Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 September 13

= September 13 =

Registering a second-level domain
How could I register a domain name making amusing use of country code TLDs, such as (whatever).bit.ch or (whatever).fu.ck? Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd have to contact whoever owns bit.ch or fu.ck. -- JSBillings  01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Use whois and you'll find bit.ch is owned by Inware AG in Zurich. However, fu.ck is not owned. There are two reasons - the registrar doesn't offer it because it is offensive.  Also, the registrar doesn't give out two-letter names. --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it doesn't allow any registrations at the second level either (from .ck). Businesses can register a .co.ck though. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about pri.ck? Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This reference desk is not a whois database. Look these up elsewhere. I think you will find that most of the obvious possible words are taken. -- Diletante 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sending Novell messages
Our school computers are running Windows XP with the Novell Server software. I have received messages from other students (non-Admin accounts) through the Novell messaging pop-ups. I am curious, how does one do this (send messages to all users) with a non-Admin account? Thanks. Acceptable 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little application.. at my old school it was in the Novell NetWare program group in the start menu called Messenger or something --⁪frotht 01:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't remember what network software was in use (I think it may have been Novell), but at my old school you opened up the command prompt / Run dialog and typed "net send *username* *message*" (without asterisks). Confusing Manifestation 03:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right-click on the Novell icon on the task bar. (It's a big N) Some options should pop up, one of which should be send message to user or something. You may have to know their login id, however. YeoungBraxx 10:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In C should I use exit or return to exit main{}
Which should I use to exit the main function of a C program? exit or return? A friend tells me that exit is the better option because it cleans up memory allocations etc, but lint (the error checking program) complains if I don't use return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.36.88 (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really think memory clean-up matters at all during application exit. Any modern OS will clean it up for you.  If I remember the C standard correctly, a return from main is defined as being equivalent to a call to exit, with the same parameter.
 * Gah, not a return from main, but the final return from main. There may be obscure reasons to call main recursively.  BTW, see this FAQ for references. --Pekaje 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! 203.22.236.14 08:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (same person 124.176.36.88, but on a different machine)


 * Note also that return is a keyword, not a function, so it's misleading to refer to it as "return". As for the question, I personally think it's better stylistically to always return from a non-void function, but if your compiler knows that exit never returns then it doesn't really matter.  --Sean 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * IIRC, most standard C libraries automatically call exit when main reaches the end of the function. Whether you use exit or return won't ultimately make any difference, as such resources will be cleaned up one way or another.  However, you should use return - should you decide to move the code from main to another function, you won't have to worry about changing as much code. --Sigma 7 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

what are the key features of Xerox Alto?
What are the different versions of Microsoft, mention fro the earliest to the leates? Why " LIsa doomed to failure"? What are the best features of FUI that you can observe in Windows XP?Jahanzeb87 04:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a curious mix between homework and questions that don't make much sense. Perhaps start with Xerox_Parc, Apple Lisa, Microsoft Windows, and History of Microsoft Windows. And what is FUI? Do you mean GUI? --jjron 09:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What is FUI anyway> --Do not click me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multipleidentitynumberthree (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Did you mean GUI? --Do not click me! 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How to resize Flash in the Wikipedia editor
Hi

I'm trying to insert a flash banner into my Wikipedia site but I'm having problems with the sizing, for some reason it makes it really small.

All I've done is to paste the URL into the code window and tried to play around adding in width=750 height=120 but with no success, I've been searching round for the actual Wikipedia syntax for height and width but i can't find it anywhere, someone please help it's driving me mad.

Many Thanks

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.123.249.157 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would you need Flash? I'm assuming you mean on your user page?  -- LarryMac  | Talk  15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah just on my user page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.123.249.157 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't use flash. Thank God. --⁪frotht 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of Flash, but I personally wish it (or better, a free replacement) was allowed here. Some of the animated gifs we have (e.g. 1, 2) would be a lot smaller and more editable with a vector-based file. --Sean 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * SMILe! If only it's supported by browsers... --antilivedT 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You could always have it as a gif file or something I guess. --Do not click me! 19:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Bars on a Plasma Screen TV
Hi, not sure this is the right place for this question but... I just bought a new LG 42" plasma screen tv. I've turned on low contrast and the pixel orbiter, but I've been told not to watch movies with black bars on the side.  Unfortunately, quite a few of my movie are 16:9, which can only be decently viewed with bars on the side.  And if I watch a movie, I'll have black bars for a least 1.5 hours, maybe 3.5 if I watch Lord of the Rings.  Can I make it full screen without screwing up the picture?  Do I really need to worry about the black bars or is that still even a problem?  Thanks! 24.178.112.241 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)JMC


