Was hoping to buy this...

OEM’s are okay to buy. You just have to purchase a piece of hardware along with them. I would recommend against getting XP Home though. Definitely go with XP Pro, since you said “custom computer.” Me personally would never use the Home Edition.
 
Difference between Pro and Home

I don't know why people say pro is needed all the time. Chances are you don't need pro unless your joining a domain or have multiple CPUs.

Of course it says Pro and I'm sure if you use Home, your not a Pro... :rolleyes:
 
There are big differences.

Security is the major difference.

What Pro has the Home doesnt:
1. Encrypting File System
2. Access Control - Can restrict files, folders, applications
3. Remote Desktop - If you use it.

There are many other things also.

If you dont need any of the security. . . then go for Home I guess.

Pro is also known to be more stable.
 
ok thanks..but whats the minimum thing i can buy to get a profession oem at frys?
Cause it doesn`t say...
 
XP Home is in the same category as Windows ME with me, avoid it like the plague.
 
Scheizekopf said:
There are big differences.

Security is the major difference.

What Pro has the Home doesnt:
1. Encrypting File System
2. Access Control - Can restrict files, folders, applications
3. Remote Desktop - If you use it.

There are many other things also.

If you dont need any of the security. . . then go for Home I guess.

Pro is also known to be more stable.
Click to expand...

But doesnt the new windows come with SP2? their security right?
 
MorfiusX said:
XP Home is in the same category as Windows ME with me, avoid it like the plague.
Click to expand...

Oh, please! :rolleyes: What facts do you have to back that statement up?
 
MorfiusX said:
I have to have facts to back up an opinion?
Click to expand...

I am so with you MorfiusX.

Home is like ME. . . haha. That is a pretty good comparison.

If you know computers and operating systmes, you would not install either of them.

Get professional. If you cant afford it . . . find another way to get it. :cool:
 
MorfiusX said:
I have to have facts to back up an opinion?
Click to expand...
Unless you want that opinion laughed at for its extreme ignorance, then yes.

Scheizekopf said:
There are big differences.
Click to expand...
No, there are not.

Security is the major difference.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Feel free to try to prove it, though.

What Pro has the Home doesnt:
1. Encrypting File System
Click to expand...
Which practically no one uses, and if you can't describe how it somehow makes the computer more secure (which it doesn't), then you're full of crap. It's great to keep others from looking in your "My Documents" folder or any other folder you want to apply it to, but does not increase security of the system itself.

2. Access Control - Can restrict files, folders, applications
Click to expand...
Really? Then I guess it's odd that one of my laptops that runs XP Home has access rights to my file server that has excessive access restrictions on my content. I'm also willing to bet you $100 that you couldn't hack your way into my XP Home laptop. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, are you?

3. Remote Desktop - If you use it.
Click to expand...
Huge honking fallacy. The only thing that XP Home cannot do as far as RDP is host a terminal session. The RDP client is already found on XP Home (and is even downloadable for 9x/2k). So your ignorance to the actual OS is proving you wrong.

There are many other things also.
Click to expand...
And I bet you couldn't list any of them.

If you dont need any of the security. . . then go for Home I guess.

Pro is also known to be more stable.
Click to expand...
Lies, lies, lies. Pro is no more stable, it uses the very same kernel. I get the same up-time on my XP Home laptop as I do the XP Pro one—up time == times between reboots, since I hibernate when not using both.

You have no proof and no basis in fact for your claims, so please keep such lies out of the realm where people need facts and useful information.
 
GreNME said:
Unless you want that opinion laughed at for its extreme ignorance, then yes.
Click to expand...
Then laugh at me. That's your perogative. It's still my opinion. Very narrow-minded to discredit someone because they humbly express an opinion.
 
MorfiusX said:
Then laugh at me. That's your perogative. It's still my opinion. Very narrow-minded to discredit someone because they humbly express an opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm not discrediting you. I'm saying that you are being narrow-minded and ignorant by basing your opinion on your lack of information.

When you can offer something of substance instead of "I feel" for your opinion, then good for you. However, I am someone who bases opinions on being informed, and based on the facts and information out there, your opinion is not based on reality.
 
From my experiences I would only use Professional.

One question for the people who use Home.
Why use Home when you could use Professional?
 
Scheizekopf said:
From my experiences I would only use Professional.

One question for the people who use Home.
Why use Home when you could use Professional?
Click to expand...
The fact that your asking this questions tells us you shouldn't be answering the OP.

MorfiusX, if your don't have facts to back up an opinion, your not going to get any respect for that opinion.

