bStro wrote: There's always ASP.NET Web Matrix.

I have not seen ASP.Net Web Matrix before but it looks too experimental for me. It is hard enough getting this stuff to do what I want than to fool around with some new configuration. It is always best to try to work with something close to the delivery platform--in this case IIS IMHO. Why fool around with that just to justifiy XP home? --wrong answer.

TomE wrote: My vote is XP Pro -- I hate lite versions of anything. Makes me feel shortchanged

bStro wrote: That's an odd way to feel. If you pay less money for less features, you're not short changed -- you just got what you paid for. Do you use the XP Pro-only features?

The reality is that the lite versions are often hobbled in some way and you should actually pay a LOT Less considering what you end up with. The streamlined versions these guys are talking about is a fantasy that will probably never come true for anything with a Microsoft label.

I was also referring to the bundles with Vegas 5. They were a little hobbled in my opinon. Probably better to just try the demos and then get the full version. Which leaves us wishing that Vegas had these things on its own --Titles and Movie looks. --crossing my fingers for something from Zenote. Vegas does spoil you. You want everything immediately.

XP Home supports system Restore as well.

XP Home does not support dual physical processors, though.

I use XP home on a single CPU system at home and never see a need for Pro. Maybe it could come in handy for network renders but I doubt it.

There ARE reasons to use Pro but they are so minor that I usually forget them by the time I get home.

Rob Mack

XP home supports dual monitors just fine, as well as System restore and most networking functions.

Pro supports dual physical processors. That's the only reason I know of to get XP Pro for Vegas.

Rob Mack

The spec sheet you link to shows nothing at all that is useful to a home user nor for Vegas. There is nothing listed at all in the MS link that makes Pro more "Robust".

The second article is three years old, out of date, and in at least one detail it's just plain wrong. I'd look for confirmation of anything this article says before taking it as gospel.

If you see your home office growing into an environment of several work machines and a central server, Pro may be the way to go. There ARE features in there that will eventually be useful. If, however, you have a home machine that will stay a home machine, Home is just fine.

Rob Mack

The point about dual cards may be true. I can't remember that last time I ran dual display cards-I think it was with WinME.

XP Home will network with just about anything that supports SMB networks. Win 95, 98, ME, XP Home, Pro, Linux, MacOSX.

Pro allows more control of file ownership and permissions. That can be handy. Also, Remote Desktop is much nicer that using RealVNC. I sometimes log onto other computers at work and run updates on them that way. Remote desktop is pretty snappy, performance wise.

Rob Mack

IIS is definitely one of the reasons to get XP Pro. If you are doing Web developement and need a web server then you either get Pro with IIS or Home and then install Apache. Or turn your old machine into a Linux box and set up Apache there.

If you're making these decisions you should be able to figure out which web server best suits your needs.

Vegas, however, doesn't need a web server at all.

Making the decision to use XpPro based on what you may someday need is like voting Republican because you may someday be one of the top 5% richest people in the country. Yeah, we'd all like to think were going to be in that bracket but on sober reflection you may decide it just isn't for you.

Rob Mack

Hyperthreading runs on XP Home. Dual physical processors require Pro.

Through all of this, I don't want to say that Pro has no value. But you can edit in Vegas just fine in XP Home. The ONLY possible isse is DP support. For that you have to get XP Pro.

Rob Mack

Agree on remote desktop. The Redmond folks seem to know a few performance tricks the VNC folks don't - funny thing. You can download remote desktop clients from MS for Win98SE on up. The rdesktop client is also available for the Linux/Unix folks.

Larry

For that matter, XFree86 IS a remote desktop by definition. I don't think many people use it that way but it's a client/server arrangement and in theory you could have your desktop on any client on the network.

Some VNC implementations are Java based. Performance isn't a consideration there. VNC favors versatility over speed-you should be able to use VNC to view an OSX desktop on an XP machine, for instance.

Rob Mack

This thing about dual monitors, isn't it more related to graphic card than to the OS you use?

For dual monitors, both the card(s) and the OS must support it.

For instance, Win98, winME, Win2k, and WinXP each supported dual head matrox cards a little differently. WinME and XP support them very well.

In Linux, Dual head depends on the graphics client (X), the card, the driver (server), and whether Xinerama is installed. (I think)

But to be more on topic, Both XP home and Pro support Dual head. Pro gives you nothing in this regard.
Rob Mack

Rob Mack

Another angle to consider is the # of people using the version of the software. If the vast majority of users are on XP Home, and you are using XP Pro, you may run into some obscure problems or conflicts that might be harder to troubleshoot.

A lot of this is just marketing. Many people will spend the extra money for the "pro" version because they don't want to feel like they're compromising At work, I could get any version that I wanted, and a few years ago I was running Windows NT Advanced Server. Yeah, it had more "features", but not many that I really needed (it was just my desktop machine, after all!). If you don't have any domain controllers at home, and you have a single processor PC, then there's no need to pay for these features, wait for them to load and take up resources when you boot up or have the extra control panels to accidentally mess up. Also, probably not a great idea to have IIS running (especially unintentionally) while editing videos. All these extras can actually be more undesirable to have, if you don't use them.

There was a time when PCs that were sold for "business use" had better components and were beefier. If anything, it's now the other way around, because the applications people use at home (video editing and gaming) require more CPU, better graphics and sound cards than 99% of people do at work. In fact, it's getting to where many office PCs are practically dumb terminals compared with most home PCs.

**Just added: Hey I didn't even realize this, but I have XP Pro on one of my office PCs, and I have to say that it actually does not seem at all more "robust" than my XP Home PC.

According to the Microsoft site:
=========


========

Somehow I know for a fact that I looked long and hard prior to me deciding to go with pro over home. One of these factors was the networking ability of Pro vs. Home. But beyond that - here is some other info on what XP PRO has that XP HOME *does not*.

=======
Home Edition will support upgrades from Windows 98, 98 SE, and Millennium Edition (Me), but not from Windows 95, NT 4.0 Workstation, or Windows 2000 Professional. You can upgrade from Windows 98, 98 SE, Millennium Edition (Me), Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, or Windows 2000 Professional to Windows XP Professional.
===========

As I said - that is only some of the stuff. As I mentioned before in a post the dual monitor thing may have been with 2 (or more) cards installed...so home may not have supported more than one card but pro did/does. However Dual head cards are more common now than when XP first came out.

>>>But to be more on topic, Both XP home and Pro support Dual head. Pro gives you nothing in this regard.<<<

I did some digging and posted above some ifno on the home vs pro topic, including Dual monitor supprort.

Thanks to all for the helpful suggestions. It is clear that a single user does not need the extra features in XP Pro to take full advantage of Vegas 5.

Now, having said that, I confess to having bought XP Pro. Why, you ask? Believe it or not the reason was in the one question that wasn't answered. I was curious as to whether or not the Group Policy Editor is a useful tool. Since no one responded one way or the other, I decided to buy XP Pro and find out for myself. Once I get the system built and fool around with it for awhile, I'll let you all know if it was worth the extra forty bucks.

Thanks again,

Jan