I've read that XP Home does not support dual processors whereas Pro does. So if you want to run Windows (Bootcamp or otherwise), do you need to use Pro to get the best performance?
I've read that XP Home does not support dual processors whereas Pro does. So if you want to run Windows (Bootcamp or otherwise), do you need to use Pro to get the best performance?
While this doesn't answer your question, XP Home is a piece of crap. On a slightly different note, has anyone tried to use an OEM Media Center Edition on the MBP/iMac?
I've read that XP Home does not support dual processors whereas Pro does. So if you want to run Windows (Bootcamp or otherwise), do you need to use Pro to get the best performance?
Remember: dual processors are different than dual cores. XP Home may not support dual processors, but will support a single processor with two cores.
While this doesn't answer your question, XP Home is a piece of crap. On a slightly different note, has anyone tried to use an OEM Media Center Edition on the MBP/iMac?
It has its problems, but the same counts for MacOS.
You guys sound so....1995.
Windows has it's own problems, but mainly they are highlighted by the fact that 90% of computers are running it. Can all these people be wrong? Then again, can all the flies in the world be wrong, shit is good?!?!?
Windows has it's own problems, but mainly they are highlighted by the fact that 90% of computers are running it. Can all these people be wrong? Then again, can all the flies in the world be wrong, shit is good?!?!?
If you think you can equate human opinion to an insects opinion (which may or may not even exist) you are certainly not qualified to even talk about XP, let alone pass judgement on its quality.
It's the same piece of crap but with the added benefit of the Media Center application.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. XP Pro doesn't come with Media Center. Neither does XP Home. XP Media Center Edition does. Early versions of XP MCE were a superset of Pro, while the most recent releases are neither Home nor Pro, but float in some limbo in the middle.
Vista will do away with a custom MCE release, and will have most of the (insanely and unnecessarily numerous) higher-tier versions include Vista's version of MCE.
To conclude, XP, Home or Pro, compared to previous iterations of Windows, is not crap, just like Win2K wasn't crap, and WinNT mostly wasn't crap. Only the 9x/ME line was Genuine(TM) crap.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. XP Pro doesn't come with Media Center. Neither does XP Home. XP Media Center Edition does. Early versions of XP MCE were a superset of Pro, while the most recent releases are neither Home nor Pro, but float in some limbo in the middle.
Vista will do away with a custom MCE release, and will have most of the (insanely and unnecessarily numerous) higher-tier versions include Vista's version of MCE.
To conclude, XP, Home or Pro, compared to previous iterations of Windows, is not crap, just like Win2K wasn't crap, and WinNT mostly wasn't crap. Only the 9x/ME line was Genuine(TM) crap.
Clearly, you should read the posts fully before passing judgement. I clearly stated that XP Media Center is XP Pro + the Media Center Application. Incidentially, I have recent XP MCE (which appears as XP PRo for various system tasks) and XP Pro on a laptop and a desktop so I believe I DO in fact know what I'm talking about.
Good day.
And to append, I also still maintain that XP is a piece of crap given that within 20 minutes of being online (on dial-up, no less), on a fresh install of XP Pro, the computer became infected, and my one-year-old Pentium D MCE Box can't stay stable for more than several hours. That a (supposedly) top-of-the-line computer can't maintain uptime of more than a few hours while the FreeBSD box with a PII and 128Mb of RAM stays up for weeks and months at a time is fairly astonishing.
I clearly stated that XP Media Center is XP Pro + the Media Center Application.
Which used to be the case, but isn't any more.
Quote:
Incidentially, I have recent XP MCE (which appears as XP PRo for various system tasks) and XP Pro on a laptop and a desktop so I believe I DO in fact know what I'm talking about.
Then your MCE is either outdated, or no, you do not know what you're talking about.
The original MCE, and all versions until (and including) MCE 2004 still were, indeed, a superset of Pro.
MCE 2005, which was also the first version available in retail, removed the ability to join an Active Directory domain, which is just about the most significant feature of Pro, as all sorts of things like IntelliMirror, centralized group policies, etc. require this.
So either your XP MCE is not "recent", as you claim, or it's not a superset of Pro. Pick your poison.
Is it possible to have a bit of perspective people?
XP is neither utter crap nor capable of developing nuclear fusion.
A few months ago I got itchy feet and built a cheap AMD rig, running XP pro. With a firewall, anti-virus, and a Broadband router, it has remained stable, and Openoffice is a superb piece of open source software.
However, it lacks the finesse of the MacOS, and trying to tweak some settings can be a real headache. Given a free choice, bar the ability to play games, using XP is like driving a Lada when you have a Ferarri sitting in your driveway.
One billion flies can't be wrong, shit is good Hilarious.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If you think you can equate human opinion to an insects opinion (which may or may not even exist) you are certainly not qualified to even talk about XP, let alone pass judgement on its quality.
The comment was not an equation, it was a metaphorical analogy and one which, I may add, was probably not meant to be taken literally (as you did). I suppose you would argue that Animal Farm was a terrible novel becauses pigs (or animals in general) can't really talk, eh?
And yes, XP pro is less of a piece of crap than XP home.
So, in the spirit of getting this thread back on topic and to answer your question, go with XP Pro.
Everything in the Mac OS X UI is slower than on Windows or Linux. Get used to it.
Sometimes, it is not easy to get used to it
I agree with this, with some qualifications:
1. the XP UI (and the OS, in certain tasks) is generally faster than OS X/Aqua, but then again, OS X's UI doesn't look like it was put together by a pre-schooler with some crayons. OS X's GUI is far more complex than XP's (more eye candy), although this would not be the single reason explaining why Aqua is slower.
Comparisons between Vista's UI and OS X would be more appropriate since they are both similar in complexity, but less so since Vista is only a public Beta. Also, the Intel Macs are a huge improvement in this regard and I expect things will continue to improve significantly with Leopard.
1. the XP UI (and the OS, in certain tasks) is generally faster than OS X/Aqua, but then again, OS X's UI doesn't look like it was put together by a pre-schooler with some crayons. OS X's GUI is far more complex than XP's (more eye candy), although this would not be the single reason explaining why Aqua is slower.
You can get a third-party app in XP, slap a theme on it (like Vista by KoL), run the app just for the theme, and the UI would still be faster than Aqua.
It's just a fact.
Quote:
Comparisons between Vista's UI and OS X would be more appropriate since they are both similar in complexity, but less so since Vista is only a public Beta. Also, the Intel Macs are a huge improvement in this regard and I expect things will continue to improve significantly with Leopard.
Except that Aero is still faster than Aqua on the same hardware even though Aqua had 5 years to be optimized, and Aero is not even officially released yet.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
I've read that XP Home does not support dual processors whereas Pro does. So if you want to run Windows (Bootcamp or otherwise), do you need to use Pro to get the best performance?
While this doesn't answer your question, XP Home is a piece of crap. On a slightly different note, has anyone tried to use an OEM Media Center Edition on the MBP/iMac?
Originally posted by BRussell
I've read that XP Home does not support dual processors whereas Pro does. So if you want to run Windows (Bootcamp or otherwise), do you need to use Pro to get the best performance?
Remember: dual processors are different than dual cores. XP Home may not support dual processors, but will support a single processor with two cores.
Originally posted by mynamehere
While this doesn't answer your question, XP Home is a piece of crap. On a slightly different note, has anyone tried to use an OEM Media Center Edition on the MBP/iMac?
Is it more of a piece of crap than XP pro?
Originally posted by k squared
Remember: dual processors are different than dual cores. XP Home may not support dual processors, but will support a single processor with two cores.
Hmm. OK. I thought they basically looked the same to software/OS, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
Originally posted by BRussell
Is it more of a piece of crap than XP pro?
Neither is crap. XP Home does support dual-core processors, so long as there's only one CPU.
Read here for more.
Originally posted by BRussell
Is it more of a piece of crap than XP pro?
It's the same piece of crap but with the added benefit of the Media Center application.
It has its problems, but the same counts for MacOS.
You guys sound so....1995.
Originally posted by dacloo
Windows isn't a piece of crap.
It has its problems, but the same counts for MacOS.
You guys sound so....1995.
Windows has it's own problems, but mainly they are highlighted by the fact that 90% of computers are running it. Can all these people be wrong? Then again, can all the flies in the world be wrong, shit is good?!?!?
Originally posted by Project2501
Windows has it's own problems, but mainly they are highlighted by the fact that 90% of computers are running it. Can all these people be wrong? Then again, can all the flies in the world be wrong, shit is good?!?!?
If you think you can equate human opinion to an insects opinion (which may or may not even exist) you are certainly not qualified to even talk about XP, let alone pass judgement on its quality.
Originally posted by mynamehere
It's the same piece of crap but with the added benefit of the Media Center application.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. XP Pro doesn't come with Media Center. Neither does XP Home. XP Media Center Edition does. Early versions of XP MCE were a superset of Pro, while the most recent releases are neither Home nor Pro, but float in some limbo in the middle.
Vista will do away with a custom MCE release, and will have most of the (insanely and unnecessarily numerous) higher-tier versions include Vista's version of MCE.
To conclude, XP, Home or Pro, compared to previous iterations of Windows, is not crap, just like Win2K wasn't crap, and WinNT mostly wasn't crap. Only the 9x/ME line was Genuine(TM) crap.
Originally posted by m01ety
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. XP Pro doesn't come with Media Center. Neither does XP Home. XP Media Center Edition does. Early versions of XP MCE were a superset of Pro, while the most recent releases are neither Home nor Pro, but float in some limbo in the middle.
