Hans,

Some of you have bitched that MS charges you for a Cadillac when all you
want is an economy car. And here they differentiate the product line by
charging less for XP HOME, whilst simultaneously offering you a more
powerful XP Pro version if you need it and what do you do? Right. Bitch and
moan. Somehow I'm not surprised. There are tons of web sites that discuss
the differences. You walk into Micro Center and ask the salesman and he
tells you what the differences are. Is this rocket science?


"Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
news:NewsReader.1.0.2003717420344722880@news1.teli a.com...
> Is this information ever handed over to any ordinary Windows user? I would
> say NO. You and I know very well allt his or part of this, but we can't be
> seen as ordinary users, more as techno idiots ;-), sometimes knowing too
> much to be sound.......
> My view is that if any user is doing more than just sharing folders and
> printers in a workgroup or connecting to an ISP, I would consider XP Home
> as a no buy, as it is a downgrade compared to prior versions. I think this
> is quite simple, if I would buy a product that is marketed as an upgrade
> I would expect the same or better functionality as in the previous
product.
> Is this the case? I would say nope!
>
> If you expect the same or better network support, buy XP pro.
>
> Simple as that!
>
> Case closed!
>
> BR,
> Hans
>
>
>
> Pat wrote:
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

YES! No consumer should EVER need to actually take the time and learn about
a product they are going to buy and use. WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT!

"Pat" wrote in message
news:GzHRa.60133$3o3.3987756@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Hans,
>
> Some of you have bitched that MS charges you for a Cadillac when all you
> want is an economy car. And here they differentiate the product line by
> charging less for XP HOME, whilst simultaneously offering you a more
> powerful XP Pro version if you need it and what do you do? Right. Bitch
and
> moan. Somehow I'm not surprised. There are tons of web sites that discuss
> the differences. You walk into Micro Center and ask the salesman and he
> tells you what the differences are. Is this rocket science?
>
>
> "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
> news:NewsReader.1.0.2003717420344722880@news1.teli a.com...
> > Is this information ever handed over to any ordinary Windows user? I
would
> > say NO. You and I know very well allt his or part of this, but we can't
be
> > seen as ordinary users, more as techno idiots ;-), sometimes knowing too
> > much to be sound.......
> > My view is that if any user is doing more than just sharing folders and
> > printers in a workgroup or connecting to an ISP, I would consider XP
Home
> > as a no buy, as it is a downgrade compared to prior versions. I think
this
> > is quite simple, if I would buy a product that is marketed as an upgrade
> > I would expect the same or better functionality as in the previous
> product.
> > Is this the case? I would say nope!
> >
> > If you expect the same or better network support, buy XP pro.
> >
> > Simple as that!
> >
> > Case closed!
> >
> > BR,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> > Pat wrote:
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

Then they get what they deserve. No consumer should ever buy anything 1st,
and then learn about it later. If they do then....tuff doo-doo for them.
They have nothing to complain about.

"hyubso" wrote in message
news:3F175C87.7060405@prodigy.net...
> that is because computer purchasers buy first and learn afterwards.
>
>
>
>
> Bob wrote:
> > YES! No consumer should EVER need to actually take the time and learn
about
> > a product they are going to buy and use. WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT!
> >
>