On 05/14/09 13:10, Karl Anderson wrote:
> Benoit Renard wrote:
>> John Doue wrote:
>>> The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your 
>>> satisfaction.
>> Not if that version has publicly known exploits that have been patched 
>> in the next version.
>>> The wise man does not rush.
>> Unfortunately, this isn't really true for security updates, and often is 
>> followed to the point of exaggeration. See: Conficker infections.
> Unfortunately, most of these answers don't address my underlying 
> question. Are the newer versions of Seamonkey backwards compatable with 
> my older version of Windows (Win2kpro)running on outdated hardware? 
> Also, do they hog resources the way that newer versions of windows do? 
> In other words, my old PIII-900 with 256 megs of RAM runs Win2K pretty 
> well, but I suspect it would bog down under XP, which is one reason I've 
> not upgraded. But at this point it is also tying me back to legacy 
> versions of some software and I'm wondering if Mozilla/Seamonkey falls 
> into that category.

Well, the supported systems are discussed in the Release Notes for the
release. See here: <http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/seamonkey1.1.16/>
and look at the system requirements under the Windows Installation section.

As for the performance, I can't answer that. You can always try it in a
new profile, and if you're not happy, go back to what you were using before.

What the others have said about security updates is an important issue, IMHO.

Best Regards,
support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to