Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
I have an opportunity for a cheap upgrade to Photoshop CS, which
unfortunately won't run on my WindowsMe machine. So additionally I'd have
to buy a Windows XP upgrade, and the ~$100 price difference for Pro might
push this out of feasibility. So I'm wondering if there is any real need
for me to blow for XP Pro, as opposed to XP Home Edition.
I've looked through a bunch of threads on this issue, and checked the sites
referenced, and am pretty sure that for my purposes XP Home will do fine,
but can anyone see something I'm missing?
-- Single user
-- No networking. one computer connected by dialup to outside world.
Might get high speed in moderate future.
-- Not a gamer. If I get a dual-cpu system, I can upgrade then
.
-- Prefer to use 3rd party sw for sound, images.
-- Backup ... I backup my 'data' files, including a log of system tweaks,
directly to CDR or external HD. I figure a full system trash would
give
me a chance to clean up my system, only reinstalling junk I need.
Security -- Is encryption the only advantage for Pro (on a single user,
non-networked, system)? I don't encrypt folders on Me, so why would I on
XP?
One list of Pro's advantages (from PaulC) had
"8- Auto install, configure, repair, and removal of programs".
Is this just something for system/network admin, or useful for the lone
user? I notice on the MS site it's under "... Servers and management
solutions".
Even if features don't push one to Pro, one poster (Lightweight) on August
23 claimed "Home ... has way more bugs." Is this actually the case?
Oh yes, and how typical is it that 3rd party programs (or MS ones for that
matter) will need an upgrade to work with Win XP?
My hardware:
--Athlon (?GHz), HP Pavilion 7950
-- 640 MB
-- 60 GB internal, 160 GB firewire external
-- CDRW, DVD, floppy, bunches of ports, simple sound and graphics cards.
I have an opportunity for a cheap upgrade to Photoshop CS, which
unfortunately won't run on my WindowsMe machine. So additionally I'd have
to buy a Windows XP upgrade, and the ~$100 price difference for Pro might
push this out of feasibility. So I'm wondering if there is any real need
for me to blow for XP Pro, as opposed to XP Home Edition.
I've looked through a bunch of threads on this issue, and checked the sites
referenced, and am pretty sure that for my purposes XP Home will do fine,
but can anyone see something I'm missing?
-- Single user
-- No networking. one computer connected by dialup to outside world.
Might get high speed in moderate future.
-- Not a gamer. If I get a dual-cpu system, I can upgrade then
.-- Prefer to use 3rd party sw for sound, images.
-- Backup ... I backup my 'data' files, including a log of system tweaks,
directly to CDR or external HD. I figure a full system trash would
give
me a chance to clean up my system, only reinstalling junk I need.
Security -- Is encryption the only advantage for Pro (on a single user,
non-networked, system)? I don't encrypt folders on Me, so why would I on
XP?
One list of Pro's advantages (from PaulC) had
"8- Auto install, configure, repair, and removal of programs".
Is this just something for system/network admin, or useful for the lone
user? I notice on the MS site it's under "... Servers and management
solutions".
Even if features don't push one to Pro, one poster (Lightweight) on August
23 claimed "Home ... has way more bugs." Is this actually the case?
Oh yes, and how typical is it that 3rd party programs (or MS ones for that
matter) will need an upgrade to work with Win XP?
My hardware:
--Athlon (?GHz), HP Pavilion 7950
-- 640 MB
-- 60 GB internal, 160 GB firewire external
-- CDRW, DVD, floppy, bunches of ports, simple sound and graphics cards.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram