Windows XP Home or Professional?

[BadAsh]

I am getting a new Computer this week and plan to put Windows XP on it. I don't currently have XP on any machine.

I have looked at the differences between the Home and Professional Editions and it basically comes down to FAT32 or NTFS (File System).

Home Edition = FAT32
Professional Edition = NTFS

The Professional also has the ability to allow Remote Administration so there is a perk but I am still wondering about some other things.

I have heard that Windows XP (all flavors) have "Emulation" built in so if you install a program (application, game, whatever) that will not work the system can "emulate" another operating system to allow the program to work. I have seen this in action. A friend of mine tried installing "Roxio EasyCDCreator 5.0" and while it would install, it wouldn't run. We set the program to use Windows 95 "emulation" and everything worked just fine.

I'm not a big gamer but I do alot of Audio and Video editing (obviously). I use NTFS on Windows 2000 at work and don't have any problems with my Audio and Video editing software so I am not too concerned but I am just wondering if anyone else is currently using the Professional Edition of Windows XP and has found problems that the new "Emulation" can not handle.

Any wisdom you would like to share?

Any problems with specifi Video Editing, Conversion or Playing software?

Thanks!

-BadAsh

[Feslmogh]

You you are haveing no probelms with W2k, then i don't see why you stick with that OS. Best to my knowledge, everytime you install XP, you have to call in to get the CD Key... >

[incognito]

At AnandTech there was a very interesting article
about the relative performance of windowsNT,
windows 2000, and winXP. In some applications,
windows XP showed a huge performance degradation
vs the other two operating systems.

I've also heard many bad things about audio editing
under winXP, and mp3 support in general. I've never
used it, so I can't comment personally.

I use windows 2000 and Linux at home and work, and
do all my video editing under win2k. I have had no
compatability problems.

NTFS is a slightly better chioce than FAT32
because of it's semi-journalling capabilities, but
I don't use it because other operating systems often
have difficulty reading and writing to it.

I'm curious to hear if anyone reading this forum uses winXP, if they've noticed the relative performance
degradation that Anand describes, and what their
general feelings on it are.

[BadAsh]

No... that isn't quite the truth. With Windows XP you get a CD Key but you must "Activate" the program via the Internet within 14 days.

Basically this "Activation" searches through your system and records the IDs of several pieces of hardware (video cards, CD-ROM drives, etc.). It uses this information to build an "Activation" string in the registry. This code links the software to your machine. If the system spots a major change such as a totall gutting of your system (i.e. you replace all pieces of hardware used during activation) then "re-activation" will be necessary. It is this "re-activation" that requires a Telephone call.

The beta versions of Windows XP was more strict on this "Activation" (and hardware replacement) but the final release will be a little more laxed.

My new machine will have Windows ME preinstalled. If it had Windows 2000 I wouldn't bother but if I am going to upgrade (or in this case, redo) my new system I might as well go with the latest and greates and install Windows XP. I'm a programmer... we're goofy like that.

Actually, Windows XP should be better than Windows 2000 since it includes the basic Windows 2000 Kernel with all the system enhancements Windows ME has introduced (albeit they now work) plus there is a nifty new interface.

Anyone out there with Windows XP experience?

[BadAsh]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-07-25 12:29:56, incognito wrote:
At AnandTech there was a very interesting article
about the relative performance of windowsNT,
windows 2000, and winXP. In some applications,
windows XP showed a huge performance degradation
vs the other two operating systems.

...

I'm curious to hear if anyone reading this forum uses winXP, if they've noticed the relative performance
degradation that Anand describes, and what their
general feelings on it are.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

The performance degradation reported in the articles you have read may be due to beta test code problems. Alot of OS betas and betas in general include alot of behind the scenes debug code that can cause performance problems. Another thing that can cause slow downs or degradation in performance is the fact that the beta code isn't fully "optimized" and there are always potential "memory leaks" that can also slow the system down.

