Which OS is better for a small business: XP Home or Pro?

[Karma]

Or does it make a difference at all?

I'm building a machine for a plumber, and he needs to get a new OS so that he can run small business programs from it.

He can't use the XP Home disc he has from home, he re-installed just a month ago.

 

[djnes]

He can't use the XP Home disc he has from home, he re-installed just a month ago.

Not sure what that means, but you/he need to take a look at the differences between the two. If it's a standalone computer, Home should be fine. However, without knowing any of the details, I can't say that for sure.

 

[perplex]

Well isn't Home not supposed to be as "stable" as XP Pro?

Not sure, but if so then Pro always!

 

[Karma]

With this new machine there will be three computers total. What I meant about the XP Home disc is that he already has Windows XP Home. I was thinking about just using his existing XP disc to install in the new machine, but he reinstalled the XP Home OS about a month ago.

I thought that MS wouldn't allow multiple installs on different computers within a 6 month period.

 

[hity645]

My boss has WinXP Home insatlled on both his comps for work, all he does is email and excel. So theres no need for him to use Pro. If its just 1 or 2 comps hes gonna use, home should be fine.

 

[SJConsultant]

Using one disc and keycode for multiple installs is piracy. period.

XP Home is just as stable as XP Pro, there are *NO* differences with the exception of a few "features".

As far as using Home or Pro, you need to be asking questions about his long term goals and expansion plans because if at some point in time he wishes to use something like Small Business Server 2003, then he will eventually need XP Pro on all of his systems.

 

[BillLeeLee]

I thought that MS wouldn't allow multiple installs on different computers within a 6 month period.

Microsoft doesn't allow multiple installs with the same key (unless of course, corporate license). You can use the same disc for all your installs if you have a different license key for each system.

Without more details, I'm not sure if you need home or pro. Do you need to join a domain? Do you need support for dual physical processors? Or are these computers just going to surf the net and use MS Word and Excel all day?

Well isn't Home not supposed to be as "stable" as XP Pro?

Same kernel, they're both the same OS at heart. Pro just has more features most 'home' users don't need, like more networking functions.

 

[djnes]

Let the misinformation abound! They are damn near the same OS, so one isn't more/less stable than the other. And, as mentioned, multiple installs with the same license is piracy....has nothing to do with a 6 month period.

Anyway, as BillLeeLee mentioned, without giving us the details of the network, we can't really answer. Go to the following link and decide based on his requirements.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx

 

[AMD[H]unter]

If he is going to be on a network at all (with another machine) Pro is the only way to go. XP Home is a bitch on a network, period.

 

[fibroptikl]

Pro

 

[ccarrigan]

Is he at home? No.

 

[Pixeleet]

Is he at home? No.

Best answer evar!

 

[Lowbatt]

I would suggest Pro just for the fact that down the road he may get a real server or some such and it would save the hassel of having to get pro then. If he NEVER plans on growing his business to that stage then home is fine.

 

[Zardoz]

I would tell him to go pro, even though he is a small business and -might- not ever use the features of XP Pro, it's just a better way to go for any business. later if he does need the features, he will have them.

As for stability, the two versions are just as stable.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Well isn't Home not supposed to be as "stable" as XP Pro?

Not sure, but if so then Pro always!

Well you heard wrong - they aree both built on the same kernal - just PRO has more "security" based features - both are equally as stable - but PRO is more secure for a networked environment - a single user set up home will suffice fine.

 

[soulsaver_8229]

As far as i know, you can download programs that the "Pro" xp has, not direct M$ related, but programs that do the same thing..........really the money isnt worth it, id just download the programs that come with XPpro dont ask me where to dl them, i have enough security i feel for my system


soulsaver_8229

 

[darktiger]

Get the Pro and just have him write it off....

 

[Empyrean]

Pro, yo.

 

[mgleason007]

Does he even need Windows? What exactly are "small business programs"? If he just wants Word, Excel, and Internet Explorer, you could save a lot of money by installing an easy Linux distro like Fedora Core or Ubuntu with OpenOffice.org and Firefox. Plus it would drastically increase security.

 

[MrGuvernment]

using fedora core would not increase security- since it is aiming to be the "windows" of the linux world. - using freeBSD might

but also, it could be a matter of who is maintaining these systems and do they know linux?

 

[S1nF1xx]

Does he even need Windows? What exactly are "small business programs"? If he just wants Word, Excel, and Internet Explorer, you could save a lot of money by installing an easy Linux distro like Fedora Core or Ubuntu with OpenOffice.org and Firefox. Plus it would drastically increase security.

Linux isn't all that secure if it's run by someone who doesn't know a goddamn thing about it. Jesus Christ, Linux is not a friendly OS PERIOD. Hence why Windows owns the entire home market. So when someone asks "Which version of WINDOWS to run?", it would be nice if there wouldn't be people trying to pimp Linux. Thanks.


/tired grumpy rant

 

[Phoenix86]

/tired grumpy rant

Are you even old enough to be grumpy?

For a small business I'd get pro in case he ever setup a domain. Depends on how many people too, I guess.

 

[mgleason007]

Linux isn't all that secure if it's run by someone who doesn't know a goddamn thing about it. Jesus Christ, Linux is not a friendly OS PERIOD. Hence why Windows owns the entire home market. So when someone asks "Which version of WINDOWS to run?", it would be nice if there wouldn't be people trying to pimp Linux. Thanks.


/tired grumpy rant

Just shows that you haven't used a friendly distro lately. I installed Ubuntu with absolutely no hassle with drivers or anything on my nforce2 motherboard. I had to press enter a few times and name my machine. Sound worked, my SATA hard drive worked, and it was good. Windows was a different story. No floppy drive in the machine so I had to slipstream in my onboard SATA drivers into my Windows disc. Got it installed, but none of the onboard lan/video/etc worked so I had to go to another machine and burn the drivers onto a CD. Finally got my hardware working. And all just to play games. Windows was by far the bigger hassle to install.

And yes, Linux IS more secure even if you don't know shit about it. Why? Because not every fucking program is running as root as it is in Windows. If someone hijacks IE in Windows they have total control over your machine because it runs in kernel space, which is so jacked up. Any browser you run in Linux does NOT run in kernel space and so the worst someone could do would be to wipe or read whatever is in your home directory, and not compromise the entire system.

Windows owns the entire market because they are a monopoly and engage in unethical and illegal business practices. Linux IS a friendly OS. Well, technically, Gnome/KDE are friendly window managers, and MANY distributions have very friendly installs. Windows is not very "friendly" at all.

/rant to the uneducated

 

[SJConsultant]

The OP would need to ask about the specific applications the business owner wants to run before deciding on the OS to run.

Otherwise, there is no need to derail this thread with linux vs windows crap and it should be either started as a new thread or taken to PM.

 

[oldpablo]

My two cents, I've seen far too many small businesses (even with three PCs) go the Home route thinking that's all they needed, only to have to fork out lots of money a year later to replace them all with Pro when their needs shifted a bit (added a server, want to easily work from home with RDP, etc). Its worth the money to be sure, so just do Pro. If anything, they will FEEL more professional and you will look more professional having offered them the proper product. It seriously isnt that much more. Nothing wrong with Home, but it generally is best in the long run to use it where it was designed to be used. In the home.

 

[icthus13]

Just get Pro.

 

[Hollow4]

if you are building the machines get him oem pro. it aint all that expensive. and hell if your buying them from some get them without an os and buy yourself a new piece of hardware, like that new video card you probably want and just add in oem xp pro. in any event pro is better in the long run.

tossing in my 2 cents on linux. dont think linux is easy. hell it took me two weeks to set up a simple samba server. but then again i didnt put to much effort into it.

cheers
Ryan

 

[mgleason007]

The OP would need to ask about the specific applications the business owner wants to run before deciding on the OS to run.

Otherwise, there is no need to derail this thread with linux vs windows crap and it should be either started as a new thread or taken to PM.

Right, which is what I suggested (find out what programs are needed). If Windows-specific programs are not needed, then Windows isn't the only option. Heaven forbid he consider all of his options (not directed at you)

 

[S1nF1xx]

You have your opinions I have mine. No need to get your /dev/panties in a bunch.

The fact remains that the OP wants to know if he should get Home or Pro, not Linux.


I've seen many small businesses go the Home route, only to find out they needed a feature only Pro has. So I recommend he gets Pro right away. ~$70 more, but it's a lot cheaper and easier than upgrading down the road.

 

[mgleason007]

You have your opinions I have mine. No need to get your /dev/panties in a bunch.

The fact remains that the OP wants to know if he should get Home or Pro, not Linux.


I've seen many small businesses go the Home route, only to find out they needed a feature only Pro has. So I recommend he gets Pro right away. ~$70 more, but it's a lot cheaper and easier than upgrading down the road.

When I see someone is running a business on the machine I automatically think "stay away from Windows" as sensitive information would likely be stored on the machine. Hell, a mac may actually suit his needs better. We don't know because the OP has yet to come back and answer any of our questions.

It just hits a nerve when someone says things like "Linux sucks because a) you can't double-click to install programs (WRONG), b) it is not friendly (WRONG), c) Windows has the majority of the market share so it MUST be better (WRONG, that's a fallacy (the bandwagon argument), market share has nothing to do with anything), d) it is too difficult to install (WRONG), etc. My point has been made and I'm probably getting annoying (it's late) so I'll just stop.

Sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent there, and sorry if I overreacted to your post, but this thread is kinda pointless ATM. The answer to the question is Pro given the limited information.

 

[djnes]

Right, which is what I suggested (find out what programs are needed). If Windows-specific programs are not needed, then Windows isn't the only option. Heaven forbid he consider all of his options (not directed at you)

But your missing the point. The OP asked what version of XP. meaning he wants one of those two choices. It does get annoying to see people suggest Linux, when it's not one of the choices. The fact is, to the average joe computer user, Linux is NOT an option. It's also wrong of you to call S1nF1xx, and then say the OP should use Linux. Speaking of education, if you knew how to use and maintain an XP machine, you'd know it would perfectly suit the needs of the small business owner. Don't come in flaming another user's opinion, only to give a lesser suggestion yourself.

 

[mgleason007]

But your missing the point. The OP asked what version of XP. meaning he wants one of those two choices.

Maybe he didn't think about running Linux. Maybe he has bought into the FUD that Microsoft has been spreading about Linux, as apparantly many of you in this thread have. It is only a suggestion. There is no need for all of the panty bunching the moment Linux is mentioned.

It does get annoying to see people suggest Linux, when it's not one of the choices.

Fair enough.

The fact is, to the average joe computer user, Linux is NOT an option.

Why not? It is now easier to setup than Windows and unless he specifically needs something that is Windows-only, like Microsoft's Office suite and can't use an alternative such as OpenOffice, it is an option. Please explain why it's not.

It's also wrong of you to call S1nF1xx, and then say the OP should use Linux.

What are you talking about?

Speaking of education, if you knew how to use and maintain an XP machine, you'd know it would perfectly suit the needs of the small business owner. Don't come in flaming another user's opinion, only to give a lesser suggestion yourself.

I do know how to use and maintain an XP machine. It's what I do for a living, but that's not the point. Do you think this small business owner is going to be able to properly maintain those machines? All of these idiot computer users who are on AOL dial-up get adware, spyware, and viruses out the wazoo. If they would all convert to another OS like Linux or Mac OS X (yes I know the cost of that is rather prohibitive atm), they would not have these problems. They would be rather fine with using Linux, Firefox, and OpenOffice.org. Plus I'd be out of a job

I never flamed a user's opinion. I pointed out the errors in the misinformation. See, an opinoin is "I like blue." "Linux is more secure" is not an opinion, it's a fact, and I backed that up in a previous post. The "lesser suggestion" is your opinion. Back it up.

 

[darkmaninc]

Well once again i see some people can't seem to stay on the topic at hand... My suggestion would be to go with Windows XP Pro being he's running a small business and it will allow him to expand in the future if he so chooses.
now as far as those who have chimed in on this Linux vs Windows....
Yes Linux has gotten much easier to install and maintain... It all depends on which Linux compile you're using... and there are many to choose from.. Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake just to name a few... but your typical PC user these days have grown acustomed to Windows... and that's what most of them tend to use...
Here is Reality... Windows is NOT for EVERYONE... and Linux is NOT for EVERYONE either... Some people will choose Windows as their OS and some will choose Linux or some other OS... Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, etc... it really is up to the end-user as to what they feel most comfortable with...
Well that's my .02 cents...

 

[icehokplyr]

Or does it make a difference at all?

I'm building a machine for a plumber, and he needs to get a new OS so that he can run small business programs from it.

He can't use the XP Home disc he has from home, he re-installed just a month ago.

That depends if you want networking or not. XP Home is the same as Pro but without as much networking.

 

[mgleason007]

That depends if you want networking or not. XP Home is the same as Pro but without networking.

Without networking? What are you talking about? XP Home supports networking just fine. It's just limited to the number of connections it can make. EDIT: It just can't join domains.

 

[icehokplyr]

Without networking? What are you talking about? XP Home supports networking just fine. It's just limited to the number of connections it can make. EDIT: It just can't join domains.

Exactly........

 

[SJConsultant]

That depends if you want networking or not. XP Home is the same as Pro but without networking.

That isn't the only difference and your statement does not quite define the differences in networking functionality

How to Choose

 

[icehokplyr]

That isn't the only difference and your statement does not quite define the differences in networking functionality

How to Choose

I didn't go to far in depth about it, true. But if you know more about it then post.

 

[icehokplyr]

Here, is this good enough? At least I'm trying to help the guy out.

Pro features that aren't in Home Edition[font=Verdana, Arial, Times]
The following features are not present in Windows XP Home Edition.[/font]

Professional Edition: Superset of Home Edition[font=Verdana, Arial, Times]
At its most basic level, XP Professional is a business- and power-user oriented superset of Home Edition. Because this orientation, it includes features that wouldn't be appropriate, or would be too complex, for the typical home user. The most obvious difference is security, which is vastly simplified in Home Edition. Each interactive user in XP Home is assumed to be a member of the Owners local group, which is the Windows XP equivalent of the Windows 2000 Administrator account: This means that anyone who logs on to a Home Edition machine has full control. Likewise, the Backup Operators, Power Users, and Replicator groups from Windows 2000/XP Pro are missing from Home Edition, and a new group, called Restricted Users, is added. Hidden administrative shares (C$, etc.) are also unavailable in Home Edition.
"Professional Edition is a strict superset of Home Edition," confirmed Chris Jones, Vice President of the Windows Client Group. "Everything you can do in Home Edition, you can do in Pro. So we do think there are home users who will buy Pro." Jones' distinction is a good one: With Windows XP, the Professional Edition is finally a superset of all the desktop clients that came before (Windows Me and Windows 2000 Professional) as well as of its new sibling. So when discussing the differences between the editions, it's best to simply describe those features in Pro that you can't get in Home Edition. [/font]


Networking features [font=Verdana, Arial, Times]
The following networking features are not included in Home Edition:
The user interface for IPSecurity (IPSec)
SNMP
Simple TCP/IP services
SAP Agent
Client Service for NetWare
Network Monitor
Multiple Roaming feature
Management [font=Verdana, Arial, Times]
Domain membership - Home Edition cannot be used to logon to an Active Directory domain. For obvious reasons, the Domain Wizard is also missing in Home Edition.
Group Policy - Since Home Edition cannot be used to logon to an Active Directory domain, Group Policy--whereby applications, network resources, and operating systems are administered for domain users--is not supported either.
IntelliMirror - Microsoft lumps a wide range of semi-related change and configuration management technologies under the IntelliMirror umbrella, and none of these features are supported in the consumer oriented Home Edition. IntelliMirror capabilities include user data management; centrally-managed software installation, repair, updating, and removal; user settings management; and Remote Installation Services (RIS), which allows administrators to remotely install the OS on client systems.
Roaming profiles - This feature allows users to logon to any computer in an Active Directory network and automatically receive their customized settings. It is not available in Home Edition, which cannot logon to an Active Directory domain.
Power user [font=Verdana, Arial, Times]
Remote Desktop - All versions of Windows XP--including Home Edition--support Remote Assistance, which is an assisted support technology that allows a help desk or system administrator to remotely connect to a client desktop for troubleshooting purposes. But Only Pro supports the new Remote Desktop feature, which is a single-session version of Terminal Services with two obvious uses: Mobile professionals who need to remotely access their corporate desktop, and remote administration of clients on a network. You can access a Windows XP Remote Desktop from any OS that supports a Terminal Services client (such as Windows 98 and, interestingly XP Home). XP Home can act as the client in a Remote Desktop session; only Pro can be the server.
Multi-processor support - Windows XP Pro supports up to two microprocessors, while Home Edition supports only one.
Automated System Recovery (ASR) - In a somewhat controversial move, Microsoft has removed the Backup utility from the default Windows XP Home Edition, though it is available as an optional installation if you can find it on the CD-ROM (hint: it's in the /valueadd folder). The reason for this the integration of Microsoft's new Automated System Recovery (ASR) tool into Backup. In Pro, ASR will help recover a system from a catastrophic error, such as one that renders the system unbootable. ASR-enabled backups are triggerable from XP Setup, allowing you to return your system to its previous state, even if the hard drive dies and has to be replaced. Unlike consumer-oriented features such as System Restore, ASR is not automatic: It must manually be enabled from within the Backup utility in Windows XP Pro. In any event, while there is a Backup utility available for Home Edition, you cannot use ASR, even though mentions of this feature still exist in the UI. Confusing? Yes. But it's better than no Backup at all, which was the original plan.
Dynamic Disk Support - Windows XP Professional (like its Windows 2000 equivalent) supports dynamic disks, but Home Edition does not (instead, HE supports only the standard Simple Disk type). Dynamic disks are not usable with any OS other than Windows 2000 or Windows XP Pro, and they cannot be used on portable computers. Likewise, Home Edition does not include the Logical Disk Manager.
Fax - Home Edition has no integrated fax functionality out of the box, though it is an option you can install from the XP Home CD.
Internet Information Services/Personal Web Server - Home Edition does not include the IIS Web server 5.1 software found in Pro.

• Security [font=Verdana, Arial, Times]
  [*]Encrypting File System - Windows XP Professional supports the Encrypting File System (EFS), which allows you encrypt individual files or folders for local security (EFS is not enabled over a network). EFS-protected files and folders allows users to protect sensitive documents from other users.
  [*]File-level access control - Any user with Administrator privileges can limit access to certain network resources, such as servers, directories, and files, using access control lists. Only Windows XP Professional supports file-level access control, mostly because this feature is typically implemented through Group Policy Objects, which are also not available in Home Edition.
  [*]"C2" certification - Microsoft will attempt to have Windows XP Professional certified with the "C2" security designation, a largely irrelevant status, but one which will not be afforded to Home Edition.
  

User interface features[font=Verdana, Arial, Times]
Windows XP Home Edition has some different default settings that affect the user interface. For example, Guest logon is on by default in Home, but off in Pro. The Address bar in Explorer windows is on in Pro by default, but off in Home. During the beta period, Microsoft had intended to use a business-oriented shell theme ("Professional") by default in Pro and the "Luna" consumer theme in Home Edition. But feedback from corporate users suggested that everyone liked the consumer-oriented Luna theme better, and development of the Professional theme was cancelled. Other user interface features that are present in Pro but not Home include:

Client-side caching
Administrative Tools option on the Start menu (a subset of the Admin tools are still present in Home, however).
[/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

 

[SJConsultant]

I didn't go to far in depth about it, true. But if you know more about it then post.

I did, I posted a link to Microsoft's summary which shows the differences side by side.