Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 November 11

= November 11 =

JRE/DOS
Does there exist a JRE for Dos? (by which I mean Dosbox)--Duomillia 01:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sun (and probably anyone else's) J2SE VM won't compile on a 16 bit platform; DOS in particular lacks the basic OS features that J2SE relies upon (loading libraries, threads, IP networking, and probably dozens of other things). J2ME-CLDC and Java Card will compile on a 16-bit platforms, and both could probably be made to work on DOS. I don't know of anyone who has done this port; doing so seems a particularly unappealing prospect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mac OSX
Is it possible to install a version of Mac OSX onto a computer running Windows Vista? Thanks!  Marlith  T / C  01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Comparison of virtual machines, only PearPC lets you run OS X (PPC) on a Windows host. --24.147.86.187 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably want to run OS X Intel instead of emulating PPC on an Intel machine. If the PC is already a Mac, then you can install OS X and Windows on that machine. This is probably not what you meant, since a Mac probably already has Mac OS X on it. For non-Apple PCs, see OSx86. --Spoon! 09:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Using python to get / input information on webpages
Is there a tutorial anywhere that will explain this? Non-Programmer's Tutorial for Python, which is what I used to learn python, doesn't contain this. Thanks. 68.231.151.161 02:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Domain is not available...wait...what?
I'm on my downstairs computer as my other computer is kinda screwy. Can someone please help? It, first of all, takes forever to get past the "Preparing Network connections" screen (my model is a Windows 2000 professional) and when I get to the little "login" screen this happens:

I type in my password, the "box" turns "grey" and it freezes...for a while. Then there is a little note that reads similar to this:

"Error- cannot log onto "so and so", the domain is not available"

It then reurns to the log on screen again.

Can anyone think of a solution out of this? I have valuable information that CANNOT BE REPLACED!!!

