Windows XP Pro or XP Home?! And Why?!

All I can see is the $45 difference, and nothing else, tell me why I would get the $135 PRO rather than the $90 HOME of Win XP. Thx.

-Rob

PS-Im buying these OEM from zipzoomfly (don't know if that matters or not or if you were wondering how so cheap).

 

Pro, Home quite frankly sucks and should only be owned if a lappy comes with it (not gonna say puter generally cause you wouldn't buy a prebuilt would ya )

For home they stripped away a lot of the networky bits and it's more akin to ME than Windows 2000... although both proclaim to be the offspring of both... XP is a more rounded better OS for the money.

 

Pro!!!!!!! I actually don't know why thats just what my nerd peers say.

 

Pro, It natively supports more than one monitor (for all you hardcore gamers out there), it also natively supports more than one processor. Also, it's more stable, I mean, I have managed to get XP Home pretty much bullet-proof but my XP Pro Machine is uncrashable.

 

I would go for Pro,, It they are basicly the same, but as mentioned before,, Home has had some functionality taken out of it. (read advanced options)

 

Pro supports Encrypting File System, Automated System Recovery, Fax, IIS, Domain membership, etc where Home does not.

 

Just another vote for pro here...
My wife's laptop has home, and she's just had too many more problems than I have, plus there is the whole IIS package, network features, and dual monitor/processor features already mentioned.

I got an OEM version of Pro for rather cheap when purchasing hardware for my computer from newegg, but I think I have a few limitations.

Definitely spring the extra $45, you won't be disappointed.

 

Always PRO, Home sux.

What are u talking about prices? We here get it for free

 

Pro is nice if you need the "extra" network features - it supports managed networks, multiple processors and other things mention above.

However if you dont need that stuff WHY pay for it. I think claiming XP Home is MORE stable than XP Pro is crap. Its the same core, if you find that information on a reputable web site with some REAL stats or info to back it up I will eat my words. Seems like a ludicrus claim to me. Maybe you guys think higher the number (or anything with the word PRO) in it MUST be better.

For home networking the Pro features will go largely usused. I have 5 PCs on my home network - 3 desktops (wired) and 2 laptops (wireless) and have NO problems or network snafus what-so-ever. All PCs share drives and printers with no problems. I use VNC to control a few of them remotely - no problems.

One of the PCs (media server) runs 24/7 only rebooting for updates. Have had uptimes upward of 2 months before.

Go thru a checklist and see if you need any of the features......the one I could see using might be the multiple monitor support. I have an ATI radeon in my media server and I use the supplied software and drivers to support multiple monitors so no need for XP Pro just for that.

The above being said I say save the cash for something more useful - unless you need features.

If any of you use a Windows XP Pro ONLY feature on a daily basis then chime in - maybe Im missing something here.

 

I think you are bang on here... I need Pro for IIS (plus I'm working up towards a server), but most guys dont.

And XP Home DOES share the same core as XP Pro. If anything Home is likely to be more stable since Pro sticks it's head further above the proverbial parapet. The more you got going on, there more there is to go wrong!

So save your cash, unless you specifically need pro features...

CJM

 

This comparison chart may help your decision.

 

The only difference is xppro loads the network files in when you install the OS, home doesn’t…. There still there you just have to load them in manually

 

Hmm....that doesnt seem quite right.

I have never had to "load files in manually" and really have no clue as exactly what a procedure such as that would entail. I have never been required to insert any Windows XP Home CD into the drive since after installing the OS. My network runs fine without the "network files" that you speak of so I guess Im saying your full of *censored*

 

Pro supports connections to a domain, with Home you're stuck with a workgroup. But if you're a home user it's not gonna matter (unless you run a really extreme home network )

Ignore all the crap about Home being more unstable than Pro , as the last few posts have said: they're exactly the same operating system with a few bits left out of Home.

 

*If* *you* *say* *so* *mate*

 

home..

omg *stops breathing* M U S T BREATH!

Don't ever go home!!!!!! NEVER! pro is alot better. Has more goddies, better for networking. Less buggy. Better all around.!

 

Less buggy eh? ...

Clearly some people STILL haven't figured out they're exactly the same operating system, just Home has some features disabled.

 

yup yup yup, gotta agree with those who say you may wanna save your cash and stick with home. XP pro is not less buggy then home, then there the same OS. Primary differences are the advanced networking features and the built in remote desktop utility. That being said, home still networks just fine and you can get remote desktop utilities online if you really want them. yes, pro has the built in dual mon support, but it just stretches your desktop, it's not a true dual mon system. Get ATIs hydravision or Nvidias dual monitor support program (name of nvidias escapes me at the moment, sry) they have much better features and are free ne-ways. In my experience, if you don't know why you need Pro, then you probably don't need Pro.

 

UltraMon is the superior package when it comes to dual monitors IMHO, though you do have to pay for it

(But that's off-topic anyway, whoops!)