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
>> 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 my older version of Windows (Win2kpro)running on outdated hardware?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.
support-seamonkey mailing list