XP Home -vs- Pro

[Bill Martin]

Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.

Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
XP-Pro instead. So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
that should keep me from installing it? Specifically whether whatever
they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any? Or can I
just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?

My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
basic code it runs is the same. True?

Thanks.

Bill

[Malke[_2_]]

Bill Martin wrote:

> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.
>
> Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
> copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
> XP-Pro instead. So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
> that should keep me from installing it? Specifically whether whatever
> they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any? Or can I
> just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?
>
> My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
> some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
> basic code it runs is the same. True?

If they sent you Pro instead of Home, you got a good deal. The main
differences between Pro and Home are that with Pro you can create
fine-grained permissions and join a domain. It is unlikely that your wife
will want to do either of these things, but since you have Pro it will be
just fine. Pro has not got stuff "bolted" onto it and will not be slower
than Home.

Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
FAQ - http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ

[David B.[_2_]]

No reason not to use pro, just has some additional networking and security
features, nothing needs turning off, she likely won't notice the difference.

--

----
Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375



"Bill Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.
>
> Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
> copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
> XP-Pro instead. So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
> that should keep me from installing it? Specifically whether whatever
> they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any? Or can I
> just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?
>
> My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
> some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
> basic code it runs is the same. True?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill

[Rich/rerat]

Bill Martin,
"I know XP drivers are available for the machine so I ordered a copy of
XP-Home over the web."

If you purchased your copy XP from places like EBay.com or Amazon.com, make
sure the Product Key (COA) that was included, is a legal/valid one for the
version of XP that was sent. If you purchased it from a company like
www.newegg.com , then you should not have a problem.

--
Add MS to your News Reader: news://msnews.microsoft.com
Rich/rerat (RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>


"David B." > wrote in message
...
No reason not to use pro, just has some additional networking and security
features, nothing needs turning off, she likely won't notice the difference.

--

----
Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375



"Bill Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.
>
> Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
> copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
> XP-Pro instead. So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
> that should keep me from installing it? Specifically whether whatever
> they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any? Or can I
> just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?
>
> My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
> some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
> basic code it runs is the same. True?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill

[JS]

For info on the differences between XP Home and Pro see:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457127.aspx

JS

"Bill Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.
>
> Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
> copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
> XP-Pro instead. So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
> that should keep me from installing it? Specifically whether whatever
> they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any? Or can I
> just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?
>
> My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
> some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
> basic code it runs is the same. True?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:51:06 -0400, Bill Martin
> wrote:

> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.


Just a guess, but the new computer is probably underpowered for Vista.
Many people don't realize that Vista needs more than XP does, and get
a machine underpowered for Vista. In particular, almost everyone needs
2GB of RAM, and performance is likely to be poor with less.


> Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
> copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
> XP-Pro instead.


At the same price? Great! Lucky you!


> So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
> that should keep me from installing it?


Nope, not a thing.


> Specifically whether whatever
> they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any?



Nope.


> Or can I
> just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?


There's nothing to turn off, either. Simply don't use the extra
features in Professional, if you don't need or want them. For example,
Professional can join a domain, and Home can't. If you don't need to
join a domain, just don't do it--there's nothing to turn off.


> My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
> some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
> basic code it runs is the same. True?


I wouldn't use the words "bolt on," but yes, that's essentially true.
Here's my standard post on the difference between the two:

XP Professional and XP Home are exactly the same in all respects,
except that Professional has a few features (mostly related to
networking and security) missing from Home. For most (but not all)
home users, even those with a home network, these features aren't
needed, would never be used, and buying Professional instead of Home
is a waste of money. In general, unless you need to join a domain, you
probably don't need Professional.

For details go to
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.asp

Also note one other point not mentioned on any of those sites:
Professional allows ten concurrent network connections, and Home only
five.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Mike Hall - MVP[_3_]]

"Bill Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.
>
> Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
> copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
> XP-Pro instead. So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
> that should keep me from installing it? Specifically whether whatever
> they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any? Or can I
> just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?
>
> My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
> some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
> basic code it runs is the same. True?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill


Bill, for the cost of XP, more memory could have been purchased for the
Vista system..


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

[Bill Martin]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:29:46 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
> wrote:

>"Bill Martin" > wrote in message
...
>> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
>> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
>> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
>> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.
>>
>> Fine. I know XP drivers are available for the machne so I ordered a
>> copy of XP-Home over the web. But the thing is that they sent me
>> XP-Pro instead. So my question is whether there's anything about Pro
>> that should keep me from installing it? Specifically whether whatever
>> they added to XP to make it "Pro" will slow it down any? Or can I
>> just turn off those features and have your basic Home version?
>>
>> My understanding (quite possibly flawed) is that Pro is just Home with
>> some additional bolt on software functions built into it, but the
>> basic code it runs is the same. True?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
>Bill, for the cost of XP, more memory could have been purchased for the
>Vista system..

