I have XP Pro… and I’d have to say I love XP. I really liked WIN 98, and the fact that XP offered security like an NT system and has the same basic functionalities of a 98 system, well I was sold at that point.
Although I also have WIN 98 dual booted on another system with WIN 2K. So out of the variety, I like XP best. But hey, that’s just me.
What exactly is the difference between XP Pro, and XP Home, besides some extra networking stuff, and multiproccessor support? I use XP Home, and it took me all of 5 minutes to set it back to classic mode, and change all the settings to make it act like I wanted it to. Overall, I have been quite happy with it, and haven’t really had any problems with XP Home.
DreadCthulu, XP Pro has Remote Desktop, Encrypting File System, better restore options (driver rollback, last known good, and system restore), the ability to join domains, multiprocessor support, multilanguage support, IIS, and some other networking features.
They already made an OS like that. It was called Windows 2000. XP is Win2K with a few new features (mostly of dubious value) and more than a few new bugs.
In your dual-boot setup, do you have Windows 2000 on a FAT32 partition, like '98? If so, your perception of Win2K’s performance may be slightly clouded.
All correct, which is why I think it’s hilarious when someone claims that XP Pro is god’s gift to computing, but XP Home is a horrible piece of shit. Then you discover that they’re not actually using any of the extra features that XP Pro provides. Apparently, these folks don’t understand that the underlying code of XP Pro and XP Home is essentially identical, until you get to the extra features. It would be like saying that MS Word and Excel are crap, but MS Word, Excel, and Powerpoint are wonderful!
He’s apparently been here before.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178417
And vastly improved hardware/driver support over Win2K.
I loaded XP Pro on a ~4-year-old+ PII-266 Vaio laptop, and it recognized every oddball chip and port on it, incl 1394, IR port (!), oddball sound chipset, etc. I didn’t need to load even one driver. And the laptop ran noticably faster (boot time is intolerable on 98) and better (wow, sleep that can UNsleep! Who’da thought?) than with Win98SE. Quite impressive.
I love XP, mostly. For my work I use/used MacOS (for 17+ years, and it’s still crashing 
), Mac OS-X (ok, but slow), Win98/SE/ME (yech), WinNT/Win2K, and now XP Pro. I usually go weeks w/o rebooting my desktop (usually to install a driver), and IIRC I’ve bluescreened once in the last year. I was happy w/ Win2K as well, but there were things (mostly games, but various others) that wouldn’t run on it that run on XP.
Actually, the biggest plus for me w/ XP was that the 10-year-old OS rift on Windows is finally healed, and there’s one OS (more or less) for consumer and power desktops. No more dual-booting from 98SE to Win2K to test my code or drivers, thank goodness.
Now I just dual-boot my Mac. Dammit.
Well, sure. That’s what they’re saying now. But c’mon. Who are you gonna believe? Lynn Bodoni or me?
He pissed me off, so he was banned.
QED.
Fenris
PS: Yes. Yes the world DOES revolve around me. 
EarlyOut, your point is well made, but I can’t help feeling that XP Home is XP Pro with stuff taken out, rather than XP Pro being XP Home with extra stuff. And I can’t help feeling that taking that extra stuff out has caused problems with XP Home.
The reason I feel this way is that XP Home seems to be notoriously flakey! I’ve seen machines run XP Home that consistently encounter problems. These same machines, with XP Pro on them, work a treat!
There’s more to it than just “extra stuff they don’t use”.
Max.
The antidote to XP is Linux. Want a DOS prompt? Get dosemu and run all of your old DOS programs in a very realistic sandbox you have control over, right down to the CPU being emulated. Need some Windows programs? Get Wine, an open-source emulation of the Windows API, and use Office and Access and suchlike to your heart’s content. Linux can act broken to accomodate programs written for broken systems.
But if you want a real OS that offers preemptive multitasking, real security, and true memory protection, dump Microsoft and get Linux, a Unix variant and thereby heir to the OS that Got It Right 30 years ago. No more BSODs because no program can corrupt the kernel’s memory. Ever. No more runaway processes because every process is controlled by the command line and can be killed with a single command. Period.
Finally, Linux offers the ultimate in user-configurability: Sources. You can download the sources for damned near everything on your box. If you choose, you can reconfigure and recompile everything. If you choose. Of course, the distro is perfectly usable out of the box (as opposed to WinXP being crippled until you register).
At a higher level, you can choose everything else. There is nothing above the kernel’s most central level that isn’t configurable to a large extent. (Once you begin making changes to the kernel’s core, you are, at some point, running a different OS. :))
Want a substantially different GUI? There are dozens of different window managers to pick from, each offering a completely different approach to graphical interface.
Want a new command line? There are three main ones (bash, tcsh, and ksh) and many older programs and niche players (sh, ash, etc.). Each offers its own programming language, perfect for automating tasks well beyond command.com’s batch programming. Having a true programmable shell will make you forever regard DOS as fundamentally broken.
Want a skinnable browser? There’s Opera, Mozilla, Firebird (nee Phoenix), and all of the Mozilla-a-likes, just waiting to be downloaded.
Anyway, there’s more to Linux than I can cover here. There are some pretty powerful concepts, such as everything being a file and the programmable shell, that will make you rethink computing, and there are a lot of little things, such as the proliferation of simple text-centric input files, that just make Linux more convenient to the actual end-user.
http://www.linux.org/ – One starting point among many.
Of course, I’m available to answer any GQ threads about Linux.
Remove: Blue Screen of Death
Add: Kernel Panic
End result: Equally Ungood
Every OS has a specific set of strengths and weaknesses To proclaim one superior to all others is a bit silly. “My screwdriver is superior to your pliers!”
Brutus, I’ve used Linux in heavy use for years and I’ve never had a single kernel panic. Ever. How many Windows users can say that about BSODs?
In fact, I don’t even know how an end-user, as opposed to a developer or beta-tester, could force one.
Why?
WHY IN THE NAME OF MECHA JESUS WOULD YOU EVER THINK OF BUYING A MAC?!
I mean, really.
Aslan, ever since Apple decided to build MacOS X around a BSD, Macs have become a rather stable, usable platform. Yet another win for the Unix camp.
And now I see why ‘bash’ is a popular Linux shell.
squeegee, it gets worse: Bash is the `Bourne-Again Shell’.
Oh, good, just in case this wasn’t stupid enough already. Let’s pile the bullshit a little higher.
Sigh. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but – Win NT is indebted to the invaluable genetics of VMS. Yet another win for DEC, whoo!
And I’m sooo psyched that my blender is indebted to theWaring musical tradition.
Cerowyn, call us when you have something to add, 'kay?
Buh-bye now.
Derleth, I have never had a BSOD in Windows 2000 (Pro, Server, and Adv. Server), nor in XP Pro. I use XP Pro exclusively on my work and home desktops, and on my laptop. I admin Solaris boxes (A true Unix, not a ‘Unix-like’ OS). You would have to bribe me to install a *nix for general desktop use, but that’s just my preference.
Exgineer couldn’t figure out simple aspects of Windows XP (Like launching a command prompt). What makes you think that Linux will be any better for him? Linux has all sorts of positive features. It also has all sorts of negative features. Don’t act like it is flawless.