Windows 10 home vs pro

Cerawy said:

Did a search and found this guide and it works.

Will give it some time and see if the home version is better.

P.S do I need to get a new key or is the key converted with the regedit fix?

It says that windows is still activated.

My troubles and just my share input



The root of my problem may not be win 10
home but maybe the peeps who built my box name not coming to me at moment, from 8.1 upgrade to 10 that was just a unresponsive cluster cow patty so reinstalled and then the creator's update I ended up with no sound and error with Defender I researched for 4 days and ended up using a 10 month old full back up to recover and reinstall creator's update .

And my other box has win 10 pro and has updated perfectly every time which had been insider box for years which was a great experience and wealth of knowledge

I've been considering running a Virtual Machine. And as I understand it, you need Windows 10 Pro for that due to some Home limitations that won't even facilitate it with 3rd party software. Is that correct?

One thing I'd like to get clarified though... Home vs. Pro... is that are they both capable of operating in a dual boot system? I want to install Linux Mint and be able to boot between Linux and Windows. And then of course in Linux Mint, you can have multiple VM's without any of the painful restrictions imposed by Windows 10 Home.

cytherian said:

I've been considering running a Virtual Machine. And as I understand it, you need Windows 10 Pro for that due to some Home limitations that won't even facilitate it with 3rd party software. Is that correct?

I'm not a fan of Hyper-V at all. We use VMWare at work, so I'm used to Virtual Workstation Player, which is 100% free. There's no real need to mess with dual-boots at this point. Run your main OS and then virtualize the rest.

lx07 said:

No that is not correct. You need Pro to use Hyper-V as a host for VM's but you can use VMWare or VirtualBox (both free) instead if you are running Home. Depending what you want to run a VM for they may as good or better. There are pros and cons for all of them.

You can dual boot with either Home or Pro - it makes no difference. You could quadruple boot with Home, Pro, Mint and Ubuntu if you wanted. There is no particular limit.

This isn't true. Home has no more restrictions than any other OS that can't run Hyper-V. You can't run Hyper-V on Home editions but nor can you on a Linux host either - It only works in certain Windows editions (Pro, Enterprise, Server) either physical or virtual.

You should understand though that any install of Windows (Virtual Machine or otherwise, Home or Pro) on whatever host (Windows, Linux, MacOS) needs a license.

With Home or Linux Mint as a host you could run 100 VMs in VMWare or VirtualBox if you wanted. If the VMs were Windows you'd need 100 licenses.

The only difference is if you were running Pro as the host you could run them under Hyper-V but you would still need 100 licenses for the VMs. You don't get a free Windows VM license because you are using Hyper-V.

You'd probably be better off making your own thread in the virtualization section if you'd like to discuss virtualization further though - rather than a general "which is best?" thread.

Hi there
On a Linux Host you can try KVM which operates more or less like HYPER-V -- remember though using these types of "HYPERVISORS" for your VM's means that you can't concurrently use VMware / Vbox.

Current releases of VMware (both player and workstation) require a 64 bit Host machine running either Linux in a 64 bit edition or a 64 bit edition of Windows but of course can run a 32 bit guest VM. I think the last version of VMware that could be installed on a machine running a 32 bit OS was version 10.

Cheers
jimbo