OT: AOL ver. 4 or 5?

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

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. "Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_apu7.594110$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> 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 > >

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 "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YBsu7.23117$[email hidden]... > From my recollection, on a PII 450, AOL 5.0 ran as quickly as 4.0 and hadsome useable upgrades, but 6.0 would bog an old box down

Quoted text (7 lines)

> too much, for little additional benefit. I'd suggest 5.0. > > Cheers, > > Steve B. > > "Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:_apu7.594110$[email hidden]... > > Having successfully avoided AOL all these years (I hid behind CompuServeat > > 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 fastenuf!"), > > all of which can handle AOL 6.0 with one byte tied behind their HDs, butI > > find I have one position unfilled...and all I've got for it is anancient > > laptop with a few measly megs of slo-mo RAM. Whatever; 6.0's systemreq's > > are way beyond what it's got, so my Q is: Which is better? AOL 4.0 or5.0? > > I vaguely remember some arguments from the early Cretaceous period thatsaid

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > one sucked & one ruled, but I can't remember which was which. > > > > Anybody? > > > > --Steve Smith > > > > > >

Can't say personally about 5.0, but 4.0 ran fine on a 200mhz machine of mine with 32mb ram. I never used much of the AOL proprietary stuff anyway, so I'm probably not the best source on the advantages of 5.0 vs 4.0. I'd guess a light user might not miss the difference. Either way you've got email and a browser. Hope that helps, Steve B. "Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LWuu7.595413$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (47 lines)

> 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 > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YBsu7.23117$[email hidden]... > > From my recollection, on a PII 450, AOL 5.0 ran as quickly as 4.0 and had > some useable upgrades, but 6.0 would bog an old box down > > too much, for little additional benefit. I'd suggest 5.0. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Steve B. > > > > "Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_apu7.594110$[email hidden]... > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

Thanks, fellas.... "Dixiemandan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Same boat here. I found that 5.0 has no appreicable differences and usesmuch > less resources.

Problem solved! I discovered a copy of AOL 3.0 (!) hidden away on the laptop's HD, so old the copyright's expired. Works like a charm with 16 Mb RAM "Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PFCu7.602033$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Thanks, fellas.... > > "Dixiemandan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Same boat here. I found that 5.0 has no appreicable differences and uses > much > > less resources. > >

In article <_apu7.594110$[email hidden]>, "Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>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

I'm still using AOL 5. AOL 6 tends to scramble stuff in the OS. I can't remember what the requirements are for ver 5 over ver 4, though. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +360.54... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.