Resource Differences between Pro and Home?

G

Guest

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

Hi. Trying to decide whether I want to go with XP Pro or Home for my next
box. I've learned most of the "published" differences (from MS's site), but
was wondering what the difference is when it comes to resource usage. I
mean, I'm assuming there's a performance difference between the two, if
using the same RAM/HD speed/etc.

Is there a performance penalty at all if you go with Pro as opposed to Home?
Thanks.


Fr@nk
 

Malke

Distinguished
Apr 6, 2004
3,000
0
20,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Fr@nk wrote:

> Hi. Trying to decide whether I want to go with XP Pro or Home for my
> next box. I've learned most of the "published" differences (from MS's
> site), but was wondering what the difference is when it comes to
> resource usage. I mean, I'm assuming there's a performance difference
> between the two, if using the same RAM/HD speed/etc.
>
> Is there a performance penalty at all if you go with Pro as opposed to
> Home? Thanks.

There is no difference in the operating system speed itself. Naturally,
there will be a difference if you are running something like an IIS
webserver on Pro (which you cannot do on Home). But for normal use, if
you had a Pro and a Home with the same programs installed on both on
identical machines, you would see no difference between the two. You
say you've read the comparison chart on the MS site. You should make
your choice depending on how you plan to use the computer.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
 
G

Guest

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

I've got 3 XPPro systems and 6 XPHome systems. There's more of a difference
in the performance settings that you'll choose than there is between the 2
OS's. Don't let the names fool you, Home is a full-fledged OS and is fine if
you don't need the extra features that Pro offers.

I rarely use the extra features myself and I've been running Pro for many
years now (since it was in Beta).

"Fr@nk" wrote:

> Hi. Trying to decide whether I want to go with XP Pro or Home for my next
> box. I've learned most of the "published" differences (from MS's site), but
> was wondering what the difference is when it comes to resource usage. I
> mean, I'm assuming there's a performance difference between the two, if
> using the same RAM/HD speed/etc.
>
> Is there a performance penalty at all if you go with Pro as opposed to Home?
> Thanks.
>
>
> Fr@nk
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

The "Kernel" is the same in both Home & Professional. I've never
noticed a performance difference between them. As far as system
loading I think you'd find that a fresh Home and Pro install uses the
same core services. The feature differences are under the hood &
not really discernable.

"Fr@nk" <Fr@nkATwizardDOT.net> wrote in message
news:i%FNe.21420$Ie.1282@lakeread03...
> Hi. Trying to decide whether I want to go with XP Pro or Home for my next
> box. I've learned most of the "published" differences (from MS's site),
> but
> was wondering what the difference is when it comes to resource usage. I
> mean, I'm assuming there's a performance difference between the two, if
> using the same RAM/HD speed/etc.
>
> Is there a performance penalty at all if you go with Pro as opposed to
> Home?
> Thanks.
>
>
> Fr@nk
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

Hi,

There is no difference in performance and resource usage. The core is the
same, it's the advanced security functions, and a few added features like
IIS, that are different.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Fr@nk" <Fr@nkATwizardDOT.net> wrote in message
news:i%FNe.21420$Ie.1282@lakeread03...
> Hi. Trying to decide whether I want to go with XP Pro or Home for my next
> box. I've learned most of the "published" differences (from MS's site),
> but
> was wondering what the difference is when it comes to resource usage. I
> mean, I'm assuming there's a performance difference between the two, if
> using the same RAM/HD speed/etc.
>
> Is there a performance penalty at all if you go with Pro as opposed to
> Home?
> Thanks.
>
>
> Fr@nk
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

Fr@nk wrote:

> Hi. Trying to decide whether I want to go with XP Pro or Home for my
> next box. I've learned most of the "published" differences (from MS's
> site), but was wondering what the difference is when it comes to
> resource usage. I mean, I'm assuming there's a performance difference
> between the two, if using the same RAM/HD speed/etc.
>
> Is there a performance penalty at all if you go with Pro as opposed
> to Home? Thanks.


No, your assumption is wrong. There is no difference in performance or
resource usage between the two.

The only difference is that Professional has some extra features. If you
need or want some of those features, buy Professional. Otherwise, save some
money and buy Home.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
G

Guest

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

begin  trojan.vbs ... On Saturday 20 August 2005 01:42 pm, Ken Blake had
this to say in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Fr@nk wrote:
>
>> Hi. Trying to decide whether I want to go with XP Pro or Home for my
>> next box. I've learned most of the "published" differences (from MS's
>> site), but was wondering what the difference is when it comes to
>> resource usage. I mean, I'm assuming there's a performance difference
>> between the two, if using the same RAM/HD speed/etc.
>>
>> Is there a performance penalty at all if you go with Pro as opposed
>> to Home? Thanks.
>
>
> No, your assumption is wrong. There is no difference in performance or
> resource usage between the two.
>
How can you make that statement when Pro obviously offers services that Home
does not? This would suggest that resource usage would be different.


--
Have you been MicroShafted today?
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
 
G

Guest

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

"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:eb0Oe.77958$vj.32244@pd7tw1no...

> >
> How can you make that statement when Pro obviously offers services that
Home
> does not? This would suggest that resource usage would be different.
>
>

Well, folks, which is it? Yes, it seems to me that if more _features_ are
actually used (assuming using a feature means another process has to run at
some point), more resources will be used.

Now, I understand if the extra "features" were things like extra programs:
as if Pro had a bunch more admin/power user/etc. utility programs. Of
course, if you don't use those programs, you don't inflict additional
program code on your system. But if you choose to run them, of course your
system is using more resources.

So does Pro contain any additional utilities such as advanced
diagnostic/tweaking programs?


Fr@nk
 

Rock

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2002
1,242
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Fr@nk wrote:

> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
> news:eb0Oe.77958$vj.32244@pd7tw1no...
>
>
>>How can you make that statement when Pro obviously offers services that
>
> Home
>
>>does not? This would suggest that resource usage would be different.
>>
>>
>
>
> Well, folks, which is it? Yes, it seems to me that if more _features_ are
> actually used (assuming using a feature means another process has to run at
> some point), more resources will be used.
>
> Now, I understand if the extra "features" were things like extra programs:
> as if Pro had a bunch more admin/power user/etc. utility programs. Of
> course, if you don't use those programs, you don't inflict additional
> program code on your system. But if you choose to run them, of course your
> system is using more resources.
>
> So does Pro contain any additional utilities such as advanced
> diagnostic/tweaking programs?
>
>
> Fr@nk
>
>

Pro's extra features allow it to join a domain, allow more concurrent
connections, install IIS, have EFS, and it's not locked into simple file
sharing, among other things. I don't know what more you need to be
told. Several have given you the answer. In normal operations there is
no difference between the two. If you need to use any of these features
you'll need Pro and more modules will be loaded, but that's true even if
you have two systems with the same OS but different installed software
and hardware. The demand on resources will be different.

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
 
G

Guest

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

"Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23KPDWcspFHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Fr@nk wrote:
>
>
> Pro's extra features allow it to join a domain, allow more concurrent
> connections, install IIS, have EFS, and it's not locked into simple file
> sharing, among other things. I don't know what more you need to be
> told. Several have given you the answer. In normal operations there is
> no difference between the two. If you need to use any of these features
> you'll need Pro and more modules will be loaded, but that's true even if
> you have two systems with the same OS but different installed software
> and hardware. The demand on resources will be different.
>
> --
> Rock
> MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
>

Your answer is quite vague (although I know exactly what each item refers
to), so it doesn't contribute to this thread at all. You also obviously
didn't read my last sentence/question prior to your post.

I'll spell out specific questions. Here's what I'd still like to know:

- Is there a speed/performance difference between Pro and Home, assuming
equal hardware?
- Does Pro take up more disk space? How much more usually?
- (repeat) Are there additional utility/diagnostic/etc. programs included
with Pro?
- Are there ANY utility/diagnostic/etc. programs included with Home?

Here are some reasons why I don't think I need to go with Pro: I do not need
to join a domain. I do not need to connect to my computer via Remote
Desktop. Extra file security would be nice, but not essential.

However, here are some Power User things that I'd still like to have: A
Backup utility. The usual DOS-type programs: ipconfig, ping, DOS Prompt,
etc. I also like to "prune" the system down to only use resources I really
want to use. Can I do these things (in THIS paragraph) in Home?

Probably most important: what about that speed difference? (I've read at
other sources that Pro is much faster)

Thanks.


Fr@nk
 
G

Guest

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

Fr@nk wrote:

> - Is there a speed/performance difference between Pro and Home,
> assuming equal hardware?


As you've been told several times, no.


> - Does Pro take up more disk space?


Yes. It has extra features and Programs, and they take up space.


> How much more usually?


I don't know offhand, but it's very small. Not enough to be concerned with
unless disk space is very tight.


> - (repeat) Are there additional utility/diagnostic/etc. programs
> included with Pro?


If I'm correctly understanding whjat you're asking about, no.


> - Are there ANY utility/diagnostic/etc. programs included with Home?


Sure, there are things like chkdsk, defrag, backup, etc. But rather than my
guessing what you mean by "utility/diagnostic/etc. programs," why don't you
be more specific about what you're looking for?


> Here are some reasons why I don't think I need to go with Pro: I do
> not need to join a domain. I do not need to connect to my computer
> via Remote Desktop. Extra file security would be nice, but not
> essential.


Then it's highly unlikely that it would be worth your spending the extra
money for Professional.


> However, here are some Power User things that I'd still like to have:
> A Backup utility.


Comes with both Home and Professional, but is installed by default only in
Professional. Also the Home version doesn't include ASR.

However, on either version, it's a very primitive utility, and I recommend
choosing a third-party program instaed.


> The usual DOS-type programs: ipconfig, ping, DOS
> Prompt, etc.


There's no such thing as a DOS prompt in either version, since there's no
MS-DOS In Windows XP. However there's an identical command prompt windows
available in both, and you can do most things you used to do in DOS.


> I also like to "prune" the system down to only use
> resources I really want to use. Can I do these things (in THIS
> paragraph) in Home?


In general you can do all the same such things in both versions. But be more
specific. What do you mean by "resources I really want to use"? For that
matter, what do mean by "resources"?


> Probably most important: what about that speed difference? (I've read
> at other sources that Pro is much faster)


Again, as you've been told here several times, it is not much faster. It is
not faster at all. You've been misinformed. The only difference is that
Professional includes extra features.

XP Professional and XP Home are exactly the same in all respects, except
that Professional has a few features (mostly related to networking and
security) missing from Home. For most (but not all) home users, even those
with a home network, these features aren't needed, would never be used, and
buying Professional instead of Home is a waste of money.



For details go to



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



http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp



http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.asp



Also note that Professional allows ten concurrent network connections, and
Home only five.


--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
G

Guest

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

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:uSby9tzpFHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> Sure, there are things like chkdsk, defrag, backup, etc. But rather than
my
> guessing what you mean by "utility/diagnostic/etc. programs," why don't
you
> be more specific about what you're looking for?
>

Sorry. Next time I'll mention by name the programs that I don't even know
exist.


>
> Then it's highly unlikely that it would be worth your spending the extra
> money for Professional.
>
>

That settles it...Pro it is! ;-)


>
> Also note that Professional allows ten concurrent network connections, and
> Home only five.
>
>

Ah, thank you. That IS news to me.

Sorry for being anal (Alias). Of course I am. Not sure if you've noticed,
but there are LOTS of anal people on usenet; including many right here on
m.p.w.g! Part of the learning process, I guess.

Again, thanks for the help. Now, show's over; nothing to see here.


Fr@nk
 
G

Guest

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

begin  trojan.vbs ... On Monday 22 August 2005 09:50 am, Alias had this to
say in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

>

>
> In XP Home and Pro, it's called "cmd". No IPCONFIG in either. No DOS in
> either. Both have MSCONFIG, unlike W2K.
>

> Alias

You better check Pro again, because it certainly has the ipconfig program.
Don't know about Home, as I've never used Home.


--
Have you been MicroShafted today?
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.
 

Rock

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2002
1,242
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Fr@nk wrote:

> "Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23KPDWcspFHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>>Fr@nk wrote:
>>
>>
>>Pro's extra features allow it to join a domain, allow more concurrent
>>connections, install IIS, have EFS, and it's not locked into simple file
>>sharing, among other things. I don't know what more you need to be
>>told. Several have given you the answer. In normal operations there is
>>no difference between the two. If you need to use any of these features
>>you'll need Pro and more modules will be loaded, but that's true even if
>>you have two systems with the same OS but different installed software
>>and hardware. The demand on resources will be different.
>>
>>--
>>Rock
>>MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
>>
>
>
> Your answer is quite vague (although I know exactly what each item refers
> to), so it doesn't contribute to this thread at all. You also obviously
> didn't read my last sentence/question prior to your post.
>

The problem is you don't want to get it. All the information has been
provided to you. Now just use some common sense.


--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User