Most stable XP ? XP pro . Is there a difference

[Bryan Beasleigh]

I'm on a forced rebuild as my mobo andboot drive have to be replaced.

Win 2000 isn't an issue as i feel that support for that OS is in the decline.

There has been much inference that XP home is a neutered version of XP pro and that apart from the network and dual processing issues there is a difference in stability.

Is this an unfounded argument like the circulat vs linear polarizers or is there some meat to the argument

Is XPpro the way to go even though I don't need the advanced networking features? I don't mind spending the money, I'd just like to hear some specifics.

Thanks you for your valued input.

Bryan

[Barry Gilbert]

Just one mans opinion but there is very little difference in the two. The Xp pro will allow you to do more things down the road. It supports dual processors, home does not. I noticed an encoding software a couple of days ago (sorry I can't remember what is was) that would only work with pro. That's two things I can thing of off the top of my head. I am sure there are more.

[Imran Zaidi]

Microsoft has been notorious for keeping their 'home' editions of software over the years at an annoyingly unstable level, so that those who do more than just check emails and play games will be forced into the Pro versions.

With XP, the home edition is much, much more stable. But be warned. It is not as rock solid, and is not as efficient with your hardware as XP Pro.

I used to be a computer hardware and software assembler/tech. Believe me, I've spent enough time with Microsoft products to tell you that if you are serious about your OS, get Pro, not Home.

[Nathan Gifford]

I would go with either Pro versions (XP or W2K) depending on what your NLE recommends.

Be aware that the successors of XP are now on the horizon; small surprise. Part of the reason for this are developing file structures that more efficient and offer larger storage.

What will be interesting is watching the next evolution of Linux, especially after the Munich contract with SuSe/IBM.

[Adrian Douglas]

Does XP Home allow the use of NTFS or is it just FAT32. FOr me I found that using NTFS under W2k increased the stability of my Pinnacle/Premiere set-up. It also allow for greater than 4GB file sizes. That would be the deciding factor for me if you don't need the DP support and networking features. I've recently moved my NLE to XP Pro from W2k and haven't had a problem with it. It's also running my scanner and printer.

[Imran Zaidi]

I can't recall if XP Home allows NTFS, but my first guess would be no.

Either way, let's get back to the obvious. There's HOME edition and PROFESSIONAL edition. It's not just a marketing ploy... there's a reason each is called what it is...

[Edward Troxel]

ALL XP versions allow NTFS.

[Peter Moore]

XP Home and XP Pro are supposed to be built on an identical code set. One just has more features than the other. XP Pro allows better low level application / process / memory management, better disk management, and better networking options. It also comes with things like Internet Information Server. And as someone mentioned it has dual processor support (didn't know XP Home did NOT have that feature).

Otherwise they should be identical and there should be no stability issues from one to the other. If there are, Microsoft has lied.

[Imran Zaidi]

...and there would be absolutely nothing new about that. But stability isn't the only issue here. Dual cpus is a major one. And depending on how much of a power user you might be, there are frustrations and dead ends you may encounter in Home that are more 'configurable' on Pro.

I remember seeing a list of the exact features (one not written by Microsoft marketing guys) that are different that would affect a real-world decision. If I can find it I'll come back and post it.

[Christopher Go]

There is only one reason I can think of that someone would opt for Windows XP Home over Pro and that is you're so badly strapped for cash the price difference between the two eliminates Pro as an option.

However, if you also happen to be buying hardware soon then you can purchase an OEM version of Pro for $149. The OEM version of Home is $84 for a difference of $65. In my opinion, you might as well shell out the dough for Pro and be done with it, debating and all. Is there any doubt that Pro has more features? If you could get a better car for $65 more, and there wasn't any drawbacks, you'd buy that car.

Head over to Multiwave to get a copy. Your local computer shop may even have OEM versions too. The hardware purchase doesn't even have to be a motherboard or hard drive, I know some people who purchase keyboards, etc to get a copy of the OEM version.

[Nigel Moore]

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi : Microsoft has been notorious for keeping their 'home' editions of software over the years at an annoyingly unstable level, so that those who do more than just check emails and play games will be forced into the Pro versions. -->>>

On what do you base this statement? It infers that Microsoft have had two identical products, one stable and one unstable. But, until the advent of XP, the 'home' versions of the OS were based on a completely different code base (DOS/9.x) compared to the 'pro' versions (NT). The maintainance of the legacy code was not to keep the home versions unstable, but to accommodate legacy hardware and software.

Win9.x was a castle built on sand. It just evolved too far for its underlying code. But that was not all of Microsoft's doing.

A saving is a saving. Any money in your pocket is a good thing. If you're going for dual CPUs (note, not hyperthtreading, since XP Home supports that) Pro is the way to go. Otherwise, put the money towards something more useful, and don't give Bill's Boyz any more than you have to. Just my CHF0.02.

[Glen Elliott]

Nigel is right- all incarnations of the XP operating system run on the NT kernel and their stability is identical.

[Imran Zaidi]

<<<--
On what do you base this statement? It infers that Microsoft have had two identical products, one stable and one unstable. -->>>

Years and years of being a hardware and software tech, and having worked at a 'splinter' dot com that spawned off a slew of Microsoft bigheads. You are correct that Home is more stable, but don't believe, for a second or a new york minute (whichever is quicker) that Microsoft is going to give you the wonders and efficiency of it's professional edition in the home version.

They've done us a great favor by dumping the Win9x crap, but they're not foolish. Use both next to each other, and you will see. Or perhaps you won't - it all depends on how hands on and power hungry you are with your system. Again, I am still trying to dish up that article/list I mentioned above.

[Andrew Petrie]

Always buy Pro. I'm running 2k Pro right now, with a nice shiney XP Pro CD still in my drawer awaiting install.... I haven't been bothered, I've had the CD for 8 months or so and haven't found a need to upgrade yet.

[Nigel Moore]

We all know that the 9x OSes were less stable than NT. That doesn't take years and years of anyware tech experience, just experience with the various flavours of Windows. Your assertion was that M$ did this deliberately as part of a masterplan to 'subjugate the home user and enforce upgrades to a more expensive OS'. Unless, of course, you meant "Microsoft has been notorious for keeping their 'home' editions of software over the years at an annoyingly unstable level, so that those who do more than just check emails and play games will be forced into the Pro versions" to be interpreted in some other way.

Or perhaps you won't - it all depends on how hands on and power hungry you are with your system.

I won't, but because I run SMP systems, so I always get Pro. If I didn't, I wouldn't.

Again, I am still trying to dish up that article/list I mentioned above.

That would be most interesting. I'm looking forward to enlightenment.