Windows Home or Pro
Posted 29 April 2006 - 03:34 AM
Posted 29 April 2006 - 04:00 AM
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.
Posted 29 April 2006 - 07:40 AM
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)
Simple TCP/IP services
Client Service for NetWare
Multiple Roaming feature
Posted 29 April 2006 - 08:39 AM
Posted 29 April 2006 - 10:45 AM
Posted 29 April 2006 - 12:46 PM
One Way of Looking at Life
Good to be a Master.
Better to be a Teacher.
Best to be a Student.
Posted 29 April 2006 - 03:39 PM
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
Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:07 PM
Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:27 PM
"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.
Posted 29 April 2006 - 09:35 PM
Posted 30 April 2006 - 06:51 AM
Based on my faith in you, I've placed a statement to this effect in the Windows Gaming FAQ.
Posted 30 April 2006 - 07:44 AM
Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:56 AM
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?
Posted 30 April 2006 - 06:48 PM
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.
Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:40 PM
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.
Posted 01 May 2006 - 06:05 AM
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.
Posted 01 May 2006 - 07:14 AM
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.
Posted 01 May 2006 - 12:14 PM
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?