Windows XP Home vs. Pro Memory Usage?

D

danyal711

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
205
Hi,

I am a power user and I am wondering if I should install XP home or pro (I just reformated). I am aware of the differences and probably wouldnt use anything in XP pro except remote desktop (which I think you can download for home?). Will the base boot up memory usage be higher on pro/would pro be slower? Is there any reason why I shouldnt pick one or the other in terms of speed/resource usage or are they exactly the same besides the extra stuff pro comes with?


Also, on a side note. I dont really like all the stuff SP2 adds to XP. If i stick with SP1 I was under the impression that my computer will still be safe in terms of the patches they release (I know I wont have the firewall etc but I thought that I would still be patched for all the latest viruses/exploits) is this true?
 
get the xp pro and just sp1 , xp pro better because it has complete drive bundled with it than xp home....
 
dude wth?

to the OP

XP Pro has only a few things over Home the big ones are domain support, IIS, remote in to another XP box, and to use more then CPU SOCKET

if you dont need any of that Home is just fine

as to SP2 GET IT if not you wont get any more updates the end of the year
and it fixes alot other stuff you can turn off the windows firewall crap its not hard
 
danyal711 said:
Hi,

I am a power user and I am wondering if I should install XP home or pro (I just reformated).
Click to expand...
What does "power user" mean?

I am aware of the differences and probably wouldnt use anything in XP pro except remote desktop (which I think you can download for home?). Will the base boot up memory usage be higher on pro/would pro be slower? Is there any reason why I shouldnt pick one or the other in terms of speed/resource usage or are they exactly the same besides the extra stuff pro comes with?
Click to expand...
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx

If you need the features of pro, get it. Otherwise get home. Don't worry about memory usage... Really.

Also, on a side note. I dont really like all the stuff SP2 adds to XP. If i stick with SP1 I was under the impression that my computer will still be safe in terms of the patches they release (I know I wont have the firewall etc but I thought that I would still be patched for all the latest viruses/exploits) is this true?
Click to expand...
Service packs are not optional with regards to security. You may have a period in time where the older pack is supported (aka patches are still available), but this is for a transition period only. It's not to allow you to choose which one your want to run.
 
gtjr_ph said:
get the xp pro and just sp1 , xp pro better because it has complete drive bundled with it than xp home....
Click to expand...
Wow. Just wow. Has it gotten this bad around here?
 
Phoenix86 said:
Wow. Just wow. Has it gotten this bad around here?
Click to expand...
Yes, sadly it has. Welcome back. :(

To the OP: If you truly were a "power-user", you'd have SP2 installed already, and wouldn't even question it's necessity. A true "power-user" welcomes what XP SP2 adds, and wouldn't even dare admit not having their XP discs slipstreamed up to SP2 already.

I can't imagine memory usage being any different between the two. If I understand it right (because I've never used XP Home), you can't connect to a Home machine using RDP, but you can download the viewer to connect to other XP Pro and Server 2003 machines.
 
syntx said:
disable all services that
Click to expand...
Uh oh...
CanofWorms.jpg
 
danyal711 said:
Hi,

I am a power user and I am wondering if I should install XP home or pro (I just reformated). I am aware of the differences and probably wouldnt use anything in XP pro except remote desktop (which I think you can download for home?). Will the base boot up memory usage be higher on pro/would pro be slower? Is there any reason why I shouldnt pick one or the other in terms of speed/resource usage or are they exactly the same besides the extra stuff pro comes with?


Also, on a side note. I dont really like all the stuff SP2 adds to XP. If i stick with SP1 I was under the impression that my computer will still be safe in terms of the patches they release (I know I wont have the firewall etc but I thought that I would still be patched for all the latest viruses/exploits) is this true?
Click to expand...
You talk like you understand more than you actually do, if your post is any indication. SP2 actually has a smaller resource footprint than pre-SP2, and you will never find an equivalent to all the security features in SP2 through 3rd-party apps that doesn't wind up using more system resources. Not using SP2 is pure ignorance based on rumor.

That said: use XP Home. It uses fewer resources than Pro by default, because it is more geared toward-- surprise, surprise-- home use. People like using XP Pro because some of them seem to think using a software with "professional" in the name somehow makes them more l33t. If you surf the web, use Office, and play some games, then Home is the number one choice, hands-down. Unless joining to a domain and/or dealing with EFS, then it's better to stick with Home Edition. The ignorant folk who use Pro and never do anything with it that requires Pro are still ignorant folk, just as ricers who put huge spoilers and rims on their PoS Camry's are still driving PoS Camry's.
 
There are a few instances where using Pro is needed for the home:

If you require it for use with a multi-socket motherboard. (Such as my system in my sig)

If you plan on running 64bit XP for the hell of it. 64bit Windows XP only comes in the Pro flavor.

IIS, joining a domain, EFS support, and a few other features are not needed. XP Pro and Home are indistinguishable on the same hardware in terms of performance. People thinking Pro is more memory efficient comes from intarweb rumor mills and has no basis in fact.

Fact is on a fresh system, I get about 19 processes in use on either Pro or Home when I've installed Windows. The few extra services that are there, you don't even notice. You can do them off if you feel like you need to, but honestly you won't notice.
 
Dan_D said:
There are a few instances where using Pro is needed for the home:

If you require it for use with a multi-socket motherboard. (Such as my system in my sig)

If you plan on running 64bit XP for the hell of it. 64bit Windows XP only comes in the Pro flavor.

IIS, joining a domain, EFS support, and a few other features are not needed. XP Pro and Home are indistinguishable on the same hardware in terms of performance. People thinking Pro is more memory efficient comes from intarweb rumor mills and has no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Add this reason to the list:
When at work and you want to mess around you can RD into your XP Pro PC at home... seriously though, Remote Desktop host has to be the main reason if any that someone would want to use XP Pro in a "home" enviroment. Other than that, I do not use any Pro features at all at home.
 
Met-AL said:
Add this reason to the list:
When at work and you want to mess around you can RD into your XP Pro PC at home... seriously though, Remote Desktop host has to be the main reason if any that someone would want to use XP Pro in a "home" enviroment. Other than that, I do not use any Pro features at all at home.
Click to expand...
Your work's IT policy would have to allow it. Either that, it you have to be the sysadmin (or IT manager). That significantly lowers the number of people who could take advantage of such a thing.

Luckily for me, I make the IT policy here where I work. :)
 
Where I work, we have 140+ locations in the US and more around the world, so RD is a needed tool... but, our network is pretty secure with only ports 80 HTTP, 443 HTTPS, and FTP 21 being allowed on outbound traffic, so, I use 443 and have my DLG-4300 forward 443 to 3389. I get to have RD since I am the "smart" one at our location and they use me to help them when needed (go look and tell me if the light on the switch is blinking, did some paper come out of the printer, etc). In other words, I am a tool :D

I am waiting for the day for that to stop working, but until then...
 
Met-AL said:
Where I work, we have 140+ locations in the US and more around the world, so RD is a needed tool... but, our network is pretty secure with only ports 80 HTTP, 443 HTTPS, and FTP 21 being allowed on outbound traffic, so, I use 443 and have my DLG-4300 forward 443 to 3389. I get to have RD since I am the "smart" one at our location and they use me to help them when needed (go look and tell me if the light on the switch is blinking, did some paper come out of the printer, etc). In other words, I am a tool :D

I am waiting for the day for that to stop working, but until then...
Click to expand...
Wow, I won't even allow RDP into my network at home and work. It's VPN or nothing, unless you want to access our OWA through HTTPS.

On the other hand, I'm paranoid and my company has only three locations (currently) across the US. I do find Remote Assistance to be increibly helpful, though, since I am the IT department as far as staff goes (for now). RDP definitely kicks PCAnywhere's ass, hands down.
 
GreNME said:
Wow, I won't even allow RDP into my network at home and work. It's VPN or nothing,
Click to expand...
I allow RDP, but you have to be authenticated to our network first...no outside RDP connections.
 
GreNME said:
SP2 actually has a smaller resource footprint than pre-SP2, and you will never find an equivalent to all the security features in SP2 through 3rd-party apps that doesn't wind up using more system resources. Not using SP2 is pure ignorance based on rumor.
Click to expand...

