rec.autos.simulators

> Having successfully avoided AOL all these years (I hid behind CompuServe at
> 14.4 until I got broadband), I now find I must deal w. AOL for my
> ever-lovin' family.  I've equipped most of them w. cast-offs from GPL ("We
> gotta getta new 'puta, Hon'; one-point-three Gig just ain't fast enuf!"),
> all of which can handle AOL 6.0 with one byte tied behind their HDs, but I
> find I have one position unfilled...and all I've got for it is an ancient
> laptop with a few measly megs of slo-mo RAM.  Whatever; 6.0's system req's
> are way beyond what it's got, so my Q is: Which is better?  AOL 4.0 or 5.0?
> I vaguely remember some arguments from the early Cretaceous period that said
> one sucked & one ruled, but I can't remember which was which.

> Anybody?

> --Steve Smith

> too much, for little additional benefit.  I'd suggest 5.0.

> Cheers,

> Steve B.

> Thx, Steve,

> Ye olde laptop is probably a 286 w. 16 Mb of RAM.  I used CompuServe s/w
> dated 1991 until recently.  Still think I should try 5.0?

> --Steve

> > From my recollection, on a PII 450, AOL 5.0 ran as quickly as 4.0 and had
> some useable upgrades, but 6.0 would bog an old box down
> > too much, for little additional benefit.  I'd suggest 5.0.

> > Cheers,

> > Steve B.

> > > Having successfully avoided AOL all these years (I hid behind CompuServe
> at
> > > 14.4 until I got broadband), I now find I must deal w. AOL for my
> > > ever-lovin' family.  I've equipped most of them w. cast-offs from GPL
> ("We
> > > gotta getta new 'puta, Hon'; one-point-three Gig just ain't fast
> enuf!"),
> > > all of which can handle AOL 6.0 with one byte tied behind their HDs, but
> I
> > > find I have one position unfilled...and all I've got for it is an
> ancient
> > > laptop with a few measly megs of slo-mo RAM.  Whatever; 6.0's system
> req's
> > > are way beyond what it's got, so my Q is: Which is better?  AOL 4.0 or
> 5.0?
> > > I vaguely remember some arguments from the early Cretaceous period that
> said
> > > one sucked & one ruled, but I can't remember which was which.

> > > Anybody?

> > > --Steve Smith

> Thanks, fellas....

> > Same boat here. I found that 5.0 has no appreicable differences and uses
> much
> > less resources.

>Having successfully avoided AOL all these years (I hid behind CompuServe at
>14.4 until I got broadband), I now find I must deal w. AOL for my
>ever-lovin' family.  I've equipped most of them w. cast-offs from GPL ("We
>gotta getta new 'puta, Hon'; one-point-three Gig just ain't fast enuf!"),
>all of which can handle AOL 6.0 with one byte tied behind their HDs, but I
>find I have one position unfilled...and all I've got for it is an ancient
>laptop with a few measly megs of slo-mo RAM.  Whatever; 6.0's system req's
>are way beyond what it's got, so my Q is: Which is better?  AOL 4.0 or 5.0?
>I vaguely remember some arguments from the early Cretaceous period that said
>one sucked & one ruled, but I can't remember which was which.

>Anybody?

>--Steve Smith