-------------------------------

Been there, done that. It's maxed out at 2GB. Intel dual core
machine. Runs much more slowly than her old 512MB Celeron if you can
believe that. Let me ammend that a bit. Frequently it's plenty fast,
but it also hits patches where it's just very sluggish.

Over the past six months I've disabled everything I can find including
all the disk search indexing, etc.

If it were my machine I'd keep banging my head against it trying to
figure it out, but she's hit the end of her patience and I can
sympathize with her request.

Bill

[Bill Martin]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:17:44 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:51:06 -0400, Bill Martin
> wrote:
>
>> Six months ago I bought my wife a new computer, but she's finally said
>> she's had enough with Vista and wants me to put XP on it. Basically
>> because it's too slow despite having all the eye candy, animations,
>> etc. turned off and being run with the old Win98 "classic" interface.
>
>
>Just a guess, but the new computer is probably underpowered for Vista.
>Many people don't realize that Vista needs more than XP does, and get
>a machine underpowered for Vista. In particular, almost everyone needs
>2GB of RAM, and performance is likely to be poor with less.

-------------------------

You're right that the machine is underpowered for Vista. It is a dual
core Intel processor though, maxed out with 2GB RAM and more disk than
it can ever use.

One of my peeves is that Vista is a nice system on a high end machine
- but then they forced the vendors to also install it on bottom end
equipment where it's a dog. And to add insult to injury, then they
brag up how many copies of Vista people have "chosen" to buy. Ah
well...

I've snipped off a lot of your other comments to simplify Ken, but
they were all helpful to me. Thanks.

And thanks to all the others who responded with assistance.

Bill

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:06:50 -0400, Bill Martin
> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:29:46 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
> > wrote:
>

> >Bill, for the cost of XP, more memory could have been purchased for the
> >Vista system..
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Been there, done that. It's maxed out at 2GB. Intel dual core
> machine. Runs much more slowly than her old 512MB Celeron if you can
> believe that. Let me ammend that a bit. Frequently it's plenty fast,
> but it also hits patches where it's just very sluggish.



Actually 2GB is fine for most people running Vista. It's what I'm
running on at the moment here, with no performance problems. In
general, it's only those running particularly memory-hungry
programs--doing things like photo-editing or video-editing--who need
more.

So my earlier guess that the machine is underpowered is probably
wrong. My next guess (still just a guess, though) is that the machine
is infested with malware--a very common problem these days.



--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Bill Martin]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:10:08 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:06:50 -0400, Bill Martin
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:29:46 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
>> > wrote:
>>
>
>> >Bill, for the cost of XP, more memory could have been purchased for the
>> >Vista system..
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Been there, done that. It's maxed out at 2GB. Intel dual core
>> machine. Runs much more slowly than her old 512MB Celeron if you can
>> believe that. Let me ammend that a bit. Frequently it's plenty fast,
>> but it also hits patches where it's just very sluggish.
>
>
>
>Actually 2GB is fine for most people running Vista. It's what I'm
>running on at the moment here, with no performance problems. In
>general, it's only those running particularly memory-hungry
>programs--doing things like photo-editing or video-editing--who need
>more.
>
>So my earlier guess that the machine is underpowered is probably
>wrong. My next guess (still just a guess, though) is that the machine
>is infested with malware--a very common problem these days.

------------------------------------------------

That's one of those things I can't answer definitively Ken. I have
considered it, and have run multiple malware scanners on it with no
result though. Both virus and spam scanners. I've also gone through
the startup list pretty ruthlessly and disabled anything I didn't feel
was absolutely essential.

Also it's been slow since day one, but then on day one it had all the
Vista bells and whistles active and only 1GB RAM initially. As I've
deactivated things the machine has gotten better, but still not
acceptable. It is the bottom level Compaq laptop so I'm not surprised
it struggles under Vista.

I figure I'll proceed with the XP somewhat tentatively by installing
it as a dual boot setup along with the original Vista. That will also
make it easier to run comparison tests later on. With luck I'll get
to it this weekend.

Bill

[DL]

Just to add, I have a pretty basic Dell with Visa, moderate dual core, 2gb,
vista business, I was pleasantly surprised by its performance, but then I
dont run games.
You dont have a power hungary anti virus / security suite do you, eg Norton?