Vista will do away with a custom MCE release, and will have most of the (insanely and unnecessarily numerous) higher-tier versions include Vista's version of MCE.
To conclude, XP, Home or Pro, compared to previous iterations of Windows, is not crap, just like Win2K wasn't crap, and WinNT mostly wasn't crap. Only the 9x/ME line was Genuine(TM) crap.
Clearly, you should read the posts fully before passing judgement. I clearly stated that XP Media Center is XP Pro + the Media Center Application. Incidentially, I have recent XP MCE (which appears as XP PRo for various system tasks) and XP Pro on a laptop and a desktop so I believe I DO in fact know what I'm talking about.
Good day.
And to append, I also still maintain that XP is a piece of crap given that within 20 minutes of being online (on dial-up, no less), on a fresh install of XP Pro, the computer became infected, and my one-year-old Pentium D MCE Box can't stay stable for more than several hours. That a (supposedly) top-of-the-line computer can't maintain uptime of more than a few hours while the FreeBSD box with a PII and 128Mb of RAM stays up for weeks and months at a time is fairly astonishing.
Apple's market share does provide us with an accurate reading of the percentage of reasonable people in our society."
-Roger Ebert -
Originally posted by mynamehere
I clearly stated that XP Media Center is XP Pro + the Media Center Application.
Which used to be the case, but isn't any more.
Incidentially, I have recent XP MCE (which appears as XP PRo for various system tasks) and XP Pro on a laptop and a desktop so I believe I DO in fact know what I'm talking about.
Then your MCE is either outdated, or no, you do not know what you're talking about.
The original MCE, and all versions until (and including) MCE 2004 still were, indeed, a superset of Pro.
MCE 2005, which was also the first version available in retail, removed the ability to join an Active Directory domain, which is just about the most significant feature of Pro, as all sorts of things like IntelliMirror, centralized group policies, etc. require this.
So either your XP MCE is not "recent", as you claim, or it's not a superset of Pro. Pick your poison.
The ultimate XP experts (one of which can't seem to manage a simple task of keeping a computer stable) collide!
Where do I go to place my bet?
XP is neither utter crap nor capable of developing nuclear fusion.
A few months ago I got itchy feet and built a cheap AMD rig, running XP pro. With a firewall, anti-virus, and a Broadband router, it has remained stable, and Openoffice is a superb piece of open source software.
However, it lacks the finesse of the MacOS, and trying to tweak some settings can be a real headache. Given a free choice, bar the ability to play games, using XP is like driving a Lada when you have a Ferarri sitting in your driveway.
David
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If you think you can equate human opinion to an insects opinion (which may or may not even exist) you are certainly not qualified to even talk about XP, let alone pass judgement on its quality.
The comment was not an equation, it was a metaphorical analogy and one which, I may add, was probably not meant to be taken literally (as you did). I suppose you would argue that Animal Farm was a terrible novel becauses pigs (or animals in general) can't really talk, eh?
And yes, XP pro is less of a piece of crap than XP home.
So, in the spirit of getting this thread back on topic and to answer your question, go with XP Pro.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...choosing2.mspx
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...p_home_pro.asp
Originally posted by Placebo
Everything in the Mac OS X UI is slower than on Windows or Linux. Get used to it.
Sometimes, it is not easy to get used to it
I agree with this, with some qualifications:
1. the XP UI (and the OS, in certain tasks) is generally faster than OS X/Aqua, but then again, OS X's UI doesn't look like it was put together by a pre-schooler with some crayons. OS X's GUI is far more complex than XP's (more eye candy), although this would not be the single reason explaining why Aqua is slower.
Comparisons between Vista's UI and OS X would be more appropriate since they are both similar in complexity, but less so since Vista is only a public Beta. Also, the Intel Macs are a huge improvement in this regard and I expect things will continue to improve significantly with Leopard.
Originally posted by Neruda
Sometimes, it is not easy to get used to it
I agree with this, with some qualifications:
1. the XP UI (and the OS, in certain tasks) is generally faster than OS X/Aqua, but then again, OS X's UI doesn't look like it was put together by a pre-schooler with some crayons. OS X's GUI is far more complex than XP's (more eye candy), although this would not be the single reason explaining why Aqua is slower.
You can get a third-party app in XP, slap a theme on it (like Vista by KoL), run the app just for the theme, and the UI would still be faster than Aqua.
It's just a fact.
Comparisons between Vista's UI and OS X would be more appropriate since they are both similar in complexity, but less so since Vista is only a public Beta. Also, the Intel Macs are a huge improvement in this regard and I expect things will continue to improve significantly with Leopard.
Except that Aero is still faster than Aqua on the same hardware even though Aqua had 5 years to be optimized, and Aero is not even officially released yet.
Funny that.