Professional ONLY
Epinions has (thankfully) divided Windows XP into the professional, and “home” version categories. This review is about Windows XP Professional, what’s new, what’s old, and how it relates to what IT’s and “advanced users” (to quote Microsoft) want to know.

This review is quite lengthy, and attempts to cover as many concerns as possible for IS looking for either a good reason to take the XP plunge, or pass on it. So bear with me.

The differences
How many people have been riding the Windows professional line of products simply because they knew Windows 95, 98, and Me were all just “Windows 95: Slightly less buggy”? Lots of people. Heck, I went with Windows 2000 Pro instead 98SE or Me because I knew those were just a bunch of service packs wrapped into a “new release”.

But that was yesterday. After years of dragging the Windows32 (Windows 95, 98 and Me) line of OS’s out way past their sell-by dates, Microsoft is scrapping the long criticized and hated Win32 based operating systems for the now Win2000 based Windows XP.

Advanced users need no longer ride the “pro” trail of products, simply for a workable home environment. Windows XP Home and Pro are essentially the same OS, with a couple of differences.

1. File encryption
Windows XP home CANNOT encrypt files on its local volumes. A PC running XP home can only work with shared, encrypted files (a new concept with XP over 2000) that are on a 2000 Pro, Server or XP Pro or .NET server.

Windows XP Pro CAN work with encrypted files. It can encrypt files on its local volumes, as well as network volumes (Served from 2000, XP or .NET machines).

2. File permissions
Windows XP (both versions) support NTFS for file storage. However, detailed, UNIX style permissions (the norm for NTFS) are way to cumbersome to work with on home PC’s, Windows XP Home CANNOT manage the intricate details of NTFS (unless booted into safe-mode and logged into as an administrator). XP Home uses “simple file sharing”, which enforces universal permissions on most directories and files, except for user profiles (Which can be “secured” or “made private” by denying access to all but the owner of the profile, and the Windows system).

Windows XP Pro supports (regardless of the mode), file permission modification on ALL objects, files, folders and the like. Permissions can be set like under Windows 2000, and Windows NT before it.

3. SMP
Multiprocessor systems are NOT supported under Windows XP Home. It does not support SMP.

SMP under XP Pro, however, is possible. It will work on systems with no more than two processors. Just like Windows 2000 Pro.

4. “Active Directory, and Secure logon”
XP Home systems CANNOT JOIN ANY DOMAINS. Legacy, or “Active”. They can access network shares on Domain servers that don’t require membership authentication, but they can’t “join” the domain.

XP Pro systems can use legacy and Active domain systems like Win2k Pro.

5. “Remote Desktop”
Windows XP Home edition CANNOT use “Remote desktop” features. Users cannot remotely log into their XP systems (that are running Home edition) and access their Windows desktop (in a feature similar to Windows Terminal Services).

XP Professional users CAN use the Remote Desktop feature to remotely log into their home desktops and perform tasks as if they were using 3rd party software, like PCAnywhere.

6. (The least important) UNICODE
Windows XP Home edition doesn’t support true UNICODE support (for programs in other geographic languages). Its international character support ends with Internet Explorer.

Windows XP Pro supports true UNICODE.

Enough Differences. – What’s new
Now that the fundamental differences between Home and Pro are apparent, you might decide XP Pro is unnecessary. It very well may be. There are some other differences like “remote desktop”.

But if your still reading, its time to conceder the nitty-gritty.

What’s new? Well, not that much, really.

Windows XP has undergone a lot of cosmetic changes over Windows 2000. not that a facelift is a bad thing, but when your looking to differentiate between Windows 2000 and Windows XP, your probably looking for more than just a few new, pretty colors.

User Interface – “Task Oriented”
A new design concept in the Windows XP User interface is (aside from new colors), is a “task oriented user interface”. That is simply, a new implementation of the Windows “context” system.

When you click a file under the new Windows Explorer, the new “task list”, depending on what types of files are present with that file, will show you anywhere between two to six things you can do with that file. For example; want to print a photograph sitting on your “My Documents” (or rather, the users), or in “My Pictures”? Just click the file, and the new context sensitive system will show the user, instantly what he or she can do with that file, including print it.

Task orientation makes the system easier to use with less training, by simply making it more intuitive. But this time, it really works.

Pictures and media aside (multimedia has the same features, click the file and get things to do with it), Windows XP doesn’t really offer the administrator any more power. More, it gives the users themselves more abilities without so much assistance.

A potential end to the endless; “How do I…” calls.

Compatibility
Windows 2000 brought on a slew of problems with programs not created under the “Windows Logo certification” specifications. Which essentially provided a top 10 (more like top 30) list of “no-no’s” programmers for Windows apps had to follow to make their programs work well on the new versions of Windows.

Suffice it to say; a lot of programmers didn’t listen, and a lot of programs didn’t fall under Microsoft’s stringent “Windows Logo Certified” blanket. Which meant; they probably wouldn’t work well under Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 eradicated most system level user classes (simplifying them into three, very practical groups). This new, more “one size fit all” security scheme made a lot of legacy programs (Win32 and DOS) fall flat on Windows 2000 systems.

Windows XP continues the tradition, with only two real classes of user accounts (covered later).

But Windows permissions weren’t the only impediment with Windows 2000 and “legacy programs”. The lack of support on “legacy platforms” meant Windows 2000 was just not going to work with their dinosaur software. Windows 2000 had very little support for real-mode code, let alone real-mode anything (aside from the DOS virtual machine code). Windows XP continues this tradition of “no real real-mode”, but gives system administrators and users the ability to cope when they just have to run that old dinosaur program to get their work done.

Although Windows 2000 included a “compatibility mechanism” to allow administrators and users to specify options to “fake out” an old program into running under Windows 2000, it didn’t work very well. Most of the time, the Windows compatibility system was not “compatible enough” to make quite a few programs as happy as they were on their older platforms (DOS, 95, 98, or Me).

Windows XP can’t satisfy every dinosaur app that crosses the professional desktop, but its new integrated “compatibility” system will try. The new system is integrated directly into Windows (instead of the add-on under Windows 2000), and provides an extra level of “faking out” in that in addition to resetting some run time variables, it also simulates the behavior of the older Windows for these programs.

As for DOS programs, this system can’t help you there. Fortunately, Windows XP has a slightly improved DVM that will probably not help most DOS programs under XP, but give a few a “fighting chance”. Its time to face facts; DOS is dead.

So, Windows XP offers a slightly improved compatibility system that might help more administrators with their legacy (dinosaur) software, compared to Windows 2000.

Remote Desktop
The notion that a workstation can function as a full terminal server (Windows terminal server that is; desktop GUI and all), might seem ludicrous. Sounds downright UNIX like, doesn’t it?

Well, Microsoft stowed their usual distain for workstations being able to do anything, and decided to institute the “Remote desktop” feature into Windows XP Pro.

Remote desktop allows users to log into their office or home PC’s using another PC (running the Remote desktop client utility).

Remote desktop can connect two PC’s like Symantec’s PCAnywhere software, or the Windows NT Terminal service. With Remote desktop a user can access his or her actual desktop from anywhere. Their files, documents, programs, all shared over this “desktop” connection. It’s actually their home/work desktops, transmitted over a network. Securely at that! Laptop PC users can access their desktop’s resources (files and programs) on the go, with the resources OF the desktop itself.

I can’t say you’ll use it, but I can say it’s there.

Media integration is a good thing
I work in an environment where multimedia is key. Pictures are exchanged, printed and received like mad. Digital cameras are the wave of the office.

In a real-estate office, we’ve got people taking photos, making their own publications, and doing this routinely. Media integration into Windows would streamline this process immensely. Currently, we’ve got to run our digital photo software to store and organize the pictures, and then we need another program to view and print them.

Learning and training for two separate programs (neither one of which work very well), is a pain, and I’m the “professional” here. I hate our software, and so does everyone else.

Windows XP’s media integration makes digital photography (and other media as well) a snap. Attach the camera. Windows will recognize it automatically, and begin the Camera wizard. If the camera is “logo certified”, you will be asked where to put the pictures (usually “My Pictures”), and voila, they’re there. Image management is done through Windows explorer, which will now show thumbnails, print them, and perform various photo management operations, graphically, through the explorer UI.

Got digital-film (smart cards & Flash ROM cards)? Same process. Windows will recognize the content of the card and bring up a wizard to do your bidding. I can’t imagine a simpler, or more intuitive system.

Windows 2000 Security - Even tighter
In Windows 2000, a lot of administrators complained that the new security system was way to generic. You had administrators, the ever-present super users. You had power-users, a class of user that, under Windows NT, was totally powerless, except they could change the system time, and Users, the lowest class of casual computer user, who had a whole slew of restrictions (new to 2000) placed on them.

Users couldn’t install (most) software. And they could (most often) only run programs certified under the Windows Logo program (at the time). These were totally new restrictions on users. Before (under NT), they could install most Windows programs, run everything, and were only locked out of system-ultra critical (or most ultra-critical) locations on the file system.

But now, Windows users were run-only user classes. Power users had more access, and could actually install programs.

Administrators could do everything.

Windows XP continues the tradition, and simplifies the class system even more. There are now (essentially) two user classes; Administrators, and “restricted users”. Restricted users cannot install software, and may only run programs that do not explicitly violate Windows security policies (write to \Program Files, sub-folders, or system registry), and generally can’t change any system-wide settings.

Administrators obviously, can do anything.

But this system of two-user classes may make security rather “black-and-white”, but it depends quite a bit on the notion that your mission-critical applications fall into the “logo compliant” definitions of “doesn’t write to system directories”, or “doesn’t write to all-users registry”. Most apps violate both requirements. Restricted users can’t run these programs.

Although Windows XP makes more concessions for these poor security programs (over 2000 that is), many programs still require unfettered access to system resources (for bad-programming reasons), and that prohibits “restricted users” from running them.

But, this system does (when it works) ensure security, albeit in a somewhat tolitarian fashion.

Windows NT Users…..
So far, Windows XP seems to compare almost 1:1 with its core and base; Windows 2000. This is very true; after all, XP is based on the “innovations” brought to us by Windows 2000, but how about those of you still running Windows NT 4 as your platform.

God, it’s been EIGHT YEARS since Windows NT 4 was unleashed on the business computing public, it’s beyond time to let this old dog DIE.

Stop applying service patches, get off blue-screen duty, and get into computing of the 21st century.

What you’ve been missing
Although many IT’s prefer Windows NT’s “configurable security” (under the original, truly multi-faceted user/group class system), security concerns aside, workstation computing has rocketed past Windows NT’s technological support level years ago. And not only that, the illusion of security provided under Windows NT is, in itself, insecure.

The new permissions structure of Windows XP Pro is far superior to the structure of Windows NT. Granted, there may only be two “recognized” user classes under XP, but the security in place over those classes is absolute.

One of the largest problems with NT was the fact that, despite the claim of “secure”, users could still install software, and that software could still overwrite other important files from other programs (and on FAT file systems, system components) and cause instability. Windows XP ensures that NO security or stability problems will arise from a user attempting to install a program. USERS have no write access to \Program Files in Windows XP!

Another problem with NT is the total absence of support for DirectMedia past DirectX version 3.0. As much as we’d all like to deny it, people use their work PC’s for multimedia, be it MP3’s, internet videos or the like, it happens. Windows NT’s absence for supporting these technologies leads to users installing their own support for it (those who know how) and those programs (Media jukeboxes, video players, etc). How many ad-ware programs have you cleaned off your workstation today? If the users have integrated support for their multimedia INTO the OS, then they can use the certified tools provided by Microsoft to listen to their music, their videos, etc.

And as for all those media files cluttering your network? A feature in Windows 2000 (Pro and Server) and now in Windows XP Pro is UNIX style user quotas. Each user, class of user and user group can be specified to have a certain amount of access to a shared (or local) NTFS volume. Got too many users clogging up their profiles with MP3’s? Limit the “restricted user” class to 30MB of disk space. Public shares filling up as well? Use the same setting (requires Windows 2000 Server or newer) to enforce security quotas on share volumes.

Multimedia and space pitfalls aside, what other revolutions are you missing out on by sticking with NT on your business platform?

Plenty.

Hardware
Windows NT support for computer peripherals is fading quickly. Many manufactures are making newer computer hardware drivers for Windows32, and Windows 2000/XP. Where does this leave your organization when it comes time to upgrade your workstations? In time, nowhere. You’re Windows NT platform support from manufactures is going to dry up exponentially as Windows XP becomes the “preferred OS” (as per Microsoft’s strong-arming tactics).

That awful lack of Plug-and-play support is going to prevent your hardware upgrades (if any, and you can’t avoid them forever) from working under Windows NT.

It’s time, I can’t make this any clearer; It’s time…

Xperence the Pitfalls…
It may sound as if this review is a tad bias toward Windows XP.

Not quite.

Windows XP offers clear advantages and new features that may no be paramount (compared to Windows 2000), or any cost effective reasons for upgrading (for NT users), but it also offers a series of problems (like anything with Microsoft’s name on the front). Freshly integrated into this new OS.

Firstly, cost. Windows XP Pro is PROHIBITIVELY expensive. If your organization has bulk licensing from Microsoft, then sit down, the new numbers behind XP are astronomical. It is THE Most expensive Windows OS for workstations EVER. If you’re not bulk licensing, then you’ll have to look at the unit pricing, which is still expensive as hell. The price may fluctuate with the outrage at the cost of this thing (which a lot of professionals perceive as Windows 2000 in a bright, blue box).

Secondly, Windows XP enforces, beyond any kind of reasonable doubt, its licensing conditions. All Windows file sharing, domain/active directory activity and non-anonymous network connections ARE POLICED by the OS. Servers will be forced to enforce the number of client access licenses you have (unless you have a site license). And you’ve invariably heard about product activation (new in XP line products). It’s true; one copy, per PC, period. Although the conditions HAVEN’T changed, the enforcement of your license has.

So there’s no cost-cutting measure you can use to keep licensing down. One PC, one copy, one CAL.

The enforcement of license conditions may or may not be a problem for you, although your technically required to abide by them, god knows most of you don’t.

This document is not designed to pass along any moralistic value to the reader. So I’ll continue.

Windows XP’s licensing debacle isn’t the only thing you IS people will hate; the system requirements are as ASTRONOMICAL as its price.

Here’s the breakdown;

Processor: XP will RUN on a 133MHz processor, but isn’t “workable” at that speed. A 266+ is “recommended”, a 500 is preferred.

Memory: 64 is the minimum. It’s unworkable. 256 is preferred.

Local volume: 1.2GB is the minimum for installation, but size isn’t the problem with XP, it’s speed. Local volumes should be on 7200RPM+ disk drives for “fluid” activity. Windows specifies no speed requirement, but it’ll help along with a good CPU and lots of RAM.

The good news is that, aside from these quality notes, Windows XP supports most of the hardware on the common market, past and present. And of course, with Microsoft products; more is ALWAYS better.

Summary; Who should, who shouldn’t
I’ve made it clear that Windows NT users should scrap the midnight blue box for the new neon one. NT is old; it’s past its sell-by date (hell, it was when it hit the shelf).

Existing Windows NT users in the ever present (and seemingly endless) “planning phase” for an upgrade to Windows 2000 will want to take this to heart. If your testing phase is nearing implementation, then listen to Microsoft, and continue with the Windows 2000 implementation. Windows XP is of no additional (worthwhile) value to you.

If your still in the paper-phase of Windows 2000 upgrades, scrap it. Microsoft wants you on XP, and will give you financial incentives to do so.

However, if you’re already on Windows 2000, this is where things get sticky… There isn’t really a hard technological reason to upgrade. There’s a slim, almost nonexistent chance new Windows programs could be made “for XP Only”, but like I said, slim chance. As for hardware support, you can expect most manufactures to make 2000/XP combo drivers. However, multimedia hardware is another matters, I’ll explain why.

Windows XP uses a different version of DirectX than Windows 2000. Because all multimedia hardware (video cards, sound, tuner, HDTV, capture and converters) uses DirectX implicitly, new multimedia hardware may become co-dependent on Windows XP over Windows 2000. This is a more likely situation, so if you’re running a media lab, it may be time to conceder XP.

But, in general, most Windows 2000 Pro users will not see much reason to upgrade. There’s just nothing paramount that’s new.

Finally, Home users riding the professional line for “stability” sake, there’s no reason to follow up to XP Pro. Certainly “remote desktop” might sound nice, but the price tag is hefty to do so (with Pro costing almost twice home). You’ve read the advantages, now its time to make a decision.

That goes for the rest of you as well.

Recommended: Yes