my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Question about Windows XP vs 2000 Pro (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Question about Windows XP vs 2000 Pro Sam Hunter Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 779 From: West Monroe, LA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-09-2004 05:28 PM                     I have XP Home and was wondering if I would benefit from installing 2000 Pro and if so how would I go about it? When I tried to load 2K Pro it said that I was trying to install a older version of windows and would not let me install 2000.  |  IP: Logged Jason Burroughs Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 654 From: Allen, TX Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-09-2004 06:44 PM                     The reason you could not install 2000 Pro over XP Home, is because it would essentially be a "downgrade" If you break it down to version numbers Windows 2000 Pro = Windows NT 5.0 Windows XP (Pro AND Home)= Windows NT 5.1  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-09-2004 08:50 PM                     XP Home is garbage. I'd stick with 2000 Pro over XP Home.  |  IP: Logged Sam Hunter Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 779 From: West Monroe, LA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-09-2004 09:13 PM                     I was thinking that W2K was newer than Xp but I just wasn't sure. I think for the trouble involved I will leave well enough alone. Thanks for jogging my memory.  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-09-2004 09:46 PM                     If 2k is working fine for you, you'd be better off just leaving it on. If you have the urge to upgrade to XP, get the Pro version.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-10-2004 01:19 AM                     Why does Microsoft even sell a "Home" version of Win XP? Really. What is the purpose of it? What exactly does "XP Home" do that XP Pro does not? How exactly is the "Home" version more user friendly than the "Pro" version? Both versions look pretty much the same. Is XP Home able to run old DOS style games or games that didn't work on WinNT (like the first version of "Quake")? I've looked at both versions very closely, and the only differences I can see is XP Home is really great if you want an operating system that is total crap when it comes to networking to other machines, especially those running older versions of Windows. Now, this is a situation more likely to exist in a Home rather than an office. Work environments get their computers updated more often. Many houseolds feature hand-me-down old PCs sitting in a kid's room with the newer PC being in Daddy's study, etc. If anything, XP Pro is far better to stick on a home PC because it will have an easier time seeing that antique Win95 or Win98 machine. IMHO, Microsoft should just simplify things and only sell XP Pro in personal computers and laptops. The Home version has no justification to exist.  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-10-2004 01:30 AM                     Bobby, XP Pro supports Dual CPU's while the Home edition doesn't.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-10-2004 02:25 AM                        There are also one or two other bells and whistles which are exclusive to XP Pro, e.g. more sophisticated file sharing options and an encryption facility. The main difference I noticed between 2K and XP Pro was that the latter used a lot less RAM and slightly less hard disc space. Simply put, when comparing the two operating systems running on the exact same hardware, XP Pro seems to run faster and multitasks more efficiently. I've never used XP Home, though (except briefly and on other people's machines), so I couldn't say whether you'd be getting these advantages when installing it over W2K. On the subject of computers, I've just finished a major upgrade of mine and have hit two strange problems on reinstalling Windows (XP Pro). The first is that it will only create and install my system volume as drive H:. It won't let me change it to C: in Computer Management later, as you can't change the drive letter of the system volume. I guess the reason for this is that both my hard drives in the new machine are on a Serial ATA RAID controller. There are no hard discs connected to either IDE rail, so I can only guess that Windows reserves C: for an IDE drive. I'm not even sure that this is a problem at all - presumably the OS and all application software should work happily with the system volume as H:. If it won't, is there any way of changing it to C:? Secondly, neither the BIOS nor Windows recognises the CPU correctly as being an AMD XP+3200/400FSB. On bootup, the BIOS simply says 'AMD Athlon', while Windows thinks that the CPU is an XP+1900. Things I've tried: (i) updating the BIOS with the latest version (the motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro 2 rev. 2.0), (ii) double checking the motherboard jumper settings and BIOS settings to auto-detect everything and (iii) downloading all the recommended Windows updates, using Autopatcher first and then Windows update to put in everything which was released since. Still no joy, and I'm wondering if this is simply a display glitch or if the processor is not running as fast as it should be.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-10-2004 07:44 PM                        quote: Ron said: XP Pro supports Dual CPU's while the Home edition doesn't. Ummmm... why would they disable this for the home version? Mac OS X does not have a crappy "no frills" version. Teh ghey.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-10-2004 08:04 PM                        Joe--you, of all people, should know this: they want to charge more money for the non-crippled version. Even more annoying is the distinction that they make between "server" and "workstation" versions (M$ has no concept of a "workstation" machine with more than two processors, for example). I recommend installing Linux or NetBSD or, better yet, throwing the PC away and getting a real computer.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-10-2004 08:12 PM                    XP Home is also not supposed to be able to connect to a server. But I think Micros~1 meant that it won't connect to a WINDOWS based server because if you install the Novell client, it connects to a Novell server just fine. At least ours does. For what it's worth, I read an article a while back that said that Win 2K pro & server were exactly identical save for a few registry keys instructing the OS to boot one way or the other. Apparently a university group did a binary compare on all the files, and they were exactly the same. They even managed to install Pro, and hack the registry to fool it into booting up as server. Complete with the Server splash screen and all. I can't find that article at the moment tho. This was a few years ago.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-10-2004 10:04 PM                     Get a reel operating system like OS2  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-10-2004 10:16 PM                  McGord: >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 05-10-2004 11:39 PM                    one might want to read into one important thing. Home/Professional. A professional will not use the home edition and the average Joe, not our Joe here, who doesn't give a crap will use the Home edition. That being the same guy that buys one of those Emachines.  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-11-2004 03:39 AM                     quote: Scott Even more annoying is the distinction that they make between "server" and "workstation" versions (M$ has no concept of a "workstation" machine with more than two processors, for example). I recommend installing Linux or NetBSD Well if you know of some good video/audio editing software for linux, I'd be more than happy to make the switch. The Xeons' will appriciate it for sure!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.