"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > > Tim Peters wrote: (snip) > > As a matter of personal experience, it gets much stabler! The older DLLs > > get replaced by less-buggy newer ones, thanks to version numbers, rules, and > > installers that finally play by the rules. The mean time between crashes > > when I installed Win95 a few years ago was about an hour; now it's at least > > days and possibly weeks (don't know -- never leave the puter on that long). > > When a version upgrade fails, it's not a mystery, it's a bug <0.9 wink>. > > My experience is that intra-DLL references simply don't match anymore > and cause the system to become instable. Also, some weird installers > don't care about the version numbers and install older versions at > their will. The outcome is a complete version mess. This has been my experince too. I cringe anytime I see some installer stuff DLLs in my system areas. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@digicool.com Technical Director (888) 344-4332 Python Powered! Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.python.org Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4