Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition - GEOS

This is a discussion on Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition - GEOS ; Hi, Tom OK, I can accept that, but I can give you another view. What will happen when a home user connected to broadband (anything from DSL to real broadband) want to do internet abit more than an ordinary user? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

  1. Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

    Hi, Tom

    OK, I can accept that, but I can give you another view. What will happen
    when a home user connected to broadband (anything from DSL to real broadband)
    want to do internet abit more than an ordinary user? Put up some kind of
    webservice, like anykind of webserver? I discussed that at work today with
    a user. He felt the same way. Sorry, but XP home is a downgrade networkwise
    compared to WindowsME, the network support is reminding more of Novell Personal
    Netware. Fine for home use, sharing some folders or a printer or surfing
    the internet, but when doing something more it will be insufficient, even
    compared to Windows9x/ME.

    I can also add that XP Home is sold ast the successor to Windows 9x/ME,
    but what happens when you find that it doesn't do the same things as Windows
    9x/ME, that it is actually poorer. Buy XP Pro!

    BR,
    Hans

    Tom Accuosti wrote:
    > In news:NewsReader.1.0.20037163037722720@news1.telia. com,
    > Hans Lindgren wrote:
    > | hyubso wrote:
    >
    >
    > | I have a client that
    > | made the mistake buying a couple of computers with XP Home. These
    > | computers are attached to a SMB network, there are three servers on
    > | the network, to use three network resources in XP Home they have to
    > | login four times, one for the computer, one for the printer, one for
    > | the fileserver and one for the programserver. In Pro there is only
    > | one login, as in Windows 95, 98 and Millenium. At first, discovering
    > | this, I was convinced that I have made an error, looking back and
    > | forth, consulting a colleague. He could not find any error in the
    > | setup, and I even consulted our Microsoft MCSE, he just confirmed
    > | this behaviour in XP Home. Buy Pro, never buy XP Home when doing
    > | networking, was his answer. This makes me wonder what other issues
    > | there are, too.
    >
    > Just my perspective, but what you're describing isn't so much a problem
    > with Home as a problem with an office that really didn't buy the correct
    > tools for the job. Happens all the time, unfortunately.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >
    >


  2. Re: Breadbox Ensemble Petition

    Hans,

    Back when Windows 98 and Windows NT were the two prime flavors to choose
    from, Microsoft threw in a lite-weight web server called PWS (Personal Web
    Server). Because it was very limited, and not very scaleable, Microsoft
    never officially supported it when Windows ME came out. With Windows XP Home
    Edition, as the successor to Windows ME, its also not available. However,
    Windows XP Home Edition has most of the kernel code that is in Windows 2000
    and XP Pro, minus stuff like multiprocessor support . Despite that, you
    could run server software on XP Home, if had to. Search the Internet for
    ways to get IIS to run on XP Home, if you had a copy lying around the
    office. In addition, there are third party software that would run, like
    Apache Server. Most Home users do their web services via their ISP. Some
    people have added a web service at home, only to find out they lack the
    upload speed due to the asynchronous nature of their ADSL or Cable service.
    An upload to a home system, is a download to your client.

    The key areas where Windows XP Home is behind the curve, compared to Windows
    XP Pro, is in Networking Remote Access, Remote Administration, and support
    for certain protocols, like Netware and even NetBeui is gone, but its
    available on CD. In addition, XP Home does file sharing closer to how
    Windows 98 works, and lacks the user restricted access options in XP Pro.
    Guess what? If you are a HOME USER, the odds are you don't need XP Pro. If
    you do, then you are an exception, for a home user. In that case, use
    Windows XP Pro or Server 2003.

    Personally, I think Windows XP Home, XP Pro, and 2000 Pro, blow the socks
    off of Windows 9x/ME. There are thousands of things in XP Home, for example,
    that could never be implemented in that older platform. The kernel that XP
    uses is infinitely superior and more refined. If you listed all the things
    that XP Home lacked compared to Windows 98, it would be minor compared to
    the flip side of that coin. If you are going to use a Microsoft OS, and I
    think that is specifically where you and the other GEOS zealots use most of
    the time anyway, then it comes down to what resources you have on your PC,
    and what apps you want to run. After the dust settles, if Windows XP Home
    Edition is still on that list, then I think IT should be the one you
    install, unless the XP Pro is within your budget and you can foresee a
    future need that it can fulfill.

    In summary, I was primarily discussing XP Home Edition for home users, with
    some exceptions that are in the minority. For a business, the default should
    be XP Pro, as a general rule of thumb. Its not a hard rule because a large
    business may have a procurement for new PCs that arrive installed with XP
    Home Edition, simply because there just happens to be no requirement for
    what XP Pro offers in networking and administration.

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

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p.../choosing2.asp

    http://www.ucs.ed.ac.uk/usd/scisup/faq/homevspro.html








    "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    news:NewsReader.1.0.2003716323201425760@news1.teli a.com...
    > Hi, Tom
    >
    > OK, I can accept that, but I can give you another view. What will happen
    > when a home user connected to broadband (anything from DSL to real

    broadband)
    > want to do internet abit more than an ordinary user? Put up some kind of
    > webservice, like anykind of webserver? I discussed that at work today with
    > a user. He felt the same way. Sorry, but XP home is a downgrade

    networkwise
    > compared to WindowsME, the network support is reminding more of Novell

    Personal
    > Netware. Fine for home use, sharing some folders or a printer or surfing
    > the internet, but when doing something more it will be insufficient, even
    > compared to Windows9x/ME.
    >
    > I can also add that XP Home is sold ast the successor to Windows 9x/ME,
    > but what happens when you find that it doesn't do the same things as

    Windows
    > 9x/ME, that it is actually poorer. Buy XP Pro!
    >
    > BR,
    > Hans
    >
    > Tom Accuosti wrote:
    > > In news:NewsReader.1.0.20037163037722720@news1.telia. com,
    > > Hans Lindgren wrote:
    > > | hyubso wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > | I have a client that
    > > | made the mistake buying a couple of computers with XP Home. These
    > > | computers are attached to a SMB network, there are three servers on
    > > | the network, to use three network resources in XP Home they have to
    > > | login four times, one for the computer, one for the printer, one for
    > > | the fileserver and one for the programserver. In Pro there is only
    > > | one login, as in Windows 95, 98 and Millenium. At first, discovering
    > > | this, I was convinced that I have made an error, looking back and
    > > | forth, consulting a colleague. He could not find any error in the
    > > | setup, and I even consulted our Microsoft MCSE, he just confirmed
    > > | this behaviour in XP Home. Buy Pro, never buy XP Home when doing
    > > | networking, was his answer. This makes me wonder what other issues
    > > | there are, too.
    > >
    > > Just my perspective, but what you're describing isn't so much a problem
    > > with Home as a problem with an office that really didn't buy the correct
    > > tools for the job. Happens all the time, unfortunately.
    > >
    > > Tom
    > >
    > >
    > >




+ Reply to Thread