HD to NTFS -> WinXP Home vs. Pro at DVinfo.net

Scott Silverman · January 3rd, 2003, 03:29 PM

Hi,
I am going to be upgrading my OS in order to be able to capture files larger than 2 gig and render larger than 4 gig. AKA converting my HDs to NTFS drives. So now I am going to be purchasing WinXP and was wondering should I go Pro or Home. I am on a network with about 5 other PCs but don't really need a lot of control over them. I like have control over every little feature possible and want a good stable OS. What would you recommend? Experiences, comparisons, suggestions would be greatly appriciated.

Thanks!

Bill Ravens · January 3rd, 2003, 04:02 PM

I'd go with XP pro. If for no other reason, the capability to grow is much better. The home edition has some serious shortcomings.

Imran Zaidi · January 3rd, 2003, 04:34 PM

PRO, PRO, PRO, and definitely PRO!!!!

If you wanna do anything serious DV wise, always always always bypass the home editions of Windows (95, 98, ME, XP Home Edition) and go the pro route (NT, 2000, XP Pro).

While XP Home edition is a good cut above the quality of previous home edition version of windows, it still does not have the memory management, stability, and multitasking capabilities that are inherently present in PRO.

And I don't believe Home Edition can even recognize more than one processor, but I'm not sure of that.

Edward Troxel · January 3rd, 2003, 09:03 PM

Since you are on a network, you MUST use pro if you want to connect to a domain. Connecting peer to peer may be possible but is more difficult in home than pro. I will definitely agree with the suggestion for PRO!

Dan Holly · January 4th, 2003, 03:00 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi :

And I don't believe Home Edition can even recognize more than one processor, but I'm not sure of that. -->>>

You are correct.
Home only supports single processors.
Pro supports single, dual, or better.

Keith Luken · January 4th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Hoem Edition does not support more than one CPU, but supposedly it does recognize HyperThreaded P4 CPUs. Home has some NEtworking limitations, but if you all you do is share an occasional file or printer or internet connection among the systems then Home will work. If you can afford the Pro version I would go for it just so you don't have to deal with any limitations.

This is straight from the MS web site:

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

When upgrading to the Microsoft Windows XP operating system, you have a choice between Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition. Windows XP Professional contains all the features of Windows XP Home Edition, plus extra features for business and advanced home computing. Is Windows XP Professional the best choice?

Ask yourself these five questions to find out which one is right for you:

Do you want to remotely access your computer so you can work with all your data and applications while away from your desk?
Remote Desktop, a feature found only in Windows XP Professional, lets you set up your computer for connection from any other Windows-based computer. Leave a file at home? Don't want to lug a laptop around? Remote Desktop gives you access to your computer from virtually anywhere. More about Remote Desktop.

Do you connect to a large network?
Windows XP Professional is best for people who connect to large networks, such as a school or office network, since it allows you to join and be managed by a Windows domain. More about joining networks.

Do you need to protect sensitive data in files and folders that are stored on your computer?
The Encrypting File System (EFS), found in Windows XP Professional but not Windows XP Home Edition, allows you to encrypt your files and folders for added security of sensitive data against theft or hackers. Restricted File Access, also found only in Professional, allows you to restrict access to selected files, applications, and other resources. More about EFS.

Do you need the ability to completely restore your system in the event of a catastrophic failure?
Windows XP Professional provides more robust options for backing up and restoring data than Home Edition. More about System Restore and other restore options.

Would you consider yourself a "power user"?
Windows XP Professional contains a number of incremental features too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say, users who demand the most from their computers will want to "go Pro." Some additional features found only in Windows XP Professional are:

Advanced networking for multiple PC environments
Internet Information Services (IIS), a Windows XP Professional feature that lets you host and manage personal Web sites
Support for multiple-processor systems
Support for multiple languages

Nathan Gifford · January 5th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Go Pro on XP, but I would advise using Win2000 Professional unless you plan to use a multiprocessor. That way you are encumbered with that pesky product authenication.

Scott Silverman · January 5th, 2003, 08:18 PM

Yeah that product authenication they put in is real nasty. I have 5 computers in my house which means I have to buy 5 copies where as when I upgraded to Windows 98SE I only had to buy one! I understand their concern with product copying and stuff but now I have to pay 5 times as much to get what I would have had to pay only once for before. Thanks to everyone for all the help so far!

Imran Zaidi · January 6th, 2003, 07:49 AM

Yeah, I would like to add that I use Win2k on all my machines. Drivers are stabled from the manufacturers of the hardware I use, and literally, in over 3 years, I can count the times I've crashed the system on 1 finger. Maybe 2 if you count a power outage.

Bill Ravens · January 6th, 2003, 08:31 AM

FWIW....I was a W2k holdout until I decided to try out WXP Pro. Despite the hassle with product validation, I will say that WXP Pro is so nice I never went back to W2k. Considering that M$ will eventually drop support of W2k, WXP pro is the only practical choice at this time. When LINUX gets fully supported, goodbye M$.

Christopher Go · January 6th, 2003, 08:44 AM

So far I find Windows XP Pro to be very stable and much of my concerns over upgrading from W2K to XP Pro have been allayed after using the newer OS for a while.

Go for the Pro version, the added features won't affect you. If you need a feature of Pro that you want when you use the Home version you would have to buy it anyway (for example, moving to a dual processor machine and Avid Xpress DV).

Many reputable online vendors sell an OEM version of XP when you buy new hardware like a hard drive. Saves you some money this way, I recommend it.

I like FreeBSD myself.

Nathan Gifford · January 6th, 2003, 10:41 AM

I agree with many of the assesments of XP. It has, at least through media outlets, proven to be much more stable than its predecessors. Also, many new offerings are likely only to be available on XP.

I do not oppose XP product authenication because I want to run multiple copies. I oppose it because I do not want to have to argue with MS over getting a new code, or being forced to upgrade either my hardware or software.

The risk with XP is MS cancelling support, or requiring service charges for XP. That is XP future. Once you are locked in MS does not plan to let you out and keep nickle and diming you to death. MS will solicit help from other s/w vendors by making sure only up-to-date systems will work with new s/w.

Win2K does not have that problem. At least for the short term most of the desirable s/w packages will perform on Win2K. Win2K may not be as stable as XP, but it is more than stable enough, and cheaper in the long haul (3 years).

Imran Zaidi · January 6th, 2003, 10:59 AM

I would suggest that Win2k is by no means less stable than XP. Like I mentioned before, 3 years and running with only 1 real system crash on Win 2k. That's over multiple computers and in varying organizations. You can't get much more stable than that.

There are numerous reasons I prefer to run my primary workstations on Win2k, some of which were just mentioned above. See http://www.winxpnews.com/ to see various real-world problems that are actually 'features' of XP that to a hacker such as myself, are obtrusive. (I'm not literally a hacker; I mean that only to suggest I'm privacy and individuality oriented).

Eventually, I will be forced to primarily use XP whereas right now XP is only my fall-back OS, but realize that Win2k is VERY FAR from being dumped from the Microsoft support world. Read around and you will find that to be true.

But getting back to the question that started this thread, regardless of all the 2k vs. XP Pro debate, XP PRO is a far cry ahead of XP Home.

Bill Ravens · January 6th, 2003, 11:05 AM

Just as an example of what XP offers over W2k, consider the directshow filter mapping. Anyone who is involved with digital video production, DVD, AVI or whatever, the directshow filter graphing tool makes assembling video playback graphs incredibly easy. If you're already using MS Graphedit and an upscale player like Zoomplayer, you know what I mean. These capabilities are not available in W2000.

Andrew Petrie · January 6th, 2003, 11:05 AM

I'm still using Win2k. I have a shiny new holographic XP Pro CD on my desk, but I have had no urge to install it. Win2k does everything I need to right now, and has had 3 years of maturing (bug fixes, etc)

January 3rd, 2003, 03:29 PM	#1
Scott Silverman Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Cupertino, California, USA Posts: 301	HD to NTFS -> WinXP Home vs. Pro Hi, I am going to be upgrading my OS in order to be able to capture files larger than 2 gig and render larger than 4 gig. AKA converting my HDs to NTFS drives. So now I am going to be purchasing WinXP and was wondering should I go Pro or Home. I am on a network with about 5 other PCs but don't really need a lot of control over them. I like have control over every little feature possible and want a good stable OS. What would you recommend? Experiences, comparisons, suggestions would be greatly appriciated. Thanks! __________________ Scott Silverman Shining Star Digital Video Productions Bay Area, CA

