Error - template LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER template could not be found.

Error - template STYLE-SHEET not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the STYLE-SHEET template could not be found.

Error - template SUB-TOP-BANNER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the SUB-TOP-BANNER template could not be found.
Subject:
From:
Peter Shkabara <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCSOFT - Personal Computer software discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:39:52 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Jun Qian already answered your question as to why Win2k is slow. XP will
also likely be slower than Win98 because of all the extra drivers. My
own experience is that indeed, XP does boot faster than Win2k, but not
as fast as Win98. The most dramatic difference on my own system, though,
is the shutdown time. Win2k took forever it seems to shut down. XP pro
does it about as fast as Win98.

Peter
_____________________
Peter Shkabara
[log in to unmask]
http://gocolumbia.org/pesh

-----Original Message-----
Have been reading the thread and have been wondering about the Win2k
startup time.  I haven't tried XP yet, but it seems like 2k is taking a
long time to start up and I have heard that XP starts pretty quick.
Don't know what is going on behind the Windows Professional 2000 screen,
but have tried every key I can think of to get rid of it(like esc in
Win98), but nothing. Anybody know what takes so long for 2k to boot up
and is there anyway to speed it up? George&Mary
Skokan([log in to unmask])

               The NOSPIN Group Promotions is now offering
              Mandrake Linux or Red Hat Linux CD sets along
         with our NOSPIN Power Linux CD...  at a great price!!!
             http://freepctech.com/goodies/promotions.shtml

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV