Go to Google Groups Home    opera.general
Re: Opera turmed into Shit

David Harden <dhar...@iglou.com>

In article <MPG.1b1412412c33c5bf98a...@corp.supernews.com>,

Philip J Koenig wrote:
> In article <slrncajh7k.11m6...@snoopy.sheridan.co.uk>, o...@matthewwinn.me.urk
> (Matthew Winn) writes...
> > On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:30:00 -0700, Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> > > My personal hypothesis is that most of the people with Opera stability
> > > problems are running some variant of Windows 9.x (95/98/Me)

> > > If true, those people need to wakeup and realize that:

> > > 1) None of those versions are supported any more by Microsoft, and of
> > >    the one that might be (WinMe, just barely) many software and hardware
> > >    vendors thought it so problematic that they won't support it even
> > >    when they'll still support Win98.

> > And some people need to wake up and realise that:

> > 1) Older machines don't have the speed or memory to run the latest
> >    versions of Windows.

> > 2) Expanding those older machines is difficult and expensive: few
> >    retailers bother to sell memory for last century's hardware and
> >    there's only so far a CPU can be pushed in an old motherboard.

> > 3) Once you get into upgrading the critical parts of the hardware you
> >    end up having to replace the entire box.

> > I've been there: an old 16MB 100MHz machine that ran Opera 6.06 well
> > under Windows 95 but could never handle XP.  I eventually managed to
> > track down a shop that still sold SIMMs and pushed the memory up to
> > 96MB (and also switched the OS to Linux) but to persuade the machine
> > to run XP I'd have had to replace the motherboard, the CPU, the power
> > supply, almost all my additional cards (most of which are for ISA
> > slots, which aren't a feature of many modern motherboards), add a new
> > disk, and replace my existing memory.  The only parts I could have
> > kept would have been the case and the power cord.  That's a lot of
> > money and work just to cut down the number of occasional crashes.

> > The fact is, Opera on Windows 9x is a great way to make an old machine
> > into a cheap and useful internet workstation.  I hope Opera continues
> > to support these systems for as long as possible.
> I don't dispute that, but it's also highly unrealistic to expect a
> software vendor to support an operating system that is 9 years old
> and which has long since ceased to be supported by its vendor.  Among
> various other things, you cannot get help from Microsoft to solve
> software compatibility issues any more.
> I think those who are running old systems should be grateful that
> Opera still makes available its older products (5.x, 6.x, etc.) so
> those people still have a nice option for older computers.  But

IME, a major issue with running Opera on older Pentium-class systems
is memory.  Opera 7 may not be happy with 16 megs, but for me, it ran
well on a P100 with 64 and Win98 SE lite.  As I recall, Matthew would
have problems with O7 where I wouldn't not because he was using Win95,
but because 7.x wants more memory than 6.06.

> expecting O.S. to potentially compromise the quality and timeliness
> of new releases to make sure they work great on 9 year old discontinued
> operating systems running on PC's which probably aren't even Y2K
> compliant, is unreasonable to say the least.

I'm one of the Last DOS Holdouts.  I didn't even own a Windows box
until after the Y2K rollover, and it was an old P100 with 64 megs,
running Win98 SE.  *It* was Y2K compliant, as is the system I'm using
now (a P166).

--
For every stupidity, there is an equal and opposite stupidity.