Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
A lot of XP installs are on computers with processors that are not up to the task. The processors are too old. They need to at least support SSE2. So what would happen is people with too old hardware would install Sigil and have it fail and then want support for it when it's the computer that's the problem.
|
Are you telling me that editing text in 2014 needs a computing farm of Crays dipped in cryogenic nitrogen or else the mouse will not move on the screen? When I started editing for the University' Press I used a 286 (remember?

) at 20MHz with 1MB RAM (from which a sensible part was taken by BIOS) and 80 MB HDD, it was a giant back then (12 and 16 MHz were standard, so 256kB RAM and 20MB HDD).
I made a test. I wrote Hello world! in MS Word 2010 and save it as .DOCX. Wow, almost 16kB instead of 12B, the size of the ROM in an 1982 personal computer like Sinclair Spectrum ZX, which contained the BASIC interpreter as well.
Well, my point was anyway another - a working system has not to be changed.
You see, in the past if one needed more power for their projects, they went for a higher spec'ed PC, like our At286/20, then 386. We needed matlab or a faster rendering in AutoCAD, we added the 387 math coproc and more RAM. And people noticed that 386/40 was faster than 386/16. Today
one has to upgrade to keep the same working speed. That's something wrong happening, that people
born yesterday don't get it, because they were born in this world.
And concerning end-of-cycle for XP, I really really don't understand the craze. The fear. The urge. Please raise your hand all those that relied on MS support, that you fear you lost it when MS announced they ended their support. My music computer works happily with W98SE (15 years old) and have no issues at all.