♥  ECH3LON   ♥  03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You had better check out your domain controller and network connection between it and your computer. Something is proabably broken.   Can you logon to your local machine without the domain, and check that you have an IP number, and if so can ping the server.  Is the screwey computer your server with files and accounts on it? Graeme Bartlett 10:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Novel system file organizational structure in Linux
There is a distro that instead of having directories like bin, user, src, and so forth, they mask those and have something like a mechanism of redirects in attempt to simplify and clarify what is the contents of each directory. What distribution is this? I think they have a pretty flashy wiki. Gentoo? --Emesee 05:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've used Gentoo - that has a pretty conventional directory structure as I recall. It's a really bad idea for Distro's to start rearranging the file system - it's been a long hard battle to establish a standard and this kind of arbitary "improvement" can only result in more problems for developers of free software. SteveBaker 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree, but if it's something like Linspire, it might be appropriate -- ⁪ffroth 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * GoboLinux. I think there's something to be said for a different file system layout. I think the linux filesystem is the most difficult thing to get around for new users. I know it was for me. Even if the general layout has its advantages, the naming (like so many things in unix) is horrible. Nobody is going to derive any meaning from a name like 'etc' or 'var'. If Linux is ever going to challenge OS X or Windows, this issue needs to be addressed. risk 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't know what you are talking about. OS X is based on FreeBSD and uses the exact same layout than Linux for the core OS. To simplify operations for non-experts, both systems hide these details. OS X does it with application bundles, Linux with packages. Morana 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Packages? Those don't do anything to hide filesystem details; they just make downloading code and resolving dependencies easier -- ⁪ffroth 23:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps OSX uses the unix standard layout somewhere, but what I'm talking about is having a directory named Photoshop in a directory named Applications that contains all of Photoshop, instead of having every program spread out over your computer. Fair enough, package management handles that, but any computer user will have to interact with the file system. You save a file in OpenOffice, and you're going to find out eventually what's behind that familiar 'home' directory, and if it looks like gobbledygook, it makes you feel very uncomfortable on your own computer. Everything that a user must interact with needs to be self-explanatory. Etc and bin are alright for us boffins, but until the file system root looks like this, the masses aren't going to bother.
 * I think that hiding the traditional dir-tree is a decent idea. I expect OSX and GoboLinux use similar approaches. I hope that Ubuntu will consider a similar approach (although that would be a massive operation). risk 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you find this feature a good thing - when it's the single thing I hate the most about Windows! When I'm working on a project, I typically have software, documentation, images, sounds, music...you name it.  In the Windows approach, all of my music ends up in one place, all of my images someplace else, my documentation yet somewhere else...it's a mess!  I want my entire project in one area so I can just zip up that part of the directory tree and know that I have all the files I need.  The other way is just insane!  Under Windows I end up with these MASSIVE directories full of important files, crap that's unrelated to what I'm working on - all sorts of crud mixed up with the important stuff.  It's also alarmingly easy to delete or overwrite an important file from an old project that I've shelved for a while.  I could see the attraction for the most casual user who has some random photos they took, a few letters to their bank manager, and a bunch of music they ripped from CD's - but for someone who actively creates stuff on the computer (eg writing a book, building a website, writing a computer program), it's an utter disaster! SteveBaker 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to use Documents, Pictures, Videos, etc.. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Why not just create a folder for your project and organize things how you like? -- ⁪ffroth 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I have more than one project I work on. So for an hour I work on 'serious paying project A' in directory /home/steve/A - during that time, I tell every application I used to go look in that directory and save things in the same place.  Then an hour later, I switch to 'for fun project B' and I need to use /home/steve/B - but all of my applications are looking in A...argh!  Five or six times a day (and sometimes hundreds or thousands of times a day) I'm telling these stupid tools to switch where they are looking.   In a UNIX-like environment, I change directories (using 'cd A' or 'cd B') to the place I'm working - then all native tools know that I want to look in there.  (Although the horrible Windows-isms are gradually creeping into some Linux tools too).  Life is very easy - one command to switch projects - then all subsequent commands know what I'm talking about.  These kinds of problems are not aparrent to most casual users - but for people who make a living building software and websites and such - it's a major effort drain.  I use Linux for everything I can - and when I have to use Windows, I use 'CygWin' and bring as many Linux tools across as I can. SteveBaker 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a different problem all together. I don't use the "My Documents" directory either, mainly because every single obnoxious program throws its unnecessary files there. I've mad my own documents dir because I want to keep it clean. But I was really only talking about the first level. Having a simple first level in the dir tree, that shows quite clearly where the programs, libraries and system resides help users to understand how their computer works. Most of them will never want to mess with system files, so they know that they should stay out of the directory System. Some more advanced users may be interested in exactly what files belong to some program, or how much space it takes up, so they look in Programs. Doing this in the standard linux dir tree requires you to read the manual first.
