Re: Best Opera version for old computer

[Klamm]

9.63 but with some options off

En 21/02/2009 17:58:25, Merc <nob...@nospam.null> escribió:

>
> ...and I mean *old* computer. We're talking 1997-vintage Pentium 166Mhz
> with 32MB RAM, running Win98SE.
>
> What would be the best version of Opera for this kind of system?
>
> Obviously I don't have high hopes for any intense Flash/Java based
> stuff, but for simple browsing with sites looking more-or-less as they
> were intended would be nice. IE6 (the last version supported on Win98)
> is really showing its age and with the lack of security updates I'm wary
> of using it at all.
>
> -M

[Merc]

[Matthew Winn]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:52:10 -0800, ASCII <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> Opera V6.06 used to be my Win98SE favorite,
> even used it awhile with XP http://tinyurl.com/aq6k2s

I second the approval of 6.06. I used it on a 100MHz machine with 16MB
RAM. It couldn't handle Java well, but with Java turned off it was
excellent.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]

[incognite]

Don't run anything old, it's not secure.

[incognite]

ASCII wrote:

> Newer releases aren't always for security reasons
> as much as a renewal of revenue stream.

I find newer browsers nearly almost always perform better regardless and
it's a bit of a myth that older uses less resources.

See here:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/03/06/hallelujah-microsoft-confirms-ie8-wmp-others-can-be-removed-from-windows-7/

[Naruki]

Merc wrote:
>> ...and I mean *old* computer. We're talking 1997-vintage Pentium
>> 166Mhz with 32MB RAM, running Win98SE.
>>

incognite wrote:
> I find newer browsers nearly almost always perform better regardless and
> it's a bit of a myth that older uses less resources.

According to Task Manager on my XP Pro, Opera 9.64 is currently claiming
75MB of memory. That's more than twice what his computer is capable of.

I think it's not going to work too well for him.

[incognite]

Memory is always cheap unless it's rare or new.

I think there is some kind of law regarding this phenomena?

[Michael Fesser]

.oO(incognite)

Old modules can be quite expensive. Also don't forget that older boards
are limited in the amount of RAM they support. Some not even support 256
MB or have problems with bigger modules, so you might have to use 64 MB
modules for example. Too bad if there are only two slots then ...

And IMHO it's more a fact than a myth that older software requires less
resources. Legacy apps usually have less features and were often more
optimized than modern software. When memory was expensive, you had to
keep an eye on the used resources and optimize the code. Today where RAM
is really cheap, many companies seem to think that it's no problem to
waste some 10 MB here and some 20 MB there.

Opera's memory requirements are still quite moderate, though, even with
a hundred open tabs.

Micha

[jun...@nomail.afraid.org]

I ran v6.x on similar spec, tho y might like to check v7- I believe it was
FASTER once I upgraded!

--
Opera 9.27 on Win2000 SP4, AMD K6-II 550, 500MB.
Replace <nomail.afraid.org> with <yahoo.co.uk> to reply.

NB:-" An RSS 2.0 feed does not contain references to a dead website's RSS
1.0 documentation."

[Michael Fesser]

.oO(jun...@nomail.afraid.org)

>I ran v6.x on similar spec, tho y might like to check v7- I believe it was
>FASTER once I upgraded!

Yesterday I got an old Pentium 133 MHz with Win95 up and running.
Instead of its IE 5.5 I installed Opera 7.10 - works very well.

Micha

[mechanic]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:54:09 +0100, Michael Fesser wrote:

> Yesterday I got an old Pentium 133 MHz with Win95 up and running.
> Instead of its IE 5.5 I installed Opera 7.10 - works very well.

Wait till you connect USB devices.

--
mechanic

[Michael Fesser]

.oO(mechanic)

There's no USB on that machine.

Micha

[jun...@nomail.afraid.org]

touche!

[Stan]

For a different approach, install the Puppy Linux OS, then run latest
Opera browser. See
http://www.puppylinux.org/main/index.php?file=Download%20Latest%20Release.htm.