You said "XP Home is in the same category as Windows ME with me, avoid it like the plague." Why do you think this is the case? The general informed opinion is that Home is OK. Home, being an NT based kernel, doesn't have ANY of the stability problems associated with the W9x line. It's also much more secure than ME...

I see misinformation all about this thread, except for GreNME's posts.

Sorry folks, your barking up the wrong tree here. Home is just as stable as pro, if you can find a feature on the list I provided that you require that home doesn't provide, then go pro. But like I said, if you don't have mulitple CPUs, or need to join a domain, HOME IS JUST FINE.
 
Phoenix86 said:
The fact that your asking this questions tells us you shouldn't be answering the OP.

MorfiusX, if your don't have facts to back up an opinion, your not going to get any respect for that opinion.

You said "XP Home is in the same category as Windows ME with me, avoid it like the plague." Why do you think this is the case? The general informed opinion is that Home is OK. Home, being an NT based kernel, doesn't have ANY of the stability problems associated with the W9x line. It's also much more secure than ME...

I see misinformation all about this thread, except for GreNME's posts.

Sorry folks, your barking up the wrong tree here. Home is just as stable as pro, if you can find a feature on the list I provided that you require that home doesn't provide, then go pro. But like I said, if you don't have mulitple CPUs, or need to join a domain, HOME IS JUST FINE.
Click to expand...

Do you use Home?

Do you build your own computers and install the OS yourself?

I bet more than 70% of the people on this forum that run XP will have Pro over Home.
 
Scheizekopf said:
From my experiences I would only use Professional.

One question for the people who use Home.
Why use Home when you could use Professional?
Click to expand...
More expensive, more overhead with resources, no performance gains for the extra cost.

Do you use Home?
Click to expand...
I do, both Home and Pro. Have you ever used it beyond opening Explorer or Internet Explorer and surfing the web? The innards of the OS are exactly the same, because with the exception of a few domain-specific features they are exactly the same.

Do you build your own computers and install the OS yourself?
Click to expand...
On almost every computer. Clarification: I didn't build my laptops, but have taken them apart and have had to reinstall the OS on them (one when setting it up dual-boot with Fedora). Care to try to explain what this has to do with the price of tea in China?

I bet more than 70% of the people on this forum that run XP will have Pro over Home.
Click to expand...
For the same reason Phoenix already pointed out, too. It sounds cooler to say you're running "XP Pro" than it does XP Home, as if it makes the person more professional or something. :rolleyes:
 
The upgrade to home was half the cost of pro and theres nothing on the pro version i use, so why buy it?
 
Do you use Home?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have used home enough. I have a domain setup and would require Pro, if I was running XP. That being said, my main rig is W2k. What's your point?

Do you build your own computers and install the OS yourself?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have hand built close to a 1000 machines. As far as the OS in concerned, I build and manage the OS images for the a couple of companies I have worked for. What's your point?

I bet more than 70% of the people on this forum that run XP will have Pro over Home.
Click to expand...
And I'd bet half of those could run Home and never know the difference.

Perhaps you could tell us why YOU need pro? What feature are you using that Home does not have?
 
Umm, guys, I have the same question as Eshelman...

What do you have to buy, exactly, to qualify for the OEM version of XP? Is it based on a dollar amount? Is it based on certain parts?

Plus, are the OEM's ok to use? Anything that I should worry about? I was thinking about buying an OEM XP Pro from newegg. I only want Pro for the enhanced networking features. I rely on other programs for security.
Thank, ya'll.
 
Jedimoto said:
Umm, guys, I have the same question as Eshelman...

What do you have to buy, exactly, to qualify for the OEM version of XP? Is it based on a dollar amount? Is it based on certain parts?

Plus, are the OEM's ok to use? Anything that I should worry about? I was thinking about buying an OEM XP Pro from newegg. I only want Pro for the enhanced networking features. I rely on other programs for security.
Thank, ya'll.
Click to expand...

I think Microsoft put out a list of eligible hardware that you can buy to get XP OEM with it, though I do think you could buy an ATA cable or something and also get it.

As for all these claims of XP Pro over XP Home, I run machines with both as well, as well as Win 2K Pro and Server machines. My main comp runs Pro, but not because I have some weird conception that Pro is better than Home. File encryption? Not needed. Dual proc support? Nope, only one proc here. Other features? Not used at all. I only use Pro because it came almost free of cost from my school.

Pro is just a superset of XP Home (all the features of Home, with some more stuff like user levels, same kernel and everything! like everyone keeps saying).
 
