Anyone have the short version of the difference between the two? We're talking your standard run-of-the-mill desktop home computer that has nohing out of the ordinary going on. Basic game playing, light video editing/dvd burning, broadband connection...nothing major. Is there any reason for this hypothetical user to upgrade?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Windows XP Pro vs vanilla xp
- Thread starter Vitamin T
- Start date
For one, I know internet has changed a lot from SP1 => SP2 (or was it from vanilla => SP1). Anywho, MS started limiting the number of active TCP/IP connections possible at one time to like 10, which I heard sucks for people that use P2P programs like Kazaa and Limewire. Other than that, I don't think anything else you mentioned as been changed significantly.
sheesh...
XP Pro = dual processor support, ability to join domain and a few other things...
XP Home = missing these features = teh suck
what on earth is "vanilla xp" anyway... ???
all non-server Windows = no more than 10 concurrent CIFS share connections
XP Pro = dual processor support, ability to join domain and a few other things...
XP Home = missing these features = teh suck
what on earth is "vanilla xp" anyway... ???
all non-server Windows = no more than 10 concurrent CIFS share connections
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/evaluation/compare.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx
The summary above of Pro being dual-proc / domain (Home supports HT procs) is good. The "Home = suck" summary is questionable at best.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx
The summary above of Pro being dual-proc / domain (Home supports HT procs) is good. The "Home = suck" summary is questionable at best.
Pixeleet said:
Um, no i think you are missing it, since he stated xp pro, and that was released along with xp home. There is no service packs mentioned in the original post.
Therefore it is logical to assume he is comparing xp pro with home.
And home really isn't a "special edition", it's geared toward home users vs. business/education environment.
To add to the list, you can only login to the default "administrator" account in XP home when in safe mode.
Pixeleet said:
Where on earth did the term "vanilla" start being used to define an OS without service packs? The way the topic title is stated I would be more inclined to believe that the intention was to identify the differences between "vanilla", aka home edition XP and XP Professional Edition. As others have already posted, there are differences, but many of them are of no consequence to people running XP in a non-domain environment. There are some applications missing from XP home but I believe you can actually copy some of them off an XP pro machine and they can still be used in home edition without problem.
**Just read the last part of your post Pixeleet. You actually can login to XP home under the local administrator account without going into safe mode. You simply press Ctrl+Alt+Del twice at the welcome screen which restores the standard login screen allowing you to specify your own usernames.
Except there is no "Vanilla" version of Windows XP.Pixeleet said:
Microsoft orginally released Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home. TabletPC Edition and MCE Are built off of XP Pro. They also released a Starter edition in high piracy areas that is a very limited version.
There is nothing that is JUST Windows XP.
By "vanilla", I meant your standard version of WindowsXP. The Home Edition version that millions of people have on their Dells, Gateways, Emachines, etc. I think just the sheer number of "basic" users who have that version justifies calling it "vanilla". Or maybe I just spend too much time in the vid card forum.
hulksterjoe
older and wiser now
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2001
- Messages
- 2,900
aug1516 said:
The problem with that is you need to do that everytime you need to join or rejoin the domain or domains..
There really is no vanilla version of XP, though, as stated above. What you think is common to most people (XP Home) is not what I think is common to most people (XP Pro). I'm not trying to turn this into a flamefest or a semantics battle, but if your asking about a specific version of XP, mention it by name. Calling it vanilla is not something anyone else really does, so we don't know what your referring to.Vitamin T said:
You can't join a domain in XP Home... once you have joined a domain in Pro the foofy welcome screen is gone and the traditional login (2000/NT-style) box is back... or just disable it via control panel if you don't like it.hulksterjoe said:
What if your someone like my in-laws? They use their computer to surf the web with AOL, and print out pictures with their digital camera and photo printer. There's nothing in XP Pro that would justify the higher expense. I'm a corporate user and even my home machines are on a domain....so I wouldn't dream of using XP Home. I use the features f Pro. But I certainly wouldn't ever say XP Home sucks. Would you pay for a tow winch on the front and back of your car, if you knew you'd never ever tow anything?mattjw916 said:
lomn75 said:
I guess the only thing that would really make it "the suck" would be if you had dual processors...i dont believe XP Home supports that..
but one thing that i have found to be "the suck" as he put it, is you cant turn off simple file sharing in XP Home...which, for my purposes...is "the suck"
Yes -- If you need a feature not provided by XP Home (SMP, Domains, EFS, whatever) then Home is inappropriate.Octave said:
However, the OP does not need any of these features. That's my objection to all of these hypothetical scenarios -- the thread isn't concerned with potentialities. Besides, there's not really a need to discuss where the differences lie, as it's well-documented.
odoe
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Messages
- 9,796
If I were to buy XP today and I just wanted to play games, surf the net and do homework, I wouldn't waste the extra cash on Home, since chances are I wouldn't really be using most of those features on that box anyway. Really, the only reason I have XP Pro is because I got a great deal direct from MS ages ago with the baseball bobblehead guy.
FYI:
From http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1669968,00.asp
The only time I've ever heard Vanilla used in front of an OS name is when it's clean (i.e. no SPs). A couple other sites use it too. I'm sure you'll find some with that usage of the word "vanilla" if you Google.
However, I see where he misused the term. My bad
From http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1669968,00.asp
The only time I've ever heard Vanilla used in front of an OS name is when it's clean (i.e. no SPs). A couple other sites use it too. I'm sure you'll find some with that usage of the word "vanilla" if you Google.
However, I see where he misused the term. My bad
delusion_2005
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 805
Well i believed that the XP pro is much more stable.
i dont remember there being a vanilla flavor of xp in a long timePixeleet said:FYI:
From http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1669968,00.asp
The only time I've ever heard Vanilla used in front of an OS name is when it's clean (i.e. no SPs). A couple other sites use it too. I'm sure you'll find some with that usage of the word "vanilla" if you Google.
However, I see where he misused the term. My bad
You are taking this discussion faaaaaaar too seriously. WTF do you care if I think Windows XP Home is a limited, dumbed-down version of a relatively decent OS? Systems should always designed to scale even if you don't think you need to at the time that way you will be ahead of the game. But of course, what do I know, I'm only a consultant for one of the largest computer companies in the world...lomn75 said:
dont get so cocky and that is sheer cockinessmattjw916 said:You are taking this discussion faaaaaaar too seriously. WTF do you care if I think Windows XP Home is a limited, dumbed-down version of a relatively decent OS? Systems should always designed to scale even if you don't think you need to at the time that way you will be ahead of the game. But of course, what do I know, I'm only a consultant for one of the largest computer companies in the world...
mattjw916 said:You are taking this discussion faaaaaaar too seriously. WTF do you care if I think Windows XP Home is a limited, dumbed-down version of a relatively decent OS? Systems should always designed to scale even if you don't think you need to at the time that way you will be ahead of the game. But of course, what do I know, I'm only a consultant for one of the largest computer companies in the world...
1. You're the kind of person that bring threads like these to a dead-halt. Stop it please.
2. I fail to see how your post contradicts directly with anything lmon75 said. Sure, you said different things than him, but you really didn't disprove anything he said. Taking that into account, the first few sentences and the last one are completely uncalled for.
I really hate to see it, but day after day, I see this OS forum coming close to the point of where once the question is answere, a moderator is forced to close the thread because of constant bickering. I'm not saying we don't discuss it, but please try to discuss what's relevant. For everything else, there's Soapbox
It's funny how a simple question can turn into a war....stop being so immature guys, he asked a simple question, he wasn't looking for any conflicts. This is nonsense, and this thread is going to be locked most likely. Good job, pat each other on the back.
odoe
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Messages
- 9,796
So we established that Vanilla XP can refer to XP without patches? I thought you meant Home too.
Whatever, do not, and I repeat, do not harp on spelling mistakes on the internet. Seriously, there's no point. Typos happen and sometimes you know, people just don't care.
With that said, this thread could have been interesting if people were to discuss Pro/Home or Pre-Patched/Patched XP, but it wasn't. So if you want to carry on with the intended topic, please do so, if not let the thread die a natural death.
Whatever, do not, and I repeat, do not harp on spelling mistakes on the internet. Seriously, there's no point. Typos happen and sometimes you know, people just don't care.
With that said, this thread could have been interesting if people were to discuss Pro/Home or Pre-Patched/Patched XP, but it wasn't. So if you want to carry on with the intended topic, please do so, if not let the thread die a natural death.
odoe
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Messages
- 9,796
Again, it's no big deal, move on. This isn't the grammar forum, it's the OS forum.
So let's talk some OS.
So let's talk some OS.