 * It seems like your /home/steve layout actually follows this philosophy. One program, one directory, one project one directory. I do the same thing on windows, and I can't say having to point software to some directory every now and then is that great a nuisance for me. It would be kind of cool to do it with one "cd" command, but all this is really about the default directory strategy of software, and not so much about the actual filesystem layout. risk 14:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I use Documents but I don't put up with obnoxious programs that put files in there- either I figure out how to put files in %APPDATA% where they belong, or they get uninstalled -- ⁪ffroth 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much risk. Thank you! : ) --Emesee 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MTG and computers
How well do computers perform at Magic: The Gathering? Are they better at constructed or limited formats? Neon Merlin  06:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends what you are using to play. Some programs, such as Apprentice require the user to do everything, others have some clue about what the cards do, and stop illegal moves, Others still allow AI, and have proper ways of blocking illegal moves. If you just want a good game against the AI, get the 10th edition starter pack, or track down the Microprose game "Magic the Gathering", and it's expansions ('spells of the ancients' and 'Duals of the planeswalkers'). They have better AI, but 5th edition rules (as many of a card as you want :D), and only a select few (600 or so) cards. If you want to playing online, just play Magic: The Gathering Online, or Apprentice, or Magic Workstation.  Kamahl 07:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I Pods & MP3 Players
What is the difference between an IPod and an MP3 player if there is any difference when purchasing for my teen. Thank You Tim Ferguson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.211.244 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to download music by paying $1 per track at the iTunes web store then you need an iPod - most of the music you buy from there is locked so it'll only play on the iPod. If you intend to buy CD's (or, god forbid, download music illegally) then a (vastly cheaper) MP3 player is just as good.  Some of the iPod range store the music on an internal hard disk drive which gives them VAST capacities compared to the majority of MP3 players that use flash memory.  Some iPod fanatics claim that the user interface on the iPod is awseomely, anazingly wonderful - but frankly, I don't see any huge advantages.  As straight MP3 players, they are horribly over-priced.   My 16yr old son loses MP3 players at an alarming rate, puts so much wear and tear on them that the displays end up scratched to heck and eventually the buttons stop working - and gets through a set of ear-buds in a month or two.  I've given up buying expensive ones and now look for those that are around $60 to $100 and buy ear buds at the "Everything's A Dollar" store!  The Digital Rights Management stuff on the iPod worries me and I don't like the 'lock in' effect that once you've bought a ton of music on iTunes, you now cannot afford to buy an MP3 player from anyone else.  Since I'm not into monopolistic corporations, a regular MP3 player works just fine. SteveBaker 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have articles on the iPod and other portable media players including MP3 players (though admit the latter article is not particularly helpful).  In my opinion, iPods are "cool" and have a great user interface; but I have reservations over their use of DRM, the often higher price than competing products, and the possiblity of it being stolen.  Read the iPod article for more info.  As for other MP3 players, they are sometimes cheaper and offer more features than iPods; but sometimes have quirky user interfaces and are incompatible with music purchased via Apple's iTunes store.  That said, my neice was very pleased with her Chinese MP4 until she broke it.  Astronaut 18:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ipods are supposedly higher-quality, and they look all sleek and steve-jobs-buttonless, but they are insanely priced. As noted above, some ipod fans swear by the user interface, but it's really not that big of a deal (and I have my reservations if some of these people are swearing by the OS X user interface too :p). Also the headphone jack is notoriously low-powered, making it difficult to power some headphones, and of course the included earbuds are absolutely disgusting in terms of sound quality.. though if your teen isn't an audiophile they may not care. MP3 players won't be able to play the DRMed tracks from the itunes store without questionably-legal means (and they have to support aac/mp4 playback), but they'll probably be priced a lot more fairly. Anyway the itunes store isn't the only online music store. In fact, it's infamous for DRM, low bitrate streams, and still limited selection. There are other online music stores that are still cheap and some even sell legally DRM-free music for a little more on the price. As far as I'm concerned, the ipod is an e-toy.. like the iphone there are much better products on the market but people are only interested in the iphone because it's the "must-have gadget" that's so cool to own. Same exact thing with ipods.. ipod is practically synonymous with "portable digital media player" and if you give your teen a non-Apple mp3 player they're likely to stare at it and blankly ask "is it an ipod?" So if your teen wants an ipod to be cool and to wear on their hip and proudly strut around, they're not going to get that same effect from a normal mp3 player.. but if they just want to listen to music and don't care about whether it's cool, save yourself $100 and go for a better non-ipod mp3 player -- ⁪ffroth 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that WP:NPOV still applies to the Reference Desk so I would suggest that the postings above are not "the whole story". For one, iPods are perfectly happy playing the same perfectly-ordinary MP3 files that every other MP3 player plays. For two, the Apple iTunes music store now sells DRM-free music. And third, gigabyte for gigabyte, iPods are not that differently priced than most other high-end MP3 players (such as those from Creative Labs. But it sure is fun to bash Apple, isn't it?


