Jim Fulton wrote: > > "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 > > > > 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. My experience has been the same as Tim's. You should generally upgrade DLL's as a matter of course, because your system will be more stable. Installers are required to check DLL versions before replacing them. Not doing this is a major sin, and reason enough to stop dealing with a vendor. Jim Ahlstrom
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