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 my older version of Windows (Win2kpro)running on outdated hardware?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
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Reply via email to