Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?

From: Mark (markr13_at_comcast.net)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 09:10:24 EST

Next message: Chris Ruprecht: "Re: [NTLK] A little fun"
Previous message: Patrick Jendraszak: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
In reply to: Patrick Jendraszak: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
Next in thread: Brian Pearce: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
Reply: Brian Pearce: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> I am now planning to get either a non-upgraded 2000 or a 2100.
>
>What do experienced users advise as to which? I like the idea of a
>faster machine but I'm kind of put off the 4mg versions because of
>the -10061 error problem. Should I be?

The -10061 problem is easily solved with some freeware available from
UNNA. Search under 10061 for appropriate packages.

-- Mark Ross markr13_at_comcast.net

-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/

Next message: Chris Ruprecht: "Re: [NTLK] A little fun"
Previous message: Patrick Jendraszak: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
In reply to: Patrick Jendraszak: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
Next in thread: Brian Pearce: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
Reply: Brian Pearce: "Re: [NTLK] 2000 or 2100?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jan 01 2003 - 10:03:01 EST