 * To explain the issue VERY briefly... When you buy a new plasma, the phospors are brand new and glowing brightly. They will degrade as they are used.  If you have black bars on the sides for an extensive amount of time, those sides won't degrade at the same rate.  The result is that the middle will be dimmer than the sides when viewing wide-screen video.  The fix is to use gray bars instead of black bars to make the sides degrade at the same rate as the middle. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you have black bars on the *side* while watching 16:9 movies? You should have small black bars on the top and bottom (letterboxing).  Bars on the left and right is known as pillarboxing and should only appear when watching 4:3 movies or TV shows.  As you say your TV is new and has pixel shifting, I would not worry about burn in. From what I read, the problem is virutally non-existent in modern plasmas.  Unless you are displaying the same info for days at a time (like an airport flight display), I wouldn't worry about it.  All modern DVD players and game systems have built-in dimmers and screensavers.  Congrats on your new purchase! --24.249.108.133 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Most movies aren't exactly 16:9, but nevertheless, widescreen movies would be the ones that don't display with bars on the sides. There might be some at the top and bottom.  Standard definition TV, 4:3, is usually where you get bars on the sides.  All of this is complicated by the settings on your DVD player and your TV, which most likely has settings to stretch the picture out in various ways.  Off the top of my head, I think the settings on my Sony are "normal", "wide", and "wide zoom".  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick replies! I have done some research... and yes it is letterboxing, not on the side as in 4:3 tv.  It's actually pretty good at displaying SDTV fullscreen and with the pixel orbiter and frequent commericial breaks, I'm not worried about tv logos.  I'm just worried about hurting my investment by watching movies, when that's what I got it for.  Pixel orbiter won't help if it's an extended fixed image right (like a black bar)?  There doesn't seem to be an option to turn 16:9 letterboxing to gray (though that is on 4:3 aspect ratio I never use.  Although... the letterboxing doesn't seem to be as black as the black in my favorite space movies... so perhaps it's on automatically?  Is there a way to find out?  Am I freaking out for no reason?  Should I just watch what I want... but maybe not LOTR for a while... and not worry about it?  It's my first big tv and my first big purchase after my car.  I guess I'm looking for some reassurance.  Thanks! 24.178.112.241 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)JMC


 * Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it, unless you're planning on watching LOTR exclusively, over and over again, for days at a time. If you watch a variety of sources -- 4:3 TV, 16:9 TV, widescreen movies, Wii Sports . . . you should be fine.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you only watched video in this format, you would not notice that the pixels in the black section were brighter! Graeme Bartlett 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea to run the display full screen for the first 150 to 200 hours. Checkout AVS forums. &mdash;Wayward Talk 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing the lid
I just got an awesome new monitor so that I can have more screen space. I'm a big fan of locking my session (Flag + L) when I'm out of the room. It doesn't make any sense not to, and it doesn't make any sense to "sleep" your computer for security. So I use lock.. anyway, when I close my laptop lid, my monitor becomes the primary display. Very cool behavior, perfect for watching movies. But when I lock my session and close my lid, my monitor changes to my laptop resolution (same vertical resolution, just less pixels on the sides) and switches its mode to a "mirrored" display of the primary display! This doesn't go away when I open my laptop lid, so I have to go into display settings every time and check "Extend my desktop onto this monitor." Any ideas on how I can fix this? --⁪frotht 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but I am curious. Which OS are you on? (Was it obvious from the fact that you mentioned flag plus l?) --Do not click me! 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yep. Vista. I figured it wouldn't be any difference vista/xp --⁪frotht 22:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

xp reinstall
I have windows and SUSE. What happens if I reinstall windows? is suse still there, and the grub bootloader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgenssen (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do not delete the partition(s) with SuSE on it, the installation will remain there, however, it will likely rewrite the primary disk's boot sector, so you'll need to use a LiveCD or rescue disk to re-run the grub installer after windows has been (re)installed -- JSBillings  20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

well, everything is on the same disc anyway, so I don't suppose "primary disc" is really a factor. I don't intend to delete the partition. I take it "boot sector" to mean my bootloader (the thing which selects either windows or suse) will disappear? SUSE doesn't have a live CD, but I think there is a system restore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgenssen (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just boot from the first suse install disk. When it asks what you want to do just say boot into the already installed suse partition (if that's not an option you might have to actually enter the installer, which gives you the option). Once suse is running, go to yast and the grub install utility. --⁪frotht 20:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I would come back if any problems cropped up, but that might be some time. --Jorgenssen, September 13th (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgenssen (talk • contribs)
 * grin. Use ~ to sign your posts, don't try to do it manually :3 --⁪frotht 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

like this: --Jorgenssen 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC) ?

Yes. --Do not click me! 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

net view equivalent for bash/linux
Is there a bash equivalent of the dos command "net view" which lets you view all of the computers on your LAN, Domain, and Network. – 69.150.209.13 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not /bin/bash, since enumerating SMB machines isn't really the domain of the shell, but smbtree? Splintercellguy 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither is "net" in the domain of the shell. The OP just means "a command line program". --192.58.221.248 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but the OP said bash, while you could run such apps on any shell, really. Splintercellguy 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Laptop computer + external LCD monitor
I have a Compaq Presario laptop computer that supports outputs in resolutions in 1600 x 900 and 1400 x 950. What will happen if I connect it to a 1680 x 1050 or a 1400 x 900 LCD monitor? -- Toytoy 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Once you connect the new monitor, you can go into Control Panel, then System, Hardware, Device Manager, right click on Monitors, then scan for hardware changes; and it should automatically update itself so that you can select the correct resolution for the new monitor. At least that's how it would work on a desktop, I'm not 100% sure if that will work on a laptop, but I'm sure someone will come along who does know for sure. --69.118.235.97 21:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It just depends on whether your video card supports it. What card do you have? --⁪frotht 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

deo Mobile Intel (R) 945GM Express Chipset. Intel(R) GMA 950. 128 MB memory. -- Toytoy 10:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I do not like those.  Still, try this: right-click on your desktop wallpaper and choose "Graphics Properties...".  This is a non-standard menu-item that is added by the Intel drivers.  From the screen that pops up, you can go to the display settings and adjust the monitors, and also setup dual-monitors. --Mdwyer 23:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Or is the 128 MiB the part dedicated to video? I hope it is the latter. Let us know how your problem worked out. Wish you guys have a nice weekend! --Do not click me! 01:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Spybot - Search & Destroy
I just ran spybot and for some reason it seems to be picking up Microsoft.WindowsSecurityCenter as a threat against this computer. Is this normal?--69.118.235.97 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look more closely, it is picking up the fact that one of the Security Center settings is overridden or something. This is usually done by many antivirus and/or firewall programs. --192.58.221.248 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Dictionary
Is there a program, like WordWeb, that is for Spanish? --74.37.228.44 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Docx vs PDF
I am new to MS Office 2007. I used the Save as command in MS Office 2007 to save a two page document in PDF. I got 13 KB for DocX format whereas for PDF, I got a 155 KB file.

I wonder why the same document produced in MS Office Word 2007 and saved in two formats, Docx and PDF differ by so much. Is it purely because, with the default settings in MS Office 2007, DocX compresses the data and PDF does not? I don't think so. Does PDF hold more information than DocX? What is this extra information then?

I find this whole business weird.

Do you have any non-obvious answers?

Regards, Kushal --Do not click me! 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC) --Do not click me!

[Post written by a bored Wikipedian. Delete if necessary.]
 * For one, all fonts used in a pdf are packaged with the pdf, unlike a docx. --⁪frotht 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I used only one font though, arial unicode MS. What other reasons might there be? --Do not click me! 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Open the files in a simple text editor (as opposed to a word processor), which will not 'interpret' the text for you (on Windows, try notepad) and see what's there beside the text itself. You'll notice there's whole lot of irrelevant stuff. If it were 'clean' html, the file would probably be just a few kB in size. Another indication would be to copy the original text from msWord to Notepad and save it as, say, rtf. That would also greatly reduce the size. Alas, I don't know a way to convert word processor files into clean (!) html. And I'm dying to know one, so please if anyone knows ... DirkvdM 08:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you need to rewrite it from scratch for that. Sorry. =P --Do not click me! 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that Word makes lousy PDFs. Usually you can take a PDF created by Microsoft Word, run it through a PDF Optimizer, and shrink the size dramatically. --24.147.86.187 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Um ... interesting. Thanks I will google it. --Do not click me! 14:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dell Inspiron 1520N
Does anyone here own one? I am thinking of getting a new computer by late October or early November so I wanted to know which laptop I should buy (or should I even buy a laptop? Should I even buy a computer?)

Is it too early to start researching? Which would be the best laptop to buy for a college student?

