Win-XP Home vs Win-XP Pro

[David Cook]

I've often wondered how Win-XP Home and Win-XP Pro differed.
I DID find a Microsoft webpage where the some of the functionality
differences were mentioned.

The thrust of my questions are not so much about functional differences,
but rather the origin of the codebases and the relative
efficiency/performance
of the two under exactly the same workloads.

So, here are a couple of questions that may shed some light on my issues:

(1) Is it TRUE that both variants are completely based on an evolution
of the Windows-NT kernel and user codebase? (Or does Win-XP Home
still contains portions of the Win-9x codebase to achieve certain closer
compatibility to Windows-ME, etc.?)

(2) Can anyone point me to actual benchmark data that shows relative
performance between these two XP variants, when installed as identically
as possible? (e.g. both using same size and speed of disk, both using
NTFS, etc, etc, etc.)

To para-phrase these two questions, another question would be:
Are there any known reasons I would see better performance of an
XP-Pro system than an XP-Home system, on identical hardware
and installed as similarly as possible?

TIA...

Dave

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Both XP Home and XP Pro are equal in performance. They both are based
on the same kernel.

Windows XP Technical Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xptechov.mspx

Kernel Enhancements for Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/XP_kernel.mspx

Windows XP Comparison Guide
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"David Cook" <(unknown)> wrote in message:

| I've often wondered how Win-XP Home and Win-XP Pro differed.
| I DID find a Microsoft webpage where the some of the functionality
| differences were mentioned.
|
| The thrust of my questions are not so much about functional differences,
| but rather the origin of the codebases and the relative
| efficiency/performance
| of the two under exactly the same workloads.
|
| So, here are a couple of questions that may shed some light on my issues:
|
| (1) Is it TRUE that both variants are completely based on an evolution
| of the Windows-NT kernel and user codebase? (Or does Win-XP Home
| still contains portions of the Win-9x codebase to achieve certain closer
| compatibility to Windows-ME, etc.?)
|
| (2) Can anyone point me to actual benchmark data that shows relative
| performance between these two XP variants, when installed as identically
| as possible? (e.g. both using same size and speed of disk, both using
| NTFS, etc, etc, etc.)
|
| To para-phrase these two questions, another question would be:
| Are there any known reasons I would see better performance of an
| XP-Pro system than an XP-Home system, on identical hardware
| and installed as similarly as possible?
|
| TIA...
|
| Dave

 

[Ken Blake]

In

I've often wondered how Win-XP Home and Win-XP Pro differed.
I DID find a Microsoft webpage where the some of the functionality
differences were mentioned.

The thrust of my questions are not so much about functional
differences, but rather the origin of the codebases and the relative
efficiency/performance
of the two under exactly the same workloads.

Efficiency and performance are identical.

So, here are a couple of questions that may shed some light on my
issues:

(1) Is it TRUE that both variants are completely based on an evolution
of the Windows-NT kernel and user codebase?

Yes.


(Or does Win-XP Home
still contains portions of the Win-9x codebase to achieve certain
closer compatibility to Windows-ME, etc.?)

No.


(2) Can anyone point me to actual benchmark data that shows relative
performance between these two XP variants, when installed as
identically as possible? (e.g. both using same size and speed of
disk, both using NTFS, etc, etc, etc.)

I don't know of any benchmarks. There may not have been any done,
since they would essentially be benchmarking something against
itself. It would be like benchmarking two identical cars, one of
which had a stereo system, leather seats, etc. Those extra
features don't change performance.

To para-phrase these two questions, another question would be:
Are there any known reasons I would see better performance of an
XP-Pro system than an XP-Home system, on identical hardware
and installed as similarly as possible?

Absolutely none. They differ only in features (Home is a subset
of Professional), not in performance. 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, 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.

 

[David Cook]

Thanks to both of you. (Those answers were what I expected,
though I have heard [false] rumors to the contrary.)

I am puzzled a bit by the sluggishness of a brand new machine that
has Windows-XP Home on it (which happened to come from Dell).
The machine is absolutely brand new and has NOT yet been connected
to the Internet, so I totally rule out any virus or spyware contamination.

(I'll be back to that person's new machine in the next day or two,
and I'll now use the CPU-column under the processes tab of the task
manager and look for any possible services that might be slowing
things down. The DHCP-client is no doubt trying to acquire
an IP-address on the not-yet-ready DSL modem line, so maybe
it will turn out to be something as simple as that to explain the apparent
sluggishness of file-system-related operations. I'll also make sure
that the graphics driver (and others) are up-to-date, via the
http://www.drivershq.com/
website.)

Thanks again for confirming that these OSes are so similar.

Cheers...

Dave

 

[Alex Nichol]

I've often wondered how Win-XP Home and Win-XP Pro differed.
I DID find a Microsoft webpage where the some of the functionality
differences were mentioned.

The thrust of my questions are not so much about functional differences,
but rather the origin of the codebases and the relative
efficiency/performance
of the two under exactly the same workloads.

So, here are a couple of questions that may shed some light on my issues:

(1) Is it TRUE that both variants are completely based on an evolution
of the Windows-NT kernel and user codebase? (Or does Win-XP Home
still contains portions of the Win-9x codebase to achieve certain closer
compatibility to Windows-ME, etc.?)

The core systems, outside the extra facilities in Pro only, are
identical - using exactly the same files. This is the latest version of
NT (5.1) with a new design outer shell, based on experiment in ME, and
with some internal improvements. It does not contain code out of 9x

If you do not want any of the extra Pro only items, save money and use
Home