Jump to content


Windows Home or Pro


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 reallynotnick

reallynotnick

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 06:43 PM

View PostTesseract, on May 1st 2006, 09:32 AM, said:



HO ho ho, we have a smarty pants.  :P


Maybe it is just me but I don't mind the loss of server ablitlies with Apples "home" edition  :happy:

#22 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

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

Posted 01 May 2006 - 09:32 PM

View PostTesseract, on May 1st 2006, 10:32 AM, said:


Servers must be exempt from my argument. ;)
-Hunt'n

#23 tthiel

tthiel

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az

Posted 02 May 2006 - 11:29 AM

Umm no.  XP was multi-threaded on release, it had nothing to do with HyperThreading.  There have only ever been two version of XP, Home and Pro.  Microsoft has in fact, and continues, to push the higher priced Pro to home users and everyone else.


View PostBatcat, on April 30th 2006, 05:48 PM, said:

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.


#24 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 12:11 PM

View Posttthiel, on May 2nd 2006, 10:29 AM, said:

Umm no.  XP was multi-threaded on release, it had nothing to do with HyperThreading.

You might want to understand something before you post about it.

Quote

There have only ever been two version of XP, Home and Pro.

All the various 2k3 Servers might as well be considered versions of XP. Then there's the volume-licensed versions of XP which are slightly different from retail XP Pro.

#25 tthiel

tthiel

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az

Posted 25 May 2006 - 11:51 AM

Get real.  Windows Server 2003 has nothing to do with XP Pro or Home.  That is just an incredibly uninformed statement.  I understand the licensing quite well as well as corporate licensing which is different terms but nothing regarding functionality.   I've alpha and beta tested all of those and have been responsible for very large corporate purchases, installations and administration.  You might want to understand something before you post about it.  

View Postbobbob, on May 2nd 2006, 11:11 AM, said:

You might want to understand something before you post about it.
All the various 2k3 Servers might as well be considered versions of XP. Then there's the volume-licensed versions of XP which are slightly different from retail XP Pro.


They did?  It doesn't show.  Windows scales incredibly poorly over more than two processors especially compared to Unix.  W2K3 is better but not much.  They also still have the usual memory leak issues, dll overwrites etc.  I have personally had Microsoft recommend to me to use multiple two cpu servers over fewer quad server boxes for scalability reasons when designing a very large (75,000 user) .NET architecture.  There is also alot of evidence that dual processor support is actually built into Home but is not "turned on".  Note I am not talking about dual core but dual proc.  I have a lab with quite a few quad Opteron Sun boxes that triple boot Red hat, Solaris 10 and W2K3 and W2k3 is blown away by Unix OS' in speed, scalability, and reliability. We find the same thing in the very alrge production environement for .NET and J2EE that I design, build and run.  Well I design them and people who report to me build and run them.

View Postbobbob, on April 30th 2006, 09:40 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.


#26 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 25 May 2006 - 12:31 PM

View Posttthiel, on May 25th 2006, 10:51 AM, said:

Windows Server 2003 has nothing to do with XP Pro or Home

It's the server version from the same branch, so it's hardly unrelated. The corporate license isn't the only thing that changed in retail Pro vs. volume licensed versions. 'Being multithreaded upon release' is different from being SMP, and they did have to change things to make hyperthreading treated differently than multi-socket SMP for both functional and license reasons.

Quote

Windows scales incredibly poorly over more than two processors especially compared to Unix

? Solaris and Linux took a lot of work to get that way, and Windows has taken a lot of work to get where it is, too. There are lots of Unix and Unix-like OSes that haven't improved as much, and it shows.

#27 tthiel

tthiel

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az

Posted 25 May 2006 - 03:43 PM

This is getting laughable.  You just don't know what you are talking about.  

View Postbobbob, on May 25th 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

It's the server version from the same branch, so it's hardly unrelated. The corporate license isn't the only thing that changed in retail Pro vs. volume licensed versions. 'Being multithreaded upon release' is different from being SMP, and they did have to change things to make hyperthreading treated differently than multi-socket SMP for both functional and license reasons.
? Solaris and Linux took a lot of work to get that way, and Windows has taken a lot of work to get where it is, too. There are lots of Unix and Unix-like OSes that haven't improved as much, and it shows.


#28 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17430 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 25 May 2006 - 05:55 PM

You two have come to an impasse.  Please let the argument drop.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat