Differences between XP home and pro

Guys I remember when I didn't know too much about tech, one of my dad's friends told us Xp pro was much better than home edition, which according to him had many more security holes than the home edition.

I'm wondering if pro really is that much better than home edition and what the main differences are???

Thanks

 

The only major thing i'm aware of is the lack of remote desktop feature and some "professional" features.

 

Here:

www.williamaford.com/XPHomevsXPPro.php

 

Haha what a thing to ask.. probably been up over a half million times in other forums (google).

anyway.. i found out that home doesnt have gpedit.msc which i sometimes use

 

The major thing about XP Pro is the ability to connect to a domain network. Windows XP Home can only connect to peer-to-peer networks, other than that, nothing majore to mention.

 

The essential difference is that home was made for use on home networks (work groups) while professional was made to be used on corporate networks (i.e active directory domains). So you will find that home doesn't contain some of the network connection utilities (i.e remote desktop, group policy etc) that pro would have etc.

Also the home edition from what I recall was not made to support multiple CPU sockets while Pro can.

 

Thanks for the replies

So for my dad's home laptop, XP home should be fine, I mean it isn't more unsecure (has more vulnerabilities than the Pro edition) ???

 

nope, nothing like that, just a few minor differences that are not essential for the normal home user, just as the name implies.

 

The OS kernel is the same for both editions so any security holes that exist in Pro will exist in home as well.

You will find that any version of vista will be far more secure than any XP or 2000 edition of windows so if you are concerned about vulnerabilities then try to get vista.

 

negative, Vista never offered any real world actual security more than XP other than UAC which is senseless to the average user who knows what he is doing.

 

No, it's just that my dad's laptop came with a home key, and now that I was about to re-format I was wondering what advantages there would be of buying Windows XP PRO

None it seems

PS - I won't install Vista on his because it can't handle it
Thanks guys

 

Just to clarify - while XP Home doesn't come with the remote desktop client already installed, you can download the client from Microsoft for free and install it on an XP Home system (you cannot, however, remote into an XP Home system using RDP, although you can use remote assistance, I believe).

 

What is the remote desktop client used for
It is to take control of another computer using yous???
Because if so I don't think my dad will ever need to use this

I don't understand what this means, do you mean to say I can receive help remotely, but not control others system (or only home edition system)
Did I get it right, (don't really know much about this)
Thanks

 

The Remote Desktop Protocol (aka "RDP") allows you to log onto another computer remotely, and use that computer as if you were right there typing on its keyboard and using its mouse instead of using the keyboard and mouse attached to your computer. It can be useful for logging onto a home server type computer over the internet when you're away from home.

Remote Assistance is a different setup from RDP. Basically Remote Assistance, which is usually used in an enterprise network environment, is useful for allowing a sysadmin to see your desktop and to manipulate the mouse and keyboard to help you do something. The main difference is that RDP forces any locally logged on user (someone who's using the keyboard and mouse attached to the remote computer in question) to log off (very unceremoniously if you decide not to give them any warning); Remote Assistance doesn't log the local user off, and he or she can still view the desktop, what's being done, and can also control the system with the local keyboard/mouse (which can lead to some amusing contests for control of the cursor if the remote assister and the user are both trying to point to something different at the same time).

It doesn't sound like you'll need either one, so I wouldn't bother with it unless you're interested.

 

Like my school's computer lab when the teacher is showing us an example

Thanks for the info, guess home edition is fine for me

 

Actually XP is more vulnerable to virus and other attacks than vista even without UAC. Trust me on that one There was a nasty autorun virus floating around on my network at work (gave me hell to get rid of) and the only computer that couldn't be infected by it was my dv5z. Every single XP Pro computer on the network got infected, even the 2003 database server got it as well. The only servers that couldn't be infected (and they weren't even running any active antivirus at the time) were the two 2008 servers (same kernel as vista). Heck I even attempted to deliberately infect my vista installation and the virus just didn't work.

Remember the average user is not very knowledgeable when it comes to computer security and doesn't always know when they are being going down a dangerous road.

 

Very true (+rep)

Which is why I was thinking of putting Vista on my dad's laptop, but it can't run it well, so XP plus some good security programs should get the job done

It's in such a bad state I can't even explain it. Anyone with even a little computer know-how would cringe and faint if they saw it

I recently tried cleaning it, got rid of ~50 viruses , but some remain, and will never be fully removed so I have decided to do a clean install after backing up all his data

 

I have to argue on the UAC. While I leave myne off, with UAC off I can easily attack a system with numerous things that cant be done with it On.

If an application does not ask to be elevated (uac prompt) it will try todo what its coded todo but everything is done in a virtual environment, no harm done. With UAC off it doesnt need to be elevated it will do what it was designed todo with no warning at all.

Plenty of things I could do to an XP system that just plain dont work with UAC unless I ask for elevation and a user is stupid enough to approve.

 

Yup. The only other benefit to Pro over Home is that Home can only do so-called "simple file-sharing" whereas Pro has a more sophisticated file sharing system that allows you to set permissions by user, by file, and etc. Again, that doesn't sound like something you're gonna need (and at any rate, you'd need it on all the computers involved, not just one), so that also wouldn't be a reason for you to spend extra $$ on XP Pro at this late date. Probably better to put that money aside and start saving up to buy Dad a new(er) computer, maybe for Father's Day next year!

 

I told him that said his pc is fine for his needs, doing his work (reports, presentations and such) and for browsing the net.

I'm going to upgrade his RAM from 512MB to 1GB for a nice boost as secondary belated father's day gift

 

Actually you just reminded me about teh Autorun.ini virus. I must admit, in an internet cafe in Syria where I was on vacation, a friend's internet cafe's whole computers got infected with autorun, they were running AVG antivirus at that time when the autorun virus was brand new.

I on the other hand was running NOD32 + Vista (UAC enabled) and never got infected, I dunno who protected meh, NOD32 or UAC, but hey, I never got it.

 

Boosting the RAM will make a noticeable difference; he'll probably notice the effect of that more than anything else.

 

Yep
Although he wasn't even letting me get that for him, saying it wasn't needed