Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2006 August 27

Networking a Performa 575
I saw a Performa 575 at a garage sale this weekend and I was just wondering if anyone could tell me how hard it would be to put on a network. Could I put an ethernet card in it? Also, is there a way to load Linux on it? I would think "yes" on this last question, just a matter of finding a variant that will run on 68k Macs. I just thought it might be intersting to have a 33Mhz Mac running Linux on my current network... Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have one of these somewhere... you obviously won't be able to put "just any" ethernet card in there, it'd have to be compatible with the 575's bus (NuBus?). Other than that, I don't think there would be any problems. The card I have on my box uses 10Base2 however, so you may not be able to just shove a Cat5 cable in the box. I don't know how well Linux supports it, but NetBSD will run on it. You may have to netboot the install process, IIRC, though. Dysprosia 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a helpful site, lowendmac.com, for those with an interest in older Macs. Here's their page for a Performa 575, and here's a page discussing Ethernet and LocalTalk options. As always, upgrading an oldie can be hard to justify economically; it's usually an emotional attachment that provides the motivation. --KSmrqT 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you! Like I said, I thought it might just be interesting to do...  I realize that I'd be limited in what I could do with it.  Dismas|(talk) 08:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe your OS options will be severely limited without a CPU upgrade as well, because the 68LC040 has no FPU. Check your favorite Linux sites to confirm (and read this), but you may have to use NetBSD (home) instead of Linux. --KSmrqT 13:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Clicking HD noises on bootup
For the last several days, one of my HDs (presumably the one with the OS on it) has produced fairly loud semi-regular clicking noises during Windows XP being loaded, starting immediately on bootup. It quietens down once the OS is loaded, producing the odd click for one or two minutes afterwards and is then silent. HD performance is unimpaired, as far as I can tell. Although I have all the important stuff backed up, should I now expect an imminent drive failure or can I afford to ignore this? And in the former case, could anyone recommend a good ghosting software for shifting my current Windows installation to a new HD? Thanks a bunch. Sandstein 15:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd play it safe and expect an imminent failure. StuRat 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your drive is failing. The clicks are likely the drive failing to read data and continually trying to check bad sectors.  A lot of the new drives I purchase come with disk copy programs, so you can put the new drive in and painlessly copy your old data to the new drive - then trash the bad drive before it gives you any real trouble. --Kainaw (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's rather affectionately called the 'click of death'. That drive is going to die off soon - get a copy of Norton/Symantec Ghost for a decent hard drive ghosting utility, and clone or back up the drive for easier replacement later. 62.232.224.2 09:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The "click of death" normally refers to Zip disks, not harddrives. But, the issue is the same - at least one of the drive's heads is having trouble finding where it is supposed to be. --Kainaw (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the comments! (The drive lives... yet.) Sandstein 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Playing DVDs on Linux
I just bought a movie on DVD. But I have no idea how to play it on my computer. I have Red Hat Fedora Core 3 with just the normal applications it comes with. The DVD disc gets recognised as /media/cdrom, but none of the files there seem to mean anything to any applications. Is there a, preferably open-source, DVD player for Linux that would play commercial DVDs and not require extreme technological wizardry to configure? I'm easily the most computer-knowledgeable member of my family but I'm no Linus Torvalds. J I P | Talk 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * VideoLAN or Xine. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already tried Xine, but it doesn't seem to have an option to automatically play a DVD, and opening any of the files on /media/cdrom just gives an error about an unrecognised format. I'll try VideoLAN as soon as I get it downloaded. Thanks. J I P  | Talk 17:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It turns out Xine works after all. I just have to open "dvd:/" instead of a file on the filesystem. The movie looks really good. Thanks! J I P  | Talk 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mobile phone consumer software publishers
How can I get a list of mobile phone consumer software (i.e., J2ME applications) publishers? I'm particularly interested in those who market outside the US. 75.18.208.210 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

64 bit CPU
I feel incredibly dense asking this, but here goes anyway: If I have a computer with a 64-bit processor (such as one of the new AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors which I'm currently eyeing), will it run 'ordinary' applications and OS's (which I presume are written for a 32-bit architecture)? Or do I need to go and hunt down a 64-bit version of my OS? Thanks muchly in advance! &mdash; QuantumEleven 19:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be able to run 32-bit systems and applications perfectly normally. J I P  | Talk 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an AMD64. I run a 64bit OS and run 32bit applications in the 64bit OS without trouble.  It is nearly identical to running DOS apps in Windows (post 3.11).  DOS was a 16bit application/OS and Windows is 32bit. --Kainaw (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 64 Bit processors generally have a 32 Bit mode which they will probably run in most of the time if you're running 32 Bit programs. So, there shouldn't be any problem with such a processor as long as it's designed for the usual applications. (There are probably specialized 64 Bit cpus that don't bother, but they're more for industrial/institutional settings where you're designing a computer to solve a specific kind of problem). I don't know if there's actually an advantage to having a 64 Bit CPU if you're going to be running 32 Bit software anyway. (There are probably high end scientific programs which could take advantage of such a CPU... Matlab might.) - Rainwarrior 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much everyone! &mdash; QuantumEleven 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that all recent (< 10 years old) x86 chips have included a math coprocessor that actually does 80-bit arithmetic but which importantly supports 64-bit floating-point numbers. As far as I know, the x86-64 chips do not extend this at all, so Matlab might actually benefit very little.  What could benefit greatly are programs that manipulate large numbers of machine-precision integers -- image processing comes to mind -- and anything which could benefit from having ludicrous amounts of addressable memory (scientific computing comes to mind here).  Does that help?  --Tardis 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The real benefit I have seen has nothing at all to do with math or numbers. It is memory.  With 32 bits, you are limited to 32bit addresses for accessing memory.  With 64 bits, you can access a hell of a lot more memory without paging.  Unfortunately, the OS designers know this and I'm certain they are eagerly looking for "features" they can bloat to fill up the new address space. --Kainaw (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How is paging relevant? With 64-bit pointers, there are a lot more pointers (or, equivalently, a larger virtual memory space).  But how many of those pointers can point to RAM (as opposed to disk, where they would cause page faults) depends only on how much RAM there is, not how many pointers there can be.  Of course, a 32-bit machine wouldn't be able to use 20GB of RAM without severe contortions and speed penalties, but that's a separate question ("Does an 64-bit architecture allow the fruitful use of more physical memory?" (Yes.)).  --Tardis 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 32 bit legacy mode means a performance penalty; Many 64bit CPUs have more registers, instructions, etc. that didn't exist in their 32bit counterparts, like SSE3 on newer Intel and AMD64 processors. There's a wide collection of high-quality Free Software Operating Systems out there that are already built to make full use of many models of 64bit processors. The most popular one is GNU/Linux. This system is used on the vast majority of internet servers and is slowly gaining usage as a desktop operating system in office and domestic environments. A popular user-friendly distribution I'd recommend is Ubuntu.-- Roc VallèsTalk - 15:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How to get PDF thumbnails to display?
On my work computer, when I view PDF files in a Windows folder on "thumbnail" view, it gives me a picture of the first page. On my home computer, however, it only displays the standard PDF file symbol. What can I do to make the home computer like the work one?

Thanks 71.246.153.243 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Right clicking the folder (not the file) and going to view < thumbnail should do the trick. --Demonesque 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Might it be worth mentioning what operating system your home computer uses? I assumed you had KDE, but the poster above seems to assume Windows. Ojw 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Windows XP SP2 on both work and home computers...but only the work computer will show the first page of a PDF file as a thumbnail when a Windows folder is on "thumbnail" view. I wish I could sort this out because it will help me a lot with my new ScanSnap, which scans to PDF. I have both Acrobat 6.0 and Adobe Reader 7.0 installed on both computers. 72.82.47.122 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Online startups?
What are some of the best sites for info on starting your own business online?


 * Find a successful site and copy it. Change the name and logo of course. --Kainaw (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)