Sign in to follow this  
AdvancedFollower

Window XP or XP PRO

Recommended Posts

Upgrading my system in anticipations for FS2004.What do most people use now. Windows XP or XP PRO.There is a $100 price difference for the PRO version.Any comments are appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Pro has just a few more security features which would be helpful with a network of puters (such as an office). Otherwise no advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably 98% of the XP installs are the Home version. There are some significant security and networking advantages to the Pro version but most folks will never use those features. There is a pretty concise explaination of the differences by a knowledgeable source here: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp . As far as FS200x (and virtually every other program) is concerned there is no difference between the two.Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows 2000 is much more for business I beilive, XP is a lot like 2000 just designed for gaming better, I think that frames would be a lot the same considering XP was built off of 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experiences have been that XP (I have Home)produces lower FPS in FS than Win98. However, that's the only bad news; the much better managers (including memory) in XP make it a joy to work with. I would never go back to '98, even if what I think is right and FS is faster (less processes running to compete with resources).I'm not computer expert, so I may be all wrong. And, after all, when you get above 25 fps (maybe less), your eyes can't see the difference- look at movies and TV, for instance.Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Windows 2000 is much more for business I beilive, XP is a lot>like 2000 just designed for gaming better, I think that frames>would be a lot the same considering XP was built off of 2000.Technically speaking Windows 2000 was targeted at the users Windows XP Pro is now targeted at. Windows XP Home is now targeted at the people previously using 9x/ME.Internally in the OS, Windows 2000 is known as "NT 5.0", and XP is known as "NT 5.1".For FS there is indeed no difference worth mentioning (not sure if Home supports multiprocessor though, and that would hopefully benefit a COF system).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,I just purchased Windows 2000 pro for 93 bucks OEM at a computer fair (talk about a bargain!! compared to 300 bucks at a retail store). I would never, EVER go back to Windows ME. I get excellent performance out of fs2002 with service pack 4. Stutters that were there with Windows ME now are completely gone!!! :-)Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of notes...XP Pro if you want to run a Web server, Home otherwise. There is no IIS or Personal Web Server in XP Home. Home is a dumbed down version of the Pro; the Pro looks more like Win2K in the settings department, whereas a lot of that stuff is kind of hidden from the user in Home (for example, Users and Groups -- XP home has a simpler interface). If you're used to Win2K, then you might feel more comfortable with Pro. If you don't feel like spending the extra $ and you have no need for a Web server, Home's your best bet. Aside from the lack of IIS, it's not really limiting - it's just simplified.Edit: I got a good performance increase going from ME to XP Home. I don't think there would be a difference between Home and Pro in terms of frames unless you're serving Web sites or something. I think they're basically the same architecture with a different interface. Could be wrong...Have fun,Greghttp://members.rogers.com/gmoffatt/images/ERJ_CRT.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brucek > The spec for FS states that you need more RAM if you have Win XP (128MB I think) therefore you may notice an improvement if you increase your RAM. Otherwise XP will need more than previous versions of Windows anyway (excluding 2000). I have a 2.2Gb processor with 512MB of RAM giving me excellent framerates.wan2fly > you actually asked what do most people use. I think most use XP Pro. I upgraded about 2 weeks ago having first checked out that very same thing. I now have PRO. My opinion for what it's worth is that it's better to have more than you think you need than to find out at a later date that you need something not present in Home edition.All the best:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add-in for those updating to hyper threading Processors, I think that you need XP Pro to utilize that feature as XP-Home apparently does not recognize multiple processors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, XP Home does not support multiprocessor, but is does support hyper threading. I have yet to find a game support hyperthreading though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there's something in XP Pro that you know you must have, XP Home is good enough.Direct3D performance used to be a bit lower in Win2k and XP than Win98/ME. I think that has changed now, since XP has become so popular, hardware manufacturers have probably optimized their drivers more for XP/2k than 9x/ME over the last year and software is also being written with XP/2k in mind. If you have a ~700 MHz or faster system with 256MB or more of RAM, XP is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this