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 my older version of Windows (Win2kpro)running on outdated hardware?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