On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:55:03 +0100, ken wrote:
> In article <163j2j9iawwle$.
1pxj6pc0...@40tude.net>,
>
mPiOsUcB...@att.net says...
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:52:05 +0100, ken wrote:
>>
>>> 4) Windows 95 ? Seriously ?
>>
>> Why not? Win 95 doesn't wear out, any more than ghostscript does.
>
> True, but the hardware its running on does. And if you want to install
> new software (or even updates to existing software) it gets increasingly
> hard over time to find something which works on such an old operating
> system.
>
> There's the matter of security, but as long as you don't connect such an
> ancient machine to any networks, or load any floppy disks, you're
> probably safe.
Absolutely. That MS Windows 3.1 for Pen Computing system (as it was called)
is totally stand-alone, but for a parallel-port-attached ZIP drive :-) .
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
> And bug fixes are mostly applied to current versions of software. Of
> course, if you don't want to upgrade software, none of this matters, but
> then, that's where this thread started....
No. What runs on it just runs on it, and needs no updates or upgrades.
> I *think* current versions of Ghostscript will still work on Windows 95,
> but it is a 17 year old operating system, I wouldn't like to be certain.
> While I *do* have a VM with Windows 95 installed, I haven't actually run
> it in ages.
>
>
> Ken
Sorry, ken. There are just times I tire of hearing everybody and their
uncle repeat the vendors' self-interested claims that we must all keep our
systems updated to the latest and greatest, no matter how much havoc that
plays with older software -- or hardware -- whose creators just aren't here
any longer to keep *their* stuff up-to-date :-) . So I become the voice of
restraint and conservatism :-) . Nothing personal -- quite the contrary: I
marvel, with great gratitude, at how well even truly antique versions of
ghostscript/ghostview pull their weight :-) .