 * (Full disclosure: I'm a very happy iPod customer, currently on my second and third iPods, having given the first one away when I upgraded to the second one, and starting to ponder a fourth. I also own one of those "no-name" MP3 players and it mostly sits in the drawer, unlike the iPods. I also own a trivial amount of Apple stock and sadly wish I'd bought far more.)


 * Atlant 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment about prices does not appear to be true. Among solid state devices Apple seems to be at least 30% more expensive than all other competitors. Including names like Creative and SanDisk.
 * Comparing devices with hard drives is more difficult because those tend to be "Media" devices that play movies and such, And pricing seems to have move to do with screen size than drive capacity.
 * (I do not own an Mp3 Player of any brand.)--24.2.176.64 23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said the ipods can't play mp3s.. and why do you want a new ipod? Is it becuase your old ones don't play music anymore or because you want the thinner, shinier, newer model? I believe that I'm right, so I'm not going to sign a comment that says anything else. It's a talk page- we sign our own points of view. And you're free to present an opposing point of view, and a neutral point of view emerges. Also, ipods are certainly a lot more expensive than their equivalent-storage counterparts from competitors. Compare the 1GB Sansa Clip at $40 with the 1GB Ipod Shuffle at $80- twice the price! -- ⁪ffroth  23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this isn't a talk page, although it sometimes appears that way. And the reason I'm looking at a new iPod is two-fold: 1) my music library doesn't quite fit on my 40 GB iPod but would fit very nicely within 160 GB with room to spare and 2) I have some desire for an iPhone, especially if a subsequent variant includes GPS. Maybe I'll get them both. ;-)


 * Atlant 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If happen to go with the IPOD and your kid is really active and does like skateboarding BMX football and plans to listen while doing them id suggest a shuffle. I skateboard with mine fall on it the things basicly indistructable. A lil off topic but some good advice Eskater 11  00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not off topic at all- this is certainly a case where you'd want to spend twice as much, so you don't have to replace your mp3 player every time it's smushed -- ⁪ffroth 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind me butting in here and it's quite off-topic, but I've always wondered: Can an iPod (or any other media player) can play OGG Vorbis files out-of-the-box? --Dave the Rave (DTR) talk 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * An iPod can not do so "out of the box", but in theory it can if the Rockbox firmware is installed. This page lists many players with native support or support via add-ons.  Most seem to be brands that are not well known, with a few exceptions such as iRiver.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. --Dave the Rave (DTR) talk 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Printing Small Fractions
Hello. Why can my HP deskjet 3420 printer not print small fractions (Calibri, size 11) from Microsoft Office Word 2007? However, it can print fraction bars. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 21:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Try going to File then Print then clicking the Properties button...explore the various tabs until you find something about 'quality', try changing it from 'normal' to 'Best'. I have had problems with printing certain things in the past and that has always worked, although changing the quality will probably mean it takea a bit longer to print and uses more ink.  GaryReggae 11:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried that. It did not work. --Mayfare 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

c programming
i've recently written a program in c that used an external function but when i call the data from the external back to the main function i get a answer to the question 6-4 (well what it the equation boils down to) =  -2.17517e+307, which, i'm no mathmatician but seems a little big..., now its not the maths thats the problem as i copied my external function into my main and it works out the right answer, so i assume its something to do with how i call the variable, i prototype it as float and call it float again when i declare the  external function.

the e+307 looks alot like to long float to me, perhaps its somehow allocating double memory instead of float memory?--86.20.169.136 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if you're using arrays, make sure you only call array elements numbered 0 to size-1. That caused an unexplained number for me back in an early array assignment in grade 11. Neon  Merlin  01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * *bewildered* -- ⁪ffroth 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting really wild values for floating point numbers is very commonly a symptom of returning an integer instead of a float. Check that the declaration of the function agrees with the header file and with the way you call it. SteveBaker 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)