XP Home or XP Pro?

[k. robinson]

I am building my first computer and was wondering which OS I should
use. . .Windows XP Home or XP Pro?. . . .some folks at work said XP
Pro is more stable than XP Home. . .has anyone else heard this?. .
..thanks,

 

[spodosaurus]

If you plan on networking, then go with PRO
Why?

--

Are you registered as a bone marrow donor? You regenerate what you
donate. You are offered the chance to donate only if you match a person
on the recipient list. Call your local Red Cross and ask about
registering to be a bone marrow donor.

spam trap: replace shyah_right! with hotmail when replying

 

[Harry]

PRO just gives a few extra power toys and stuff. If you are a true
home user then XP Home should do nicely.

 

[Pen]

They are equally stable, the major difference is that PRO can join
a domain while Home is limited to a 5 member peer to peer setup.
Get PRO if you need to connect to an at work large network, otherwise
Home is fine for home users.

 

[John E. Carty]

Neither. In your case, (building your own PC) use Windows 2000.
The reason may not be of much value right now, but in the future, if you ever
scrap this new PC and build another one, you will have to A)Convince M$ to let
you use XP on another machine, or B) Buy another license to use XP, thanks to
XP's registration process.

You can easily remove XP from one system and install it on another. You will
not have to convince Microsoft of anything, just explain what you have done
and they will give you your new code to activate, unless you have an OEM
version

 

[Wayne]

Actually, I just installed my old copy of XP (not OEM) on my new computer
.... new processor, mobo, hard drive, everything ... and the routine internet
activation worked just fine without even having to speak to Microsoft.

Wayne

 

[neopolaris]

Neither. Go get Windows2000 Pro

 

[Harry]

Why not also get a P3 500 while your'e at it. And you could thow away
that 17" monitor and downgrade to a 15"?

In my book XP is just as stable as 2000 ever was, indeed XP handles
problems alot more gracefully than 2000 (BSOD). also XP seems to be
faster than 2000 and carry less "bloatware" around with it.

..... now DOS ... theres a stable platform, lets go for that !

: o )

Harry

 

[Singha_lvr]

In my book XP is just as stable as 2000 ever was

I've had user profiles become corrupted on XP quite a few times. That's
something that I had not experienced on 2000. I've also had a few "hard
freezes" on WinXP which didn't happen in Win2k. (Shell frozen: can't even
pull up task manager, although I believe the underlying OS was still running
....not that it helped much.)

 

[Harry]

Hmmm Interesting. Cant say I have had either of those happen to me or
anyone in our company (35 of us)

Harry

 

[Disc]

It's the equipment. Some computer combinations work better with Win2K others
with WinXP. Here I find WinXP about the same or slightly stabler than Win2K
with almost no blue screening save when a machine gets overclocked! There
are computers here that have never blue screened or locked up with WinXP
since its beta days ever. The particular computer I'm typing this out from
did blue screen when overclocked. I stopped overcocking - no blue screens.

Disc

| Hmmm Interesting. Cant say I have had either of those happen to me or
| anyone in our company (35 of us)
|
| Harry
|
| On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 9:26:17 -0400, Singha_lvr <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:36:59 -0400, Harry wrote
| >(in message <[email protected]>):
| >
| >> In my book XP is just as stable as 2000 ever was
| >
| >I've had user profiles become corrupted on XP quite a few times. That's
| >something that I had not experienced on 2000. I've also had a few "hard
| >freezes" on WinXP which didn't happen in Win2k. (Shell frozen: can't
even
| >pull up task manager, although I believe the underlying OS was still
running
| >...not that it helped much.)
| >
|

 

[Harry]

Good points Disc

We use only DELL Server, PCs and Laptops so I would agree that
hardware plays a factor (and of course overclocking)

My ASUS Mobo at home has never blue screened either. I havent tried
overclocking it yet so can comment on its stability in XP when its
pushed.

cheers

Harry

 

[Strontium]

My experience is not opposite, but totally different, from yours. So, what
does that say about experience? I'm well aware of the 'once bitten, twice
shy' syndrome. Ask me about Gigabyte and Asus motherboards. No, don't
ask... But, then again, I've only had problems with the OS, when it was
usually my fault (hardware choices included).

I've found both Win2k AND XP to be very stable OS's. Sometimes, we have to
swallow our pride and realize that it could be the USER. I've, certainly,
been there.

 

[Guest]

I've found both Win2k AND XP to be very stable OS's. Sometimes, we have to
swallow our pride and realize that it could be the USER.

Or simply different hardware combinations.

I've seen XP extremely stable on 3rd party no-name hardware, I've also seen
it very UNSTABLE on different brands of no-name hardware.

I've also seen XP be extremely stable on some name brand systems (IBM,
Toshiba and Dell) as well as unstable on some name brand systems (Dell, and
even an HP laptop that couldn't keep XP running for more than a day due to
some poor video card implementation.)