Build for Classic

[Luis]

I agree on Millenium Edition, I won't even touch the bargepole!

The reason they told me why they were still using 3.1 was the cost of  
the upgrade: In order to have all departments in sync they'd have to  
upgrade all their systems in one go.

Cheers,

Luis.


On 19 May 2007, at 1:34, Scott Kane wrote:

> From: "Luis" <luis at anachreon.co.uk>
>
>> Anyroad, if issues of workload are to be borne in mind regarding  
>> unsupported OSs the we should also ditch Windows 98. Although I   
>> wouldn't agree with it on the grounds that there are tonnes of  
>> these  around (I even saw 3.1 'For Workgoups' on every machine in  
>> a  government department not two years ago, pretty nippy on them   
>> Pentiums I must say!).
>
> In some programs I refuse to support Win 9x and Millennium (for  
> technical reasons related to some of the hardware problems in those  
> OS').  However on the matter of Win 3.11 there are some parts of  
> the QLD Education department who were still using that OS in  
> relatively recent times.  At the time the reason was "because Win  
> 95 has bugs" which while true was not really a valid reason in that  
> Win 95 for all it's warts was generally more stable than Win 3.11.   
> As you can imagine it created quite a problem with inter  
> departmental documents written in various versions of Word, Access  
> etc.
>
> Scott Kane
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from  
> magic." Arthur C Clarke
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>