Jump to content


Windows Home or Pro


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 29 April 2006 - 03:34 AM

I was just curious: as far as gaming goes, does it matter whether I get either Windows Home or Pro edition? Is there a difference? Is one better than the other for that specific purpose? I'm asking because I've always been confused by these multitudes of editions Microsoft is famous for throwing around, making unclear which would be better-suited.
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#2 simfish

simfish

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 29 April 2006 - 04:00 AM

Some of my windowz fan boy friends insist that Pro is better than home, but I've played on similarly speced systems running home and pro and I've not found any noticeable difference in game performance.

Pro does have lots of extra features, although I can't think of any that would be particularly beneficial for gaming.

I'm sure that someone will correct me if I've missed something.

#3 Batcat

Batcat

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • Location:In Flux

Posted 29 April 2006 - 06:04 AM

Home is fine for gaming.

#4 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 29 April 2006 - 07:40 AM

This link may help.

I wonder how much difference it makes having these WinXP Pro Edition Networking features such as Simple TCP/IP services? I have the Pro Edition on my P4.

Networking Features of WinXP Pro...
The following networking features are not included in Home Edition:
The user interface for IPSecurity (IPSec)
SNMP
Simple TCP/IP services
SAP Agent
Client Service for NetWare
Network Monitor
Multiple Roaming feature

-Hunt'n

#5 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 29 April 2006 - 08:39 AM

i was wondering the same thing a couple of days ago. so i asked the computer administrator at my school (also hard core PC gamer and WoW player) who is a windows user, and he said that it has allot more administrative tools, and you can screw with the OS more but other than that its just a way for Microsoft to fool you into spending more money on an already crappy product. when i bought my version of windows to install on my imac i bought the pro edition just because they said that the home was not yet tested on the 20" imac, so i wanted to be sure.

#6 Aika

Aika

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 April 2006 - 10:45 AM

As a secondary OS for gaming on your Mac, XP Home is the one you want. Don't buy the Pro version, it's a waste of money for your needs.
iMac late 2013

#7 Bernie

Bernie

    Naughty

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1930 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 29 April 2006 - 12:46 PM

I would guestimate that Windows XP Home is just fine for gaming because most people have Home (because it is cheaper). Most developers aim for the larger market share: Home.

One Way of Looking at Life
Good to be a Master.
Better to be a Teacher.
Best to be a Student.


#8 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 29 April 2006 - 03:39 PM

Agreed. You don't really need the enterprise-level network and other stuff meant for larger coporations in Pro. XP Home will do fine as a secondary gaming-only OS.

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#9 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:07 PM

Thank you for all the replies. :) I'll be getting the Home edition then.
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#10 reallynotnick

reallynotnick

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:27 PM

STOP THE PRESSES

"Multi-processor support - Windows XP Pro supports up to two microprocessors, while Home Edition supports only one."


Maybe if you just want to game, but this could be a big factor being your iMac has 2 cores.

#11 simfish

simfish

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:35 PM

This has been discussed else where, Home supports duel cores but not two physical sockets. Pro supports duel, duel core processors.

#12 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 30 April 2006 - 06:51 AM

View Postsimfish, on April 29th 2006, 10:35 PM, said:

This has been discussed else where, Home supports duel cores but not two physical sockets. Pro supports duel, duel core processors.

Based on my faith in you, I've placed a statement to this effect in the Windows Gaming FAQ. :)
-Hunt'n

#13 Batcat

Batcat

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • Location:In Flux

Posted 30 April 2006 - 07:44 AM

Of course, in future if you should get an Intel dual-dual, and a game comes along that benefits from more than 2 cores, you may want Pro. :)

#14 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:56 AM

View PostBatcat, on April 30th 2006, 08:44 AM, said:

Of course, in future if you should get an Intel dual-dual, and a game comes along that benefits from more than 2 cores, you may want Pro. :)

IMO it's a cheap shot for MS to make this kind of hardware distinction between its home and pro editions. Why am I not surprised?

-Hunt'n

#15 Batcat

Batcat

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • Location:In Flux

Posted 30 April 2006 - 06:48 PM

XP came out in 2001, at which point there were no consumer multicore CPUs and very few dual-socket mobos; multi-CPU setups were basically server-side and XP versions tiered for price on the basis of features- I seem to recall Home, Pro, Corporate and Server/Enterprise versions (along with support for 1, 2, 4 and up to 32 CPUs- something like that, and networking features likewise. MS didn't push Corp or above at any home user. Addition of multicore support for Home came out of a license/price haggle between Intel and MS when Intel introduced their HyperThreading P4s (2 'logical' CPUs).

FWIW, some of the extras in Pro are on the Home CD, but don't install by default. Memory's a bit rusty there, I'm afraid, but it should be easily checked... still, Home is pretty much all you need for gaming, and the extras in Pro are mostly of use to those limited to one OS; obviously not the case with Bootcamp.

#16 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:40 PM

View PostHuntn, on April 30th 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

make this kind of hardware distinction between its home and pro editions. Why am I not surprised?

Because they spent a lot of time and effort to make Windows scale well over >=4 CPUs, and they want to see a return on it. Apple would have to put the same level of effort and be shown to not roll that cost into their Quads before you could say that Apple wouldn't do the same.

#17 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 01 May 2006 - 06:05 AM

View Postbobbob, on April 30th 2006, 11:40 PM, said:

Because they spent a lot of time and effort to make Windows scale well over >=4 CPUs, and they want to see a return on it. Apple would have to put the same level of effort and be shown to not roll that cost into their Quads before you could say that Apple wouldn't do the same.

I disagree. Just because you buy a 2 processor slot computer for home use, should not force you to use the Pro Edition. I might be able to see it for other reasons, but overall I prefer Apple's one size fits all philosophy.

-Hunt'n

#18 Stecchino

Stecchino

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Location:Norfolk, Virginia, USA

Posted 01 May 2006 - 07:14 AM

View PostHuntn, on April 30th 2006, 07:51 AM, said:

Based on my faith in you, I've placed a statement to this effect in the Windows Gaming FAQ. :)
-Hunt'n


No faith needed, it's been discussed in a few threads here in this sub-forum with links and references, etc.   :)

I can't wait for the "Which of the 7 versions of Windows Vista is best for my Mac" threads.  :-D

I agree with Huntn, I like the 1-size-fits-all simplicity of Apple.

#19 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 01 May 2006 - 09:32 AM

View PostHuntn, on May 1st 2006, 10:05 PM, said:

I prefer Apple's one size fits all philosophy.
Yep...

#20 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 12:14 PM

View PostStecchino, on May 1st 2006, 06:14 AM, said:

I agree with Huntn, I like the 1-size-fits-all simplicity of Apple.

Vista's got, what, one home version, the 'premium' media center/mobile version, an over-priced ultimate version, and some other random ones that won't be seen outside a glass case in the MS offices in Beijing. When buying the ultimate or media center versions you know you're directly paying extra for all those extra features because you want them, and when buying the other version, you know you're not paying for the features you don't want. Is it better to get a one-size-fits-all version where you are directly paying for all the extra features you don't need? And it's missing features you might even pay more for?