OS choice

H

horvendile

Regular
Instead of continuing with hijacking another thread, I start my own. I'm in the very slow process of buying a new computer based on an AMD X2 CPU. I will probably have to shell out on a new OS, and it will be a Windows version.
Initially my plan was to go with WinXP x64, on a "why not"-basis. Now, the "why not" appears to consist of shaky compatibility and my private suspicion that it will sink into obscurity when Vista ships. Thus, my choice is limited to WinXP Home or WinXP Pro.

Will Home cooperate with both CPU cores, or will I need Pro for that? The price increase to get Pro is 50%, so unless there are good reasons to go with Pro I may as well take Home.

And another thing. Do we have any idea when Vista will ship? I don't really like being early adopter on operating systems, but I may prefer that to buying a dying OS.
 
get pro. or, if you are interested in xp64, sometimes retailers have sales where it's virtualy free if you buy the right hardware. you can always pick up pro later on if you didn't like xp64.
 
dont "buy" windows.
either get it free with a new computer or dont.


and why should he pay more for the pro version?
does home not support 2 processors?
 
I think you are absolutely right that Windows XP Pro 64 will fade into obscurity very quickly. I think it is best to think of this as a testing ground for Vista and it was also needed by Microsoft to support certain 64 bit applications now (not mainstream stuff). It was never intended as a general release OS or it would ship with every X86-64 box sold instead of XP Pro/Home.

There will be incompatibility issues and I suspect you will encounter some where you least expected it, as was the case with some CD ROM copy protection not functioning on 64 and therefore locking you out of installing/running the software even if the actual application would run under emulation just fine.

Windows XP Home should be all you need for a dual core processor. Microsoft counts processors by the package and not the number of cores it contains (nice :smile:). A dual core processor is still counted as one processor and even a quad core would count as one processor. Think physical package of the CPU or sockets. XP Pro allows two processors to be used and Home allows the use of one. Read more here directly from Microsoft.
 
I'd still recommend Win2k.. even though it's not one of your options :p (Win2K supports up to two processors, I'd think dual core is an OK option)

The most negative thing about WinXP Home is limited networking capability (well, specifically towards networking multiple computers)... otherwise, it's almost a wash

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

That website said:
Multi-processor support - Windows XP Pro supports up to two microprocessors, while Home Edition supports only one.
Click to expand...

I believe dual core fits into the two processors part (Hyperthreading does not count though)...

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1797

This website said:
The major limitations of SMP have to do with software and operating system support. Many operating systems (such as Windows XP Home) are not SMP capable and will not make use of the second physical processor. Also, most modern programs are single-threaded, meaning that there is only ever one current set of linked instructions and data for them. This means that only one processor can effectively work on them at a time. Multi-threaded programs do exist, and can take better advantage of the potential power of dual- or multi-CPU configurations, but are not as common as we might like.
Click to expand...

Then again..

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx

You know what.. it beats me.. I'd just get XP Pro and be done with it.
 
N00b said:
Vista will probably ship around december. I would consider xp64 only if you're planning to get 4GB memory or more or have another use case that requires xp64. In order to utilitize an AMD X2 I think you need XP Pro since XP Home does not support two cores (only two "virtual" CPUs, i.e. Hypterthreading).
Click to expand...
Home only supports a single CPU package. It does, however, support dual core CPUs that are on one package such as Athlon 64x2 and Pentium D.
 
And Home was about to loose support from MS this year.. but now it is good till 2009 i believe like Pro. I dont like getting the XP OS only from the Computer maker, you dont get a real XP CD you just get there "repair" disk. Is a pain to do slipstream ect... ALWAYS buy a CD.
 
Thanks all!
Yeah, I had a recollection that the main difference between Home and Pro was networking capabilities, and what with me being down to one computer with one internet connection that really isn't much of an issue - I may as well save the 500 SEK (about US $60) difference for something else.
 
I would highly highly recommend XP PRo 32 bit instead of Home becasue Pro supports a multithreading kernel and Home does not.
 
suryad said:
I would highly highly recommend XP PRo 32 bit instead of Home becasue Pro supports a multithreading kernel and Home does not.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken.

XP Home's support of SMP and SMT are the 'same' as Pro, with the exception of how many physical "CPU packages" it supports. XP Home and XP Pro would perform identically (at the kernel level) with a dual-core single processor.
 
But Home versions suck, since running an OS as root/Administrator is plain stupid and the worst security issue...
So go for Pro instead, and don't run as Admin !
 
Ingenu said:
But Home versions suck, since running an OS as root/Administrator is plain stupid and the worst security issue...
So go for Pro instead, and don't run as Admin !
Click to expand...
It's an incredibly easy change in the Home edition; anyone who is concerned about this sort of thing will be smart enough to create other user profiles (and even set passwords, and even so much as activate the CTRL-ALT-DEL login screen if they want). Anyone who's that concerned can even create local machine and user policy on XP Home, just like they could in Pro.

And the Admin account is actually seperate (in Home and Pro) than the "default auto-logged-in" account. Go look in the Users control applet if you don't believe me.

Any other false complaints?
 
Albuquerque said:
It's an incredibly easy change in the Home edition; anyone who is concerned about this sort of thing will be smart enough to create other user profiles (and even set passwords, and even so much as activate the CTRL-ALT-DEL login screen if they want). Anyone who's that concerned can even create local machine and user policy on XP Home, just like they could in Pro.

And the Admin account is actually seperate (in Home and Pro) than the "default auto-logged-in" account. Go look in the Users control applet if you don't believe me.

Any other false complaints?
Click to expand...

I will check it out when I get the chance.
 
Albuquerque said:
And the Admin account is actually seperate (in Home and Pro) than the "default auto-logged-in" account. Go look in the Users control applet if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but usually the default account also has admin rights AFAICR.
 
Creating users through the available panel makes Admins (at least in my def of an Admin), which can modify settings, yet the changes are not User specific, but OS wide, meaning that changing say, LAN settings in an account leads to all account having changed LAN settings.

Now, whether there's a workaround, I DO NOT CARE !
(The OS is supposed to make my life EASIER, not HARDER :p)

That's just an example of a problem I faced once when managing a Windows XP Home computer.
 
Ingenu said:
Creating users through the available panel makes Admins (at least in my def of an Admin), which can modify settings, yet the changes are not User specific, but OS wide, meaning that changing say, LAN settings in an account leads to all account having changed LAN settings.

Now, whether there's a workaround, I DO NOT CARE !
(The OS is supposed to make my life EASIER, not HARDER :p)

That's just an example of a problem I faced once when managing a Windows XP Home computer.
Click to expand...
Well, your argument was that Pro solved those issues -- it doesn't. The "available panel" in Pro does the exact same thing, and changes by the users to low-level components of the OS such as LAn settings take place across all profiles in the exact same way. In fact, that's basically the way every production version of Windows currently behaves, and there isn't any other real option in the MS world. And since this topic has zero to do with open-source alternative operating systems, we're already done with that topic.

In other words, you still have no valid reason to complain that Home wouldn't do what Pro does in a HOME environment. Comments?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Review scores versus game quality *spawn
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Deleted member 11852
D
W
Apple Vision Pro
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
16K
xz321zx
X
digitalwanderer
New monitor for my wife
Replies
11
Views
1K
Davros
D
DmitryKo
Folding@home Beyond3D_Team - Summer 2023 Call for NVidia RTX users
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
Albuquerque
Albuquerque
R
Let's discuss the ways the future console architectures could potentially improve in efficiency
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Miniature Kaiju
M
Back
Top