Is this actually true? As far as I have seen SP2 uses quite a bit more resources... Also I have yet to find the security features in SP2 useful... so I am not too worried about having to replace them with 3rd party apps... What I am wondering is whether the actual security holes are patched in SP1 as well?
 
danyal711 said:
Is this actually true? As far as I have seen SP2 uses quite a bit more resources... Also I have yet to find the security features in SP2 useful... so I am not too worried about having to replace them with 3rd party apps... What I am wondering is whether the actual security holes are patched in SP1 as well?
Click to expand...
There are security patches in SP1, but some that are not patched...meaning SP2 is necessary. SP2 is a must these days...it's no optional. A very very simple understanding of the current state of computer security is all that's needed to know SP2 is a must. If you install it the right way, by slipstreaming it into your install disc (why hasn't everyone done this yet?), not only will it be installed right away, but you shouldn't notice a difference in terms of performance compared to a pre-SP2 system. As far as the security features built in to SP2, there's nothing wrong with not using them, such as the firewall, if you have something else installed to handle it. I myself have them disabled, because I'm using Windows LiveOnceCare. I used to work for HP, until this spring, and any XP PC on the network that didn't have AV software or SP2 was pulled from the network within minutes of having it online.
 
ok, sounds good. I just did a clean install of XP pro, SP1 and then SP2 integrated and the startup memory is 80MB vs. 106MB, so there is a difference for sure. I still feel that if you run SP1, microsoft provides patches that make SP1 as secure as SP2 without all the SP2 firewall etc etc. I may be wrong but I have yet to find any actual info that proves otherwise.
 
GreNME said:
You talk like you understand more than you actually do, if your post is any indication. SP2 actually has a smaller resource footprint than pre-SP2, and you will never find an equivalent to all the security features in SP2 through 3rd-party apps that doesn't wind up using more system resources. Not using SP2 is pure ignorance based on rumor.

That said: use XP Home. It uses fewer resources than Pro by default, because it is more geared toward-- surprise, surprise-- home use. People like using XP Pro because some of them seem to think using a software with "professional" in the name somehow makes them more l33t. If you surf the web, use Office, and play some games, then Home is the number one choice, hands-down. Unless joining to a domain and/or dealing with EFS, then it's better to stick with Home Edition. The ignorant folk who use Pro and never do anything with it that requires Pro are still ignorant folk, just as ricers who put huge spoilers and rims on their PoS Camry's are still driving PoS Camry's.
Click to expand...
Or if you want to RDP into your home machine.. or have non-administrator users..
 
/me likes his XP-home (but keeps Gentoo for all the serious stuff)
 
kumquat said:
.. or have non-administrator users..
Click to expand...

'zactly - A common PC with myself as admin and kids as users, and XP Pro's file-level security settings (which HOME does not have) are ESSENTIAL for making non-admin unfriendly games friendly by changing directory permissions.

They really should be called "XP-single user" and "XP-multi user". :)

BB
 
Exactly.

IMO, here's the deal with the OS's.

Pro supports
+File level security
+Remote Desktop Protocol
+Multiple CPU's
+64 Bit CPU's

If none of these are going to be used by you, just stick with Home edition and save yourself some money. To be honest, I don't like RDP built in anyway, it's almost like Microsoft throwing in a Trojan into Windows if you have in enabled but your security is rather lax. 64 bit CPU's are becoming more commen thanks to AMD but without good drivers it's rather useless. My mobo has preliminary 64 bit beta drivers but that's it.
 
cleathco said:
64 Bit CPU's
Click to expand...
Just to clarify this, you can use XP Home on a 64bit processor. However, there is no such thing as XP Home 64bit. If you need/want a 64 bit version of XP, it has to be XP Pro 64.
 
but since there is like... 3 Windows binary 64bit application why bother running Windows in 64bit mode and thus warrant having Pro of Home

At my next upgrade in 2months I will be going 64bit Linux BUT staying 32bit windows due to the lack of apps for windows that are 64bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top