce, and also to Andrew E. This is pretty much what I'd figured,
based at least in part on your standard reply which I'd seen.
!