The question above is too generic and will likely attract spammers/trolls so I am limiting myself to comments about the Dell Inspiron 1520N AND the Apple MacBook.

Regards, --Do not click me! 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well my experience is that you don't really need a laptop. After a few years in college I've never once needed my laptop in class for notetaking. It's distracting in class and cumbersome to carry around. And all my computing and lab classes have workstations in the classroom for each student. Laptops are much more expensive, impossible to upgrade (I got a Yonah T2600 the week before Merom was released early, and now I'm stuck with it!), have cooling problems with gaming, and have underpowered graphics cards compared to their desktop cousins. Literally the only advantages to a laptop form factor is portability and utterly perfect quality of LCD displays (for high end laptops). Just save yourself a ton of money and get a really good desktop computer that you can upgrade on a rolling basis on the cheap instead of wasting your money on a laptop and being stuck with the same computer for years. --⁪frotht 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and really helpful comment. Thank you very much Froth!

If I should get a desktop so that I can upgrade it on a rolling basis, does it not preclude the all in one wonder, savior of design, and [all the great adjectives in the world], Apple iMac? --Do not click me! 01:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heavy breathing and scary glazed look. Don't. You. Even. Think. About. It. Look at the facts! --⁪frotht 03:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Except the part about Myst. Myst was EPIC --⁪frotht 03:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "upgrade" and "Mac" are mutually exclusive. Unless you want to pay $2,500 base for a Mac Pro, and even then all you get is a PCI-E slot. Woooooo. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The part where he called Doom the first shoot 'em up was also a bit odd. It wasn't even the first 3D shoot-em-up. And Doom was of course developed in-house on NeXT machines. Which is not to say I think you should buy a Mac. -- BenRG 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the conclusion, up to this point, of this thread is that I should not buy a computer at all. What a radical idea (my dad would love it!) =P Do keep your suggestions coming in, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multipleidentitynumberthree (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC) --Do not click me! 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Build your own computer. Literally build it from scratch. I guarantee it'll be more educational than edutainment programs or (BLECH) useless school papers will. --⁪frotht 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's what I will do then. --Do not click me! 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Any more suggestions? Different opinions are always welcome ... --Do not click me! 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Firefox and IE
Hello, so i've been using IE and now changed to FF. I've found that with IE, when I click back, it automatically refreshes the previous page, or reloads it, which is good when I'm viewing recent changes. But FF does not do this, how can I get it to do it? Since Twinkle works on FF not IE, I need to find this out. Thanks! Phgao 22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to RFC 2616, section 13.13, Firefox is implementing the back button correctly. I see no configuration item that appears to be related, so this is probably not configurable behavior at this time.  If you need fast navigation back to the current recent changes list, look at my note on access keys above.  The recent changes list is access key "R". --Pekaje 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's called cache and it's extremely useful. When I click back I want to see what I saw before, not what the page I was looking at before now looks like. My only complaint is that you can't control it from the server side. It's infuriating trying to write server scripts that are constantly foiled by firefox's cache.. it totally ignores the relevant HTTP headers --⁪frotht 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to reload a page in firefox, you hit ctrl-R, I believe. --24.147.86.187 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And some kind of combination of control and f5 or just f5 or I DON'T KNOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT to skip the cache -_- --⁪frotht 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Think it's Ctrl+Shift+R. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How often do you want a page to reload? People normally don't and it slows down operations and puts an unnecessary load on the Internet. When you do want it to reload, just hit F5. Simple and quick. Unless you always want it to reload, but I can't imagine why that would be. DirkvdM 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well for some reason, my current IE always refreshs/reloads when I go back, ie yes so I don't view the cache stored. But I like that, as for example I'm on the RC page and see vandalism, well I go do the revert then I just want to go back to a refreshed RC page, as there is no good going back to a cached version, since the vandalism there is already reverted, and the RC page changes very quick. Now, this may seem minor, but with FF, when I go back yes I see the cache, and I do admit this is good for when I go off the net, but still want to view loaded pages, but for RC's its not good, as I have to do F5, ie manual refresh it. Ah well, thanks for the responses guys! Phgao 12:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In IE6, there is an option under General / Temporary Internet Files / Settings that allows you to choose when the browser will "Check for newer versions of stored pages", the options are every visit, every time you start IE, automatically, and never. This page gives a Firefox setting  that can be modified so that FF will mimic the IE behavior.  I do not have access to a copy of Firefox on this computer, so I can't verify this; use it at your own risk.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)