"Bill Martin" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:10:08 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:06:50 -0400, Bill Martin
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:29:46 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >Bill, for the cost of XP, more memory could have been purchased for the
>>> >Vista system..
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>>
>>> Been there, done that. It's maxed out at 2GB. Intel dual core
>>> machine. Runs much more slowly than her old 512MB Celeron if you can
>>> believe that. Let me ammend that a bit. Frequently it's plenty fast,
>>> but it also hits patches where it's just very sluggish.
>>
>>
>>
>>Actually 2GB is fine for most people running Vista. It's what I'm
>>running on at the moment here, with no performance problems. In
>>general, it's only those running particularly memory-hungry
>>programs--doing things like photo-editing or video-editing--who need
>>more.
>>
>>So my earlier guess that the machine is underpowered is probably
>>wrong. My next guess (still just a guess, though) is that the machine
>>is infested with malware--a very common problem these days.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> That's one of those things I can't answer definitively Ken. I have
> considered it, and have run multiple malware scanners on it with no
> result though. Both virus and spam scanners. I've also gone through
> the startup list pretty ruthlessly and disabled anything I didn't feel
> was absolutely essential.
>
> Also it's been slow since day one, but then on day one it had all the
> Vista bells and whistles active and only 1GB RAM initially. As I've
> deactivated things the machine has gotten better, but still not
> acceptable. It is the bottom level Compaq laptop so I'm not surprised
> it struggles under Vista.
>
> I figure I'll proceed with the XP somewhat tentatively by installing
> it as a dual boot setup along with the original Vista. That will also
> make it easier to run comparison tests later on. With luck I'll get
> to it this weekend.
>
> Bill

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:01:27 -0400, Bill Martin
> wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:10:08 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:06:50 -0400, Bill Martin
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:29:46 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >Bill, for the cost of XP, more memory could have been purchased for the
> >> >Vista system..
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >>
> >> Been there, done that. It's maxed out at 2GB. Intel dual core
> >> machine. Runs much more slowly than her old 512MB Celeron if you can
> >> believe that. Let me ammend that a bit. Frequently it's plenty fast,
> >> but it also hits patches where it's just very sluggish.
> >
> >
> >
> >Actually 2GB is fine for most people running Vista. It's what I'm
> >running on at the moment here, with no performance problems. In
> >general, it's only those running particularly memory-hungry
> >programs--doing things like photo-editing or video-editing--who need
> >more.
> >
> >So my earlier guess that the machine is underpowered is probably
> >wrong. My next guess (still just a guess, though) is that the machine
> >is infested with malware--a very common problem these days.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> That's one of those things I can't answer definitively Ken. I have
> considered it, and have run multiple malware scanners on it with no
> result though. Both virus and spam scanners. I've also gone through
> the startup list pretty ruthlessly and disabled anything I didn't feel
> was absolutely essential.
>
> Also it's been slow since day one,


Then that strongly suggests that my second guess is also wrong.


> but then on day one it had all the
> Vista bells and whistles active and only 1GB RAM initially.


1GB is hardly ever enough for anyone running Vista.

> As I've
> deactivated things the machine has gotten better, but still not
> acceptable. It is the bottom level Compaq laptop so I'm not surprised
> it struggles under Vista.


A laptop? I don't think you said that earlier. In that case I go back
to my first guess. Your laptop almost certainly has no separate video
card, but uses some of the main RAM for video purposes. That means
that effectively you have less than 2GB available, perhaps only as
little as 1.5GB.


> I figure I'll proceed with the XP somewhat tentatively by installing
> it as a dual boot setup along with the original Vista. That will also
> make it easier to run comparison tests later on. With luck I'll get
> to it this weekend.
>
> Bill

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:01:27 -0400, Bill Martin
> wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:10:08 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:06:50 -0400, Bill Martin
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:29:46 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >Bill, for the cost of XP, more memory could have been purchased for the
> >> >Vista system..
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >>
> >> Been there, done that. It's maxed out at 2GB. Intel dual core
> >> machine. Runs much more slowly than her old 512MB Celeron if you can
> >> believe that. Let me ammend that a bit. Frequently it's plenty fast,
> >> but it also hits patches where it's just very sluggish.
> >
> >
> >
> >Actually 2GB is fine for most people running Vista. It's what I'm
> >running on at the moment here, with no performance problems. In
> >general, it's only those running particularly memory-hungry
> >programs--doing things like photo-editing or video-editing--who need
> >more.
> >
> >So my earlier guess that the machine is underpowered is probably
> >wrong. My next guess (still just a guess, though) is that the machine
> >is infested with malware--a very common problem these days.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> That's one of those things I can't answer definitively Ken. I have
> considered it, and have run multiple malware scanners on it with no
> result though. Both virus and spam scanners. I've also gone through
> the startup list pretty ruthlessly and disabled anything I didn't feel
> was absolutely essential.
>
> Also it's been slow since day one, but then on day one it had all the
> Vista bells and whistles active and only 1GB RAM initially. As I've
> deactivated things the machine has gotten better, but still not
> acceptable. It is the bottom level Compaq laptop so I'm not surprised
> it struggles under Vista.
>
> I figure I'll proceed with the XP somewhat tentatively by installing
> it as a dual boot setup along with the original Vista. That will also
> make it easier to run comparison tests later on. With luck I'll get
> to it this weekend.
>
> Bill

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup