David Boles wrote:
Why not? IIS has been available for Windows 2000/XP Pro for a long time.
Perhaps I said that incorrectly.
"I would not expect a Windows XP Home/PRO computer to be a server
installation for example." because it is not normally done that way.
Installing ISS on Windows XP Home can be done but it not supported
because ISS is not included on the XP Home install disk. You have to use
the ISS from Windows 2000.
ISS can be added after a normal install of Windows XP PRO and is
included on the XP PRO install disk. The ISS from Windows XP Pro will
not work with XP Home.
What is normally done? Apache, Samba and a whole host of other
applications are not installed and/or enabled by default, either.
I really don't know what is normally done. But since XP PRO is a
*desktop* install I seriously doubt that "Apache, Samba and a whole host
of other applications" would be installed at all let alone by default.
2000/XP pro are just deliberately crippled versions that limit the
number of connections to the internal services like file sharing but
nothing is actually missing. If you install your own apps or something
like apache, I'd expect them to provide equal or better performance
since less resources are allocated to the windows-specific services.
Home is a stripped down PRO so I would think, even more, that these
would not be defaults.
Home actually removes components related to domain services and some
other things. I don't quite see the point, other than shipping
something that you won't like bundled with the machine so they get your
money twice when you upgrade.
If I wanted a Windows server I would use Windows 2003 which *is* a server.
Paying extra to uncripple the same code...
As for Linux? If I wanted a server I would install RHEL or CentOS or one
of several other Linux server installations. I would *not* try to run a
Linux server system with Fedora. It changes too quickly and too often to
bother with in the long run.
But, if you develop your own code to run on the servers, it might make
sense to do development on the faster-paced fedora, hoping that your
development cycle and the next RHEL release coincide so the OS support
and libraries will be similar in production to what you used. The point
here is that they both need to include the same things and provide the
same services.
How did XP Home get into this conversation?
XP Home and XP PRO are related. Home is XP without the office networking
stuff. Just what the name implies. XP for use by a home user. And you
mentioned it. Look about at your quoted section.
Home implies where I'm at, not what I want to do, so the name doesn't
make any sense to me. I don't have quite as many computers at home as
at the office but...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
