Raymond J. Johnson Jr. said:
Always get the XP Pro version if at all possible.
Why do the poor Home Edition users have to use cacls.exe from the
command-line to change file and folder permissions or access the System
Volume Information while Windows 2000 and XP Pro users can use a GUI tool?
Also, joining a domain is not just for big corporations. I have a domain
here in my home with just three users and two computers. In addition to
using it for professional purposes, the domain security policies protect me
from two other non-domain computers that are used for file-swapping,
web-gaming, and other high-risk practices. I may not fair so well against
the various viruses those two computers have picked up over the years with
simple file sharing and blank administrator passwords.
Realistically, Windows XP Home Edition is a crippled version of Windows 2000
with a new Media Player and CD burning functionality thrown in for giggles.
Like I said, I would never bother with Home Edition unless I just couldn't
possibly afford the extra dollars for even an OEM upgrade version of Pro.
carl
I'm a "poor Home Edition user" who has never had occasion to use cacls.exe
under any circumstances in 3 years of XP use. Initiating a domain for a
home network and buying a more expensive version of the OS in order to
protect yourself against (presumably) your own family is a personal problem
and has nothing to do with the general question of Pro vs. Home for most
home users. I have never had any use for the extra features of Pro, and I
think I speak for most home users. To suggest that XP is just "a crippled
version of 2000" both ignorant and irresponsible.
Fine, I'm wrong about Home Edition and accept that you have never had a use
for any of the features that Microsoft must have had to explicitly cut out
of NT in creating a "Home Edition", and I even like the fast user switching
which Home Edition offers.
However, I still believe things like NT Backup, a Remote Desktop host, and
File-Level access control should not have been stripped out of the Home
Edition. Also, as far as protecting my data from my "family", there are
many many owners that prevent their family members, including themselves,
from logging on to the computer with Administrative privileges.
If you don't use any of that and never will, then you certainly don't need
to pay for it. I stand corrected.
carl
What it boils down to is the MS marketing strategy for XP. If they were to
have produced only a single version (Pro) as with 2000, a lot of home users
might have felt intimidated. On the other hand, had they marketed XP as an
"all-in-one" solution, commercial users would feel shortchanged. Also, it's
an excellent way to charge more money for essentially no investment; once
Pro had been produced it had to have actually cost *more* to develop the
Home version. The difference between Home and Pro is found money for MS.
And if you feel that Pro suits your needs better than Home, you pays your
money and takes your choice, as they say.
