I was wondering if there is any compelling reason to choose XP Pro over XP Home. I'm going to use it for playing games, running TurboTax, and probably checking out XNA to dabble in some game development.

Home is slightly gimped.

Should be okay with either really.

I think it's some networking stuff, nothing too major, just annoyances.

There are a few services not available on Home, and there are some you can't shut off.

You're like, an ultra security dude, you might want Pro.

Startup times?

Home is nerfed, get Pro.

yes, I see

How often do you use those ACLs? You know how important they are when you are running a domain server out of your basement

It also has gimped network sharing.

home cant join a domain. if you aren't running active directory at home (i dont think you are) then just get home.

What's wrong with Vista? Why you buying a six year old operating system?

Because Vista is XP but worse in every way?

Spoken like a person who hasn't even used the operating system but jumping on the Vista-hate bandwagon because all the cool kids are doing it.

Bring up three legitamite grievances you have with Vista.

It crashes twice as much as XP. I'm having to reinstall vista tonight after less than 6 months.

Legitamite grievance #1: It's expensive as hell. XP Pro is too, but that's not the point!

Kirby: My uptime in Vista right now is 23 days, and the last reboot was due to a set of updates. :p

You suck.


Vista has crashed on me ONE TIME. And it was a corrupt driver loading. And on the next boot, IT FIGURED OUT THE PROBLEM AND FIXED ITSELF. NO SAFE MODE. NO 20 REBOOTS, JUST FIXED ITSELF.

I also do some pretty hardware intensive things with my computer, so it might not be a fair comparison.

That is, using the same hardware with XP, and I have far fewer crashes.

And I totally don't, and have never used my computer to a great capacity.

What are you doing that's hardware intensive? Sophisticated calculations requiring a large share of your CPU? Intensive graphical rendering requiring the whole of your GPU?

Nonlinear video editing and rendering.

My best friend does video editing and he says that it doesn't require a sophisticated GPU. It does require some processing power and good disk I/O.

Aight, I'm just trying to say that it could be one of several factors rather than "it's all Vista's fault."

And that's what I was admitting. All the same, I've used the exact same hardware at work with XP, and had never crashed before. The problem could really result in the disconnect between Premier CS3 and Vista, as Premier has a VERY specific way of saving things, and Vista is supposed to have a new way of storing data. I honestly don't know enough to comment.

There is only 2 differences between home and pro. As someone mentioned home cannot join as a member of a domain and it also lacks terminal services.

Actually, it's probably more with how Premiere likes to crash if you look at it the wrong way. It's been like that since Premiere 6.

And has crappy network sharing as I said...

I do 3d, After effects, video, and some music editing on vista...
I honestly cant remember the last time it crashed.

Not for me.

XP Pro= $5
Vista Ultimate= Free

Yeah Microsoft owes me a Windows Vista Ultimate for participating in their study

That's an interesting question. I guess the answer is that all I hear is terrible things about vista.

:/

Well, I really haven't had any problems.

The only problem I've ever had with Vista is driver support, and that was only in the first few months, and I've had Vista since it was released.
The only people complaining about Vista either don't know what they're doing with it or are using really crappy hardware.

As for XP. I've never had Pro on a computer that I use at home, but the only difference I've experienced from what I have used is that Pro has a faster startup speed and doesn't get bogged down with temporary files and clutter as easily.

Um, holy crap, I just went to MS web site and in order to run the very basic home edition of vista, I need 20GB of hd space. The home premium edition requires 40GB. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? Anyway, I am putting this on a 40GB drive, so it seems I have no choice but to go with xp.

XP may be a better match to your needs, but you could always check this out if you want to trim down a Vista install. Personally I wouldn't try it because you won't be able to update when SP1 comes out.

I'm around Vista at work, and haven't seen a single reason to use it.

I installed Vista on a 20gb partition sooooooo......

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116056

OEM = cheaper.

Or I could give you a key for XP Home OEM if you have the CD for the OEM version. (you can get it in the usual places, and then use the key I give you and it would be legit.)

I think that's the recommended space for the OS as well as breathing room for a lot of applications. A full Vista Ultimate install is about 10 GB.

Considering relative sizes of common hard drives, Vista isn't that big. A full XP install takes about 1 GB. In 2001, what was the largest common hard drive? I remember in my freshman year of high school (2000) that 40 GB was "huge." So let's say by 2001 80 GB was common (this is probably a very conservative estimate). That means the XP install took up 1.25% of the disk. On a 500 GB disk today, Vista takes up 2%. Not a big deal, folks.

Also, about price. When you factor in inflation, Vista is actually the cheapest Windows yet. At the time of release, Windows XP, 98, 95, were all more expensive.

That's because you're only listening at places like Slashdot, which is a cesspool of mouth-breathing, neckbearded Linux retards that can't see their own penis, let alone insight into modern technology.

My Windows folder in its entirety is 10GB, this includes the massive drivers folder, Media Center, etc on Home Premium.

To be honest, if that's the worst thing you can find to complain about Vista, then you need to re-evaluate your computer situation at home.

Hell, many Linux distributions aren't exactly light anymore.

Ubuntu runs around the same size as Vista as I recall.

Ubuntu includes a bunch of software. Way more than windows. Jesus people, you windows zealots are worse than the linux ones. I wasn't complaining that it was too big, I was expressing surprise and utter astonishment that an operating system could take 20-40 GB of space, according to MS web site.

Also note:

Based on what I read on the MS web site and what I typed right there (that I only have a 40GB drive for this), there's really no choice.

Emon, FYI, I read slashdot every so often, but I read and hear bad things about vista all over the place. They're often in the mainstream media. In fact, on Friday or something, there was some story on the local news about some computer shop that advertises removing vista and installing xp on new pcs, apparently it was also on the front page of CNN.

And I was 100% honest with you guys about the fact that I didn't even consider it at first, and then I considered it, and then I noted that it's not feasible to me. It seems like you are likely to have come from a cesspool of mouth-breathing, neckbearded vista retards that can't see their own penis, let alone insight into modern technology.