January 4th, 2003, 03:00 AM	#5
Dan Holly Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 336	Home versus Pro <<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi : And I don't believe Home Edition can even recognize more than one processor, but I'm not sure of that. -->>> You are correct. Home only supports single processors. Pro supports single, dual, or better. __________________ Dan Holly Anchorage, Alaska

January 5th, 2003, 07:42 PM	#7
Nathan Gifford Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tickfaw, LA Posts: 1,217	Go Pro on XP, but I would advise using Win2000 Professional unless you plan to use a multiprocessor. That way you are encumbered with that pesky product authenication. __________________ Nathan Gifford Southern Cyclist Magazine & Productions For quick answers try our Search! To see me and Rob Lohman click here

January 5th, 2003, 08:18 PM	#8
Scott Silverman Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Cupertino, California, USA Posts: 301	Yeah that product authenication they put in is real nasty. I have 5 computers in my house which means I have to buy 5 copies where as when I upgraded to Windows 98SE I only had to buy one! I understand their concern with product copying and stuff but now I have to pay 5 times as much to get what I would have had to pay only once for before. Thanks to everyone for all the help so far! __________________ Scott Silverman Shining Star Digital Video Productions Bay Area, CA

January 6th, 2003, 10:41 AM	#12
Nathan Gifford Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tickfaw, LA Posts: 1,217	I agree with many of the assesments of XP. It has, at least through media outlets, proven to be much more stable than its predecessors. Also, many new offerings are likely only to be available on XP. I do not oppose XP product authenication because I want to run multiple copies. I oppose it because I do not want to have to argue with MS over getting a new code, or being forced to upgrade either my hardware or software. The risk with XP is MS cancelling support, or requiring service charges for XP. *That is XP future.* Once you are locked in MS does not plan to let you out and keep nickle and diming you to death. MS will solicit help from other s/w vendors by making sure only up-to-date systems will work with new s/w. Win2K does not have that problem. At least for the short term most of the desirable s/w packages will perform on Win2K. Win2K may not be as stable as XP, but it is more than stable enough, and cheaper in the long haul (3 years). __________________ Nathan Gifford Southern Cyclist Magazine & Productions For quick answers try our Search! To see me and Rob Lohman click here

January 3rd, 2003, 04:02 PM	#2
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I'd go with XP pro. If for no other reason, the capability to grow is much better. The home edition has some serious shortcomings.

January 3rd, 2003, 04:34 PM	#3
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	PRO, PRO, PRO, and definitely PRO!!!! If you wanna do anything serious DV wise, always always always bypass the home editions of Windows (95, 98, ME, XP Home Edition) and go the pro route (NT, 2000, XP Pro). While XP Home edition is a good cut above the quality of previous home edition version of windows, it still does not have the memory management, stability, and multitasking capabilities that are inherently present in PRO. And I don't believe Home Edition can even recognize more than one processor, but I'm not sure of that.

January 3rd, 2003, 09:03 PM	#4
Edward Troxel Sponsor: JET DV Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 7,953	Since you are on a network, you MUST use pro if you want to connect to a domain. Connecting peer to peer may be possible but is more difficult in home than pro. I will definitely agree with the suggestion for PRO!

January 4th, 2003, 11:19 PM	#6
Keith Luken Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 200	Hoem Edition does not support more than one CPU, but supposedly it does recognize HyperThreaded P4 CPUs. Home has some NEtworking limitations, but if you all you do is share an occasional file or printer or internet connection among the systems then Home will work. If you can afford the Pro version I would go for it just so you don't have to deal with any limitations. This is straight from the MS web site: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp When upgrading to the Microsoft Windows XP operating system, you have a choice between Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition. Windows XP Professional contains all the features of Windows XP Home Edition, plus extra features for business and advanced home computing. Is Windows XP Professional the best choice? Ask yourself these five questions to find out which one is right for you: Do you want to remotely access your computer so you can work with all your data and applications while away from your desk? Remote Desktop, a feature found only in Windows XP Professional, lets you set up your computer for connection from any other Windows-based computer. Leave a file at home? Don't want to lug a laptop around? Remote Desktop gives you access to your computer from virtually anywhere. More about Remote Desktop. Do you connect to a large network? Windows XP Professional is best for people who connect to large networks, such as a school or office network, since it allows you to join and be managed by a Windows domain. More about joining networks. Do you need to protect sensitive data in files and folders that are stored on your computer? The Encrypting File System (EFS), found in Windows XP Professional but not Windows XP Home Edition, allows you to encrypt your files and folders for added security of sensitive data against theft or hackers. Restricted File Access, also found only in Professional, allows you to restrict access to selected files, applications, and other resources. More about EFS. Do you need the ability to completely restore your system in the event of a catastrophic failure? Windows XP Professional provides more robust options for backing up and restoring data than Home Edition. More about System Restore and other restore options. Would you consider yourself a "power user"? Windows XP Professional contains a number of incremental features too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say, users who demand the most from their computers will want to "go Pro." Some additional features found only in Windows XP Professional are: Advanced networking for multiple PC environments Internet Information Services (IIS), a Windows XP Professional feature that lets you host and manage personal Web sites Support for multiple-processor systems Support for multiple languages

January 6th, 2003, 07:49 AM	#9
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	Yeah, I would like to add that I use Win2k on all my machines. Drivers are stabled from the manufacturers of the hardware I use, and literally, in over 3 years, I can count the times I've crashed the system on 1 finger. Maybe 2 if you count a power outage.

January 6th, 2003, 08:31 AM	#10
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	FWIW....I was a W2k holdout until I decided to try out WXP Pro. Despite the hassle with product validation, I will say that WXP Pro is so nice I never went back to W2k. Considering that M$ will eventually drop support of W2k, WXP pro is the only practical choice at this time. When LINUX gets fully supported, goodbye M$.

January 6th, 2003, 08:44 AM	#11
Christopher Go Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 429	So far I find Windows XP Pro to be very stable and much of my concerns over upgrading from W2K to XP Pro have been allayed after using the newer OS for a while. Go for the Pro version, the added features won't affect you. If you need a feature of Pro that you want when you use the Home version you would have to buy it anyway (for example, moving to a dual processor machine and Avid Xpress DV). Many reputable online vendors sell an OEM version of XP when you buy new hardware like a hard drive. Saves you some money this way, I recommend it. I like FreeBSD myself.

January 6th, 2003, 10:59 AM	#13
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	I would suggest that Win2k is by no means less stable than XP. Like I mentioned before, 3 years and running with only 1 real system crash on Win 2k. That's over multiple computers and in varying organizations. You can't get much more stable than that. There are numerous reasons I prefer to run my primary workstations on Win2k, some of which were just mentioned above. See http://www.winxpnews.com/ to see various real-world problems that are actually 'features' of XP that to a hacker such as myself, are obtrusive. (I'm not literally a hacker; I mean that only to suggest I'm privacy and individuality oriented). Eventually, I will be forced to primarily use XP whereas right now XP is only my fall-back OS, but realize that Win2k is VERY FAR from being dumped from the Microsoft support world. Read around and you will find that to be true. But getting back to the question that started this thread, regardless of all the 2k vs. XP Pro debate, XP PRO is a far cry ahead of XP Home.

January 6th, 2003, 11:05 AM	#14
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Just as an example of what XP offers over W2k, consider the directshow filter mapping. Anyone who is involved with digital video production, DVD, AVI or whatever, the directshow filter graphing tool makes assembling video playback graphs incredibly easy. If you're already using MS Graphedit and an upscale player like Zoomplayer, you know what I mean. These capabilities are not available in W2000.

January 6th, 2003, 11:05 AM	#15
Andrew Petrie Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 484	I'm still using Win2k. I have a shiny new holographic XP Pro CD on my desk, but I have had no urge to install it. Win2k does everything I need to right now, and has had 3 years of maturing (bug fixes, etc) __________________ Andrew \| Canon XL1s, ME66, Vinten Vision 3, GlideCam V16 (for sale!)