I have read where people that are using Release Candidate 1 (RC1) have found vast improvements over earlier betas and are now experiencing the performance increases that Microsoft has been boasting about.

I'll check AnandTech and see if their reports still have any merrit.

[patrickm]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
I have looked at the differences between the Home and Professional Editions and it basically comes down to FAT32 or NTFS (File System).

Home Edition = FAT32
Professional Edition = NTFS
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

nope, actually both have full NTFS support. (the whole point of XP is to merge the 9x and NT markets toward one main OS, and that was a major stumbling block). you get NTFS in either, but you only get the separately-encrypted data for each user in Professional. there may also be a disk tool or two you don't get in Home. and you miss out on system file protection i think.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: patrickm on 2001-07-25 13:49:16 ]</font>

[LanceSteel]

Why upgrade? I have hardware that only has reliable drivers for Win95/Win98. The hardware works great just the way it is. I have been using Win98se since it came out and I don't think I'll ever upgrade to another Windows based OS. Seriously, what's the point of upgrading your OS other than for business networking or installing cutting-edge hardware?

[BadAsh]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-07-25 13:12:02, patrickm wrote:

nope. both have full NTFS support. the whole point of XP is to merge the 9x and NT markets into one main OS. you get NTFS in either, but you only get the separately-encrypted data for each user in Professional. there may also be a disk tool or two you don't get in Home. and you miss out on system file protection i think.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for the info... when I first read your post I just knew you were wrong but after further investigating I found you are correct. Microsoft just confuses the issue by making statements like "with the NTFS file system, Windows XP Professional provides improved Security Features...". Such statements make it appear as if the Home Edition doesn't use NTFS. I have also read articles on the Windows XP site that refer to FAT32 and the Home Edition.

Maybe the truth is that the Home Edition will work on FAT32 systems while the Professional Edition won't. Or maybe I am making this more confusing than it should be.

[jpaguila]

I've using XP during sometime now and I can tell that this is by far the best OS the Microsoft has released so far eventhoug is just beta for now. (For multimedia anyway).

I had Win 98 and ME, and had a lot of trouble with my firewire card, sometimes I couldn't transmit back to my camcorder or I had frames drop while capturing, etc.

XP installs its own set of firewire card drivers that works very well with MediaStudio Pro. I also has a program MovieMaker to capture directly to ASF.

XP installs also networking components for the firewire card so I was able to transmit at 400 Mhz between two XP computers with the extra firewire ports I have.

Another good feature I found is the abilty to switch users without closing apps.

There are also a lot of new features not necesarally used for MM applications, but for creating SVCDS and editings movies and capturing Video is the best so far.

It's also stable and when an apps fails it will ask to restart it for you.

Very happy with it, I just hope each release get's better.

jpaguila@parasoft.com.py

[BadAsh]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-07-25 13:31:33, LanceSteel wrote:
Why upgrade? I have hardware that only has reliable drivers for Win95/Win98. The hardware works great just the way it is. I have been using Win98se since it came out and I don't think I'll ever upgrade to another Windows based OS. Seriously, what's the point of upgrading your OS other than for business networking or installing cutting-edge hardware?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

You make a valid point. Windows XP has very strict Hardware requirements. In fact, most testers say that if your system is slower than 300MHz and has less than 128MB of RAM that you shouldn't use XP at all. What makes things worse is that Microsoft even recommends that you simply buy a "Windows XP Ready" machine (one that has the XP logo). Yeah, like that is gonna happen.

I currently have:

PII - 266MHz
128MB RAM
2 6GB Hard Drives

I just purchased (awaiting shipment)

P4 - 1.5GHz
256MB RAM
2 40GB Hard Drives

I figure this new system is beefy enough and since I am a programmer and someone who lives on the bleading edge of technology I just have to upgrade.

[patrickm]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-07-25 13:31:33, LanceSteel wrote:
Why upgrade? I have hardware that only has reliable drivers for Win95/Win98. The hardware works great just the way it is. I have been using Win98se since it came out and I don't think I'll ever upgrade to another Windows based OS. Seriously, what's the point of upgrading your OS other than for business networking or installing cutting-edge hardware?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

exactly. i just left win95 this spring because my hardware just wasn't supported anymore. now i have winME/win2K dual boot installed, and that covers pretty much everything. i have a feeling now i won't need a new OS until i buy a 64bit processor...

[BadAsh]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-07-25 13:50:48, jpaguila wrote:
I've using XP during sometime now and I can tell that this is by far the best OS the Microsoft has released so far eventhoug is just beta for now. (For multimedia anyway).

...

It's also stable and when an apps fails it will ask to restart it for you.

Very happy with it, I just hope each release get's better.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for the great info. Another concern is that I am sharing my home computer with my girlfriend. The "User Switching" thing will be nice (since apps can stay running).

[patrickm]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-07-25 13:48:38, BadAsh wrote:
Thanks for the info... when I first read your post I just knew you were wrong but after further investigating I found you are correct. Microsoft just confuses the issue by making statements like "with the NTFS file system, Windows XP Professional provides improved Security Features...". Such statements make it appear as if the Home Edition doesn't use NTFS. I have also read articles on the Windows XP site that refer to FAT32 and the Home Edition.

Maybe the truth is that the Home Edition will work on FAT32 systems while the Professional Edition won't. Or maybe I am making this more confusing than it should be.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
fat32 is just more common among home OS's so they want to keep the consistency there. but win2k can use it too, and so will XP.

but no, you're not making it confusing. microsoft is. on purpose. see, when you move toward a unified platform, you have trouble convincing small businesses to pay the exorbitant price difference to get the professional version if it's 99% the same as the home edition. so they have to make it sound like the pro is so much better, while in reality there aren't too many serious differences. the ability to get corporate/enterprise licensing where you don't have to activate each individual PC at your office is one, though. and i think system restore and the per-user encryption are the other ones.

btw, MovieMaker comes in winME. (it's really nothing too special either). it does have better firewire support, but lacks USB 2.0, at least it will when it ships. honestly, it's probably better to wait a year until they work the bugs out of it.

the emulation does sound good, but i want it to emulate with my older drivers too, not just the kernel. part of the problem is hardware that's no longer being supported for new OS's, not just the software that won't run.

[leebo]

"most testers say that if your system is slower than 300MHz and has less than 128MB of RAM that you shouldn't use XP at all."

I would think most people working with video meet those requirements anyway, no?

The L.A. Times reported today that congress is looking into forcing MS to delay XP until some changes are made (didn't read the whole thing).

Perhaps having to re-register the OS can be taken out.

[jpaguila]

USB 2.0 isn't going any way to far (IMHO). XP won't support it out of the box and there are a lot of companies making firewire devices. Firewire "1394b" is also ready and will be as well backwards compatible it will get up to 3.6 Gb/s., USB 2.0 can get up to 480 Mbits (firewire is already 400 Mbit/s).
I just bought and firewire/USB scanner and I'm really happy with it. You get a full page preview in a couple of seconds and scan a 6x4" pictures with blazing speed. (Microteck ScanMaker 5700). This scanners includes a firewire card.

[jpaguila]

Other thing about firewire is that it’s ISO Synchronous. That is that can guarantied the speed transmission for devices which is very useful for transmitting DV.

[patrickm]

don't get me wrong- i'm not trumpeting the benefits of USB2 over 1394 or 1394b. in fact, i hardly even use USB 1.0/1.1. it is too slow. but i do think USB2 will probably be around for a while, if for nothing else than to upgrade the older USB devices like scanners and stuff before everything moves to firewire. also, while 1394 is significantly better, almost every motherboard and laptop comes standard with USB ports, and many less tech-savvy consumers like that.