That no one is answering means no one who has read it has a good answer.
Also, responses from the volunteers who regularly answer questions over the
weekend may not be as high as during the regular work week. Please do not
post multiple threads. I doubt that anyone is going to look for your
previous post to pick up information, I haven't. This newsgroup has more
than a hundred message posted a day. Sorry.

To add information to a previous post, reply to your previous post. That
keeps the information together.

Does your problem template contain macros?

What size is the file?

Does it contain multiple sections?

http://addbalance.com/usersguide/doc...corruption.htm might give you some
other ideas, as might
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/AppErrors/...peningWord.htm. Might not, too.
Word 2003 is better at detecting (and fixing) problems in documents than are
earlier versions.

Note that the proper way to use a template is to create a new document based
on the template. Is that the kind of template you mean or might we be
talking about what Word calls an online form?
--
Charles Kenyon

Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word

Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of
Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide

See also the MVP FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/word which is awesome!
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.


"KM1" wrote in message
...
Please refer to my other posts regarding "CPU usage when working with a
Template you created". No one was answering so I started a new post

Went to work to see if the template caused the same problem. I pulled up
the Template I created at work and
tried working in it as before. No problems with CPU usage. I tried
several
times using exactly the same procedures at home, even checked to make sure
all the autotext I created with the template came with the email
attachment.
All was the same, however, CPU usage stayed at 0% - 3%. Very strange.
Now
there are major differences between the operating systems and software at
home and here at work. I will list them:

1. Using Windows XP Home Edition w/SP2 installed and updated at home / At
work I am using Windows XP Professiona Edition 2002 w/SP1 installed Clone
computer is not up to date. Don't know about server.

2. Using Microsoft Office 2003 at home all up to date / At work they use
Microsoft Office 2000

3. Using Microsoft Word 2003 at Home all up to date / At work we use
Microsoft Office 2000

4. Using two individual computers at home with 1 gig ram & 512 ram / at
work we run clones from a server w/ 496 ram.

5. Using Mcafee Viruscan, Firewall Plus, Privacy Service & Microsoft
Atispyware Beta1 for virus and spyware protection. All of them have some
active component running in the background. At work I think they run
Mcafee
on the server but none of it is availabel on the clone computers. They
also
run Spybot Search and Destroy which is available on each clone but hidden.
No active components running. Program is run separately when needed.

Anyone out there know why this is occuring on a new system with newer
version of office and word and not on an older system with previous
versions
of office and word. Would be very interested in knowing????

Ok, Went home after work and fired up the computer in safe mode. Pulled
up
word and tried to see if I get the same CPU response in Safe mode as in
normal mode. No virus, firewall, spyware protection, etc. Found that,
again, when active and in the template I created the CPU usage on my
smaller
computer hangs around 90 - 100% even in safe mode. This has to be
something
with Office 2003, Word 2003, or some hardware setting. Two computer same,
two instulations of the same programs and OS, and same problem with CPU.
However, using same template on Pro version of XP wSP1 and office/word
2000
no problem with CPU usage. Someone at Microsoft should know something
about
this phenonmenon. Any more information would be appreciated.
--
KM1

--
KM1