| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Sunshine Coast
Registered:
February 2004
|
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Sun, 28 March 2004 22:24
 
|
 |
| Arch wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 10:48 |
XP home was built around the windows ME kernel, and for this reason is it is slower, more unreliable, and doesnt have as many options as pro.
go pro all the way, if uve got home, then ur prolly some 'know-nothing, pay-for-everything sucker'  lol
|
wtf are you on dude? 
home is just a dumbed down version of pro. networking is simplified, few other bits and pieces, but same basic program.
corp uses a serial but doesnt need to be activated.
|
|
|
| | Subject | Poster | Date |
|---|
 |
XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Nark | Sun, 21 March 2004 22:17 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Squid | Sun, 21 March 2004 22:35 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Squid | Sun, 21 March 2004 22:36 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Lambolica | Sun, 21 March 2004 22:41 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
lang | Sun, 21 March 2004 22:36 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
rob_RA40 | Sun, 21 March 2004 23:13 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Nark | Sun, 21 March 2004 23:48 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
MR. 2 | Mon, 22 March 2004 03:17 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Nark | Mon, 22 March 2004 03:56 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
ehendrikd | Mon, 22 March 2004 04:01 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Nark | Mon, 22 March 2004 04:06 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
clubagreenie | Mon, 22 March 2004 09:53 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
toof | Tue, 23 March 2004 02:48 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
4AGE | Tue, 23 March 2004 14:33 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
jackel | Tue, 23 March 2004 17:27 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
commander | Wed, 24 March 2004 04:06 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Arch | Sat, 27 March 2004 00:48 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Nark | Sat, 27 March 2004 05:37 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Zhyr | Sun, 28 March 2004 22:24 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
Ozzie | Sat, 27 March 2004 11:20 |
|
Re: XP Home vs XP Pro
|
SeptemberSquallIndustries | Sun, 28 March 2004 09:37 |
