I have found NO reason not to use Home in a small network like that and MANY reasons NOT TO USE PRO.
It's a HELL of a lot easier to administer a Home network than a Pro network. The bastards have severely tightened down the screws on shares and I still can't find the checkbox to allow my Pro boxes to share... Go with HOME John Weller wrote: >I have been asked to help a local charity. They are replacing their >existing network (Win 98) with four machines which will be networked as a >peer-to-peer workgroup. They will not be doing anything fancy, just normal >office type work; accounts (Sage), word processing, etc. The requirement >has gone out to tender without a detailed spec and with a request for the >suppliers to recommend a suitable system. They are getting some responses >specifying XP Home and others XP Pro. I know that XP Home has some >limitations compared with Pro, for instance it cannot join a domain. Are >there any other limitations which would impact them? I'd be grateful for >any comments. > >I've suggested that they use Open Office rather than pay M$ for 4 Office >licences but am getting some resistance from people who have never heard of >it (not users incidentally but committee members who will have to approve >the purchase). Are there any limitations of Open Office compared to M$ >Office? I've not found any but, again, would be grateful for comments from >anyone who has more experience of OO. > >TIA > >John Weller >01380 723235 >07976 393631 > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