The only thing I'm interested in with Pro is the added networking features. I'll be creating a home network, and thought it might help to have Pro.
So, will I even use the added features? What are they?
I know about the encryption stuff, added security (neither are needed with me), and remote access (definately not needed), but the more robust networking is what really attracts me. I guess I don't really know what all that entails, though.
I guess I've been listening to the hype too. :cool:
I need to find out more about the difference between Home network features and Pro network features.
 
Jedimoto said:
The only thing I'm interested in with Pro is the added networking features. I'll be creating a home network, and thought it might help to have Pro.
So, will I even use the added features? What are they?
I know about the encryption stuff, added security (neither are needed with me), and remote access (definately not needed), but the more robust networking is what really attracts me. I guess I don't really know what all that entails, though.
I guess I've been listening to the hype too. :cool:
I need to find out more about the difference between Home network features and Pro network features.
Click to expand...
You would need to use Active Directory in a domain to do something with Pro that Home cannot do networking-wise. There are no extra "robust" features as far as networking, Pro just allows the computer to join a domain (as opposed to a workgroup).
 
Differences between XP pro and home. Link.

If you want to join a domain, pro is required, both have workgroup networking. If you want to setup a home network to learn networking (will actually have server running) I strongly suggest pro for your workstations so you can learn AD.
 
BillLeeLee said:
I think Microsoft put out a list of eligible hardware that you can buy to get XP OEM with it, though I do think you could buy an ATA cable or something and also get it.
Click to expand...
Does it really matter what you buy as long as the retailer sells you the OS?
This debate came up with Newegg a while ago. They were allowing you to buy OEM XP with a cable or something and people were debating if it qualified.
Isn't it the seller's responsibility to make sure your purchase the required hardware? Because either way you're going to get the license to stick on your case, and MS is never going to know where you got it.
 
I bet more than 70% of the people on this forum that run XP will have Pro over Home.
Click to expand...
because probably 50% of the people here have illegal xp copies, and they both take the same time to download ;)


btw, i buy my OS's and i use xp pro because it is only a little bit more and i like the blue boot screen bar insted of green. lol (yes i know i can change it)
 
compslckr said:
because probably 50% of the people here have illegal xp copies, and they both take the same time to download ;)


btw, i buy my OS's and i use xp pro because it is only a little bit more and i like the blue boot screen bar insted of green. lol (yes i know i can change it)
Click to expand...

As of SP2, all versions of XP have a blue boot screen bar.
 
S1nF1xx said:
Does it really matter what you buy as long as the retailer sells you the OS?
This debate came up with Newegg a while ago. They were allowing you to buy OEM XP with a cable or something and people were debating if it qualified.
Isn't it the seller's responsibility to make sure your purchase the required hardware? Because either way you're going to get the license to stick on your case, and MS is never going to know where you got it.
Click to expand...
As much sense as it makes... I'd bet no. Why? Who do you think is the OEM in this scenario? I'll give you a hint, it isn't newegg.

















It's you.
 
XP Home? No.

XP PRo? No.

Win2000 SP4? Hell yeah.

No kiddie wizards, no gimmicks, and a track record of stability.
 
I have XP Pro on one of my laptops and my Shuttle which I take to work and require the networking features. Home is fine though. As for the poster above, I agree. I've never really saw a need to upgrade past win2k on my main game rig. XP seems like a bit of overfluff to me.

Of course, I would be happier if Microsuck would support an XP SP2 feature set to Win2k since it isn't EOL yet, but I don't personally require it. It just annoys me that it would be unceremoniously "dropped" off the radar and almost force you to get XP if you=n00b. I find that tacky. I use my Mac for surfing and stuff and my 2k/xp machines are for playing with networking shtuff for work :cool:
 
ok I heard from a friend that sometimes when Home is being installed it can occasionally miss a field in a unspecified *.ini file . .. . . . anyone ever heard of such a case?
 
greyghost said:
ok I heard from a friend that sometimes when Home is being installed it can occasionally miss a field in a unspecified *.ini file . .. . . . anyone ever heard of such a case?
Click to expand...
Barring the occasional manufacturing defect (which you can swap with MS), it's entirely untrue.
 
I cant believe we are still discussing this... :p

Its amazing how much people HERE, where we are supposed to be somewhat informed, still fall for the "xp pro is better than home" line...

Its a shame forum rules stop me from calling this people outrights idiots. :mad:
 
Well, I've heard enough. Screw Pro.
I'll take the $100 I save getting Home and buy a nice Mouse or Trackball. Thanks for all the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top