John Doue schrieb:
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my older version of Windows (Win2kpro)running on outdated hardware?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.
Ok, let us give it a try.

First, running XP on 256megs of ram is going to be kind of sluggish,
unless you are very careful to minimize the startup programs. Also make
sure you have ample space on the hard drive for a large page file. One
possibility is using XP Lite; I have no personal experience of it but I
have heard very positive comments.>  http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

I see no reason why Seamonkey would not work correctly on this machine
with XP. Just don't expect it to be very fast, but it will work. Sure.

One last thing: resist the temptation to simply "upgrade" from 2k to XP.
A clean install is way preferable.


Why should he upgrade to XP if Semonkey2.0 will work fine on Win2k, anyway? As far as I understood him, he will stick to Win2k it it does. :-)

_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Reply via email to