What is the difference the first line and second line support in widows?
969022
2nd line is a higher level of support...you have to call the first line of support and if they cannot resolve it they will escalate the call to 2nd line of support
760282
no you cant its either broadband or a second line
190662
depends on whether you need to be on the internet at the same time.\n\nif you are using a dsl internet service, you don't need a second line. you can continue making voice calls and the odd fax data transfer on the same line without affecting your internet connection.\n\nif you're on dial up internet, then it might be an issue when you're expecting a fax and trying to be on the internet at the same time. besides, when you're on the internet you can't use the phone either, so it might make sense for you to get a separate phone line for your voice calls and fax transmissions.
979510
Type your line then put <br> or <p> between the lines like:\nblah\n<br>\nblah\nor \nblah\n<p>\nblah
482756
Well, they both take a lot of time! And, I must see the algorithm of (....;)! When both take a lot of time, We should check the one which takes the less time! If both takes the same time, we should choose the one which takes less space (Memory space I mean) But generally, Prefer the 2nd one! I think we should try to use a general code or function in the second choice! If there isn't a general rule, then, I prefer using the 1st one, cause it takes less memory and the lines of codes will be less I suppose...
662885
No difference ,they are all used for dynamic allocation.only syntax difference i guess.
494818
There's a thread about just that here:\n\nhttp://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=152892\n\nHope that helps!
822848
head -2 threelines | tail -1 threelines\n\n\nI'll break this statement down to explain it\n\nhead -2 threelines :this command displays the first two lines of the file \n this output is sent as a input to the next command ( this is done by |  (pipe)) \n\ntail -1 will display the last line of the output\n\nso if your file is \n\nabc\ncde\nfgh\n\nhead -2 gives\n\nabc\ncde\n\nwhich is the input to tail -1\n\ntail -1 taking this input will give only cde  which the center line in your file \n\nyou can do it using awk also \n\ncat newlines | awk 'NR==2 {print}'\n\nin this you are printing out the lines in the file using cat,piping the output to the awk statement and saying select Number of record=2 and print it out (NR is number of record)
141068
There are a few things that are better. For instance OWA is much better in 2003 then it is in 2000. Windows 2003 comes with remote server and desktop capabilities built in and is easier to set up then 2000 terminal server. I don't like that I have to explain why I am shutting down the system everytime I need to reboot.
770193
&#92;b back one\n&#92;f next page\n&#92;r carriage return\n&#92;t move to next tab setting\n good luck
326525
What brower are you using first???
157207
bcos that is the starting of a second word
580782
You just missed the boat.  MS stopped support for 98/ME about a month ago.  You will need to find a mirror site with the foreign language app.  IE7 might have support built-in, but it's in beta.  If you're willing to be a guinea pig, give it a shot.
677547
Widows 98,98Se are both DOS based. NT 4.0,W2K,XP,Server 2003,and Vista are based on the NT kernel and can run the NT file system (NTFS) and are far more stable than 98,98SE. I think that for a older computer W2K is the sweet spot. With 128MB of ram or more it is hard to beat. I just don't like XP very much - I know people will say I am wrong - But I Love W2K!!!
766782
The principal difference is multi-tasking.  Older computers could only run one job at a time.\n\nOn the old mainframes your program had to be written off-line (usually by hand on paper, then punched into a deck of cards), then submitted as part of a "batch job" to the computer operator.  The operator would then mount any tape or disk needed for the job (the data files), load the program into the computer's memory, and run it.  When this was finished they did the same for the next program, and so on.  The program itself did not reside on the computer or any of it's tape or disk drives except while actually running, and no other program or process could run at the same time.\n\nSimilarly the early operating systems for desktop computers could only handle one thing at a time.  They were more interractive because you wrote your programs while sitting at the computer, saved them to disk or tape, and ran them right there for testing ad debug instead of submitting the job and waiting for it to come back an hour or a day later -- maybe without having run at all due to some simple syntax error or such.  But they were still only running one program at a time (the editor, the compiler, and hopefully the resulting executable code).  There were early desktop operating systems that could have several programs LOADED at once into different segments of memory, but only the one in the top window was actually running -- the others were basically "hibernating" until the top-window program ended (or the window was minimized) and then the new "active window" program began or resumed running.\n\nModern operating systems allow many programs to be running simultaneously on one computer, each sharing the resources of the computer with the other applications.  This required the development of means by which the operating system could seize control back from a misbehaving program that was "hogging" all the system resources or caught in a perpetual loop, so that the "blue screen of death" or similar crashes could be avoided.\n\nI don't recall for sure when the first multitasking O/S was developed for mainframes, but I think it was in the 1970's for the early Hewlett-Packard systems like the HP3000.  The first multi-tasking O/S for deskdops that I can recall was the early 1980's Apple Macintosh O/S, but to be honest I didn't use that one much so it might not have been a true multitasking O/S (might just have been a top-window-is-active type).  The earlier Apple computers (Apple I, II, II+, IIc/IIe, etc) were not multitasking nor were any of the PC O/S's up until about Windows 95.  The Commodore Amiga might have had basic multitasking capabilities (it had a lot of advanced features) and I think the Apple IIgs did as well.\n\n- - - - - - - \n\nAnother major way in which operating systems have improved is in "hardware abstraction" -- it used to be that you had to tailor a program to each new computer it was going to be run on, the "operating system" really only handled file I/O and printing.  Modern operating systems make it almost irrelevant what particular computer you are running on -- only the O/S itself has to be tailored to the hardware, from there it handles loading all appropriate device drivers and such so that applications programs don't have to be concerned with HOW to write to the printer or whether or not the drivers were loaded.
424839
Looks like it suppose to print properties for a file with the name  you pass as the first arguement\n\nIt appears to be depended on what ls -l <filename> outputs and may not work on all version of Unix.
90877
it's not ZoneAlarm to blame...\n1. Open control panel \n2. 2x click on "widows firewall"\n3. Chose "OFF" option and click ok button\n                      !!!DONE!!!