Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2008 August 19

= August 19 =

Laptop with 4x3 display
I am looking for a laptop with a 4x3 display, i.e., anything that is not widescreen. Laptops with 4x3 display have become rare nowadays. Kindly list some models. Thank you! --Masatran (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lenovo ThinkPad X61 -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the X61 specs, and also its variants X61s and X61 Tablet. They all have a 4x3 display, but they are too expensive and the display is too small, for my requirements.


 * I found this model: Dell Latitude D530 which suits my requirements better. But do list any other models available.


 * --Masatran (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any particular reason why a widescreen laptop will not work?Coolotter88 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it's because 16:9 screens are smaller? --grawity 13:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Or they're larger. Depends how you look at it, eh? My widescreen MacBook is much larger than my iBook was (something that annoyed me at first, but I am pretty happy with it now). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? 16:9 screen with the same diagonal size has less screen area than 4:3 screen. Screen area of 4:3 screen as a function of diagonal size (Di) is 0.48*Di2; screen area of 16:9 screen is approximately 0.43*Di2. For 14 inch 4:3 screen it would be 96.08 square inches, and for 16:9 screen with the same diagonal size it would be 84.28 square inches. -Yyy (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe my Dell Inspiron 1420 is widescreen...don't hold me to it...... (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshd19 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just bought a dell D530, for the same reason as yours as this is the only 4:3 model available. But the screen is not TFT. It is not the same quality screen as a inspiron 15.4" wide. screen of inspiron 15.4" wide and macbook are superior - 59.92.112.191 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand wanting 4:3 on a computer screen. Since web pages and documents are typically intended to be vertically scrolled, having a screen with a wider aspect ratio is actually detrimental to a lot of things we use computers for. The Xerox Alto had the right idea. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

BSOD in XP
just recently, my computer began to crash upon shutdown. the message given on the BSOD is:


 * STOP: c000021a {Fatal System Error}
 * The Windows Logon Process System Process terminated unexpectedly
 * with a status of 0x00000000 (0x00000000 0x00000000)
 * The system has been shut down.

I have never seen this before and am completely confused. Someone help please! Oh, also i have not recently installed any software of any kind. Hope that helps. 31306D696E6E69636B6D (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a fairly technical answer, but hopefully it helps. Microsoft has an article on "How to troubleshoot a "STOP 0xC000021A" error."  Laenir (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it did not help at all. Dr. Watson has already been stopped when this crash occurs, right after the "Windows is shutting down..." box goes away. Also, the hard drive parks rather roughly when the computer BSODs. Maybe a drive problem? Oh, and don't suggest windows update. My ethernet controller won't install and the updated driver installer won't recognize the adapter's existence. Actually, i need some help there too. Maybe these problems are related...HELP! 31306D696E6E69636B6D (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're having multiple problems with it, it's probably time to wipe and start over. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DTV configuration (in U.S.)
I haven't seen this issue addressed in documents to date. The original occupant of this house wired television antenna cable as follows: The questions: Many thanks to those have gone before, and know something of this. -- Danh, 70.59.119.73 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Big outdoor antenna mounted in the garage rafters, with cable run to basement, which connects to:
 * Powered amplifier, one line in, one line out, which connects to:
 * Powered signal splitter, one line in, four lines out, from which:
 * Lines run to (eight) wall-mounted jacks throughout the house; I can connect any four of them at a time, which is sufficient for my needs.
 * 1) How many converter boxes do I need? Is one enough, if I mount it before the signal splitter or before the amplifier?  Will this provide DTV throughout the house?  If not (why?), I still have to get one box per TV.
 * 2) Actually, one TV is over-the-air capable, and receives digital signals just fine with this configuration. Will inserting a converter box on the line screw that up?
 * 3) To work around that case, and avoid converting a signal that doesn't need converting, suppose I put another (probably non-powered) signal splitter before the amplifier, and connect my newest television to one of its outputs; the other output would go through the amplifier and 4-way splitter as before. Will that work?


 * If you want to watch digital terrestrial broadcast, you'll need one converter box for each TV that doesn't have an ATSC tuner. The converter box tunes to one RF carrier at a time, demodulates it and decodes only one program (out of possibly several) on the carrier, and produces an analog output. If you a converter box before the distribution amplifier, all TVs in the house receiving the feed can only want the one channel the box is tuned to — probably not what you want.


 * The answer to your second question is "most likely yes" (i.e. converter box will interfere with your ATSC-tuner-equipped TV), although, strictly speaking, the answer depends on the converter box.


 * Depending on how strong the received signals are, and how much cabling you have in your house, passively splitting the output from an antenna may not be a good idea. You can give it a try and see if it works. If it doesn't, you may want to use a distribution amplifier (preferably one with adjustable gain) for the purpose. --71.162.242.81 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Followup
There are days when this is the greatest website on Earth -- and this is definitely one of them. The first person to respond completely understands the question (you don't always get that, you know!), and gives a clear and complete answer -- and in less than an hour, as well.

It does, however, raise one more question: The converter box tunes to one RF carrier at a time ... and produces an analog output. Does that mean I have to change channels on the converter box? Or is this "selection" process driven by the television? (How can the downstream device control the upstream one?) Thanks again! --Danh, 70.59.119.73 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A digital converter box will come with its own remote control. You leave your TV on channel 3 or 4 or the video input channel and change the the digital channel with the converter box remote. --Bavi H (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you use a converter box to watch off-air digital TV, you don't use your analog TV's tuner to change channel — tuning is done at the converter box. It is possible for a "downstream" device to control an "upstream" device — using an IR interface, for example. However, to do that the "downstream" device has to be designed with that capability. Analog TV sets are generally not designed to control another device. You can avoid the problem of having "yet another remote" by programming one remote control both devices. (You may be able to program your converter box remote to control the TV also.) --71.162.242.81 (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiding coordinate values of
Hello. I am trying to put a search form on a site, and use an  as a "Go" button. I want to use the "get" method for the form, so that the search query string appears in the URL, like this:. However, I noticed that if I click on the "Go" button, the coordinates of the point where the "Go" image was clicked are also submitted in the URL along with the search query, so it becomes like, where   is the "name" attribute of the   tag. Is there a way I can either hide those coordinates in the URL (preferably with PHP, so that the search results page hides them), or make it so that they are not submitted with the form?  A R  TYOM   16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can POST your form results instead of GET'ing them by setting your form method to POST. This will not send the parameters encoded in the URL, but may require some re-organization of your processing script (maybe).  See the W3 forms standard page.  Nimur (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But I think this way the query string will also be hidden, and I would really like it to be visible in the URL of the search results page.  A R  TYOM   17:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This technique seems to work fine on buttons, so try changing your input type to submit and applying the following style to the input element:

padding: HEIGHT_OF_IMAGEpx 0 0 0; overflow: hidden; background-image: url("hello_world.gif"); background-repeat: no-repeat; height: 0px !important; height /**/:HEIGHT_OF_IMAGEpx; }
 * 1) ID_OF_ELEMENT {
 * Be sure to test on all browsers, 'cause I haven't! — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was trying to use this technique before I knew that I could use 's instead of  's, and I tried to put the image as a background of a button. I shall say it didn't look bad, but I couldn't quite get it to be the height I wanted in both browsers - it was always a pixel or so taller in Firefox than in IE :-O   A R  TYOM   22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were me, I'd probably do it in Javascript—e.g. wrap the image in a standard anchor tag and then submit the form (e.g.  ). --140.247.248.84 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Alternatively, as a JavaScript hack, try adding  to your   tag.  Of course, users with JS disabled will still get ugly URLs, but at least nothing else should break for them.  Or, as a third possibility, try , though that has a somewhat different rendering which you may or may not want.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, the Javascript method worked awesome! That was exactly what I wanted! And I guess it's okay that it will still display the ugly URL's for those who have JS turned off - I guess most people nowadays have it on :P. Thanks a lot!  A R  TYOM   22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

htlm on websites
Sorry this is going to sound very laymanish: On some websites (often on FAQ pages) you have a set of questions posted at the top of the page. When you click the link, it does not take you to another page it merely takes you to the section of the page where the question is answered. Behind the question you have a link saying "top" which takes you back to the top of the page again. Can anyone tell me the hmtl for such a thing? Thanks, --217.227.103.24 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What the author has done in that instance is linking to anchors within the page. Hopefully this page will better explain it. Laenir (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to see exactly how some website has done something, you can always look at the HTML (note spelling: it stands for HyperText Markup Language) source for the page. It's in the 'view' menu under something like 'page source' in most browsers. Algebraist 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Contents lists on Wikipedia do exactly this - if you look at the source of this page, you'll see the link code:
 *  7.5 htlm on websites 


 * Then further down the page (just above your question, in fact), you'll see this:
 * 
 * — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To elaborate a little further, the link contains a pound sign (#), and after that is a name to a specific point on a page. For instance, compare these links:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#htlm_on_websites
 * The first one will take you to the top of the page, the second will take you to this heading. As Matt said, this is accomplished with the tag. 195.58.125.43 (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

services
What is a good website to compare all internet/tv/phone/wireless services in my area?
 * Tell us where your "area" is first. F (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Program which makes files available online
Suppose I want to transfer files from my Mac to a separate machine. Normally I use a pendrive, but I remember reading a review of an application which made certain files available for download over the internet, thus eliminating any need for a removable drive. I can't find the review now, would anyone know what it is?78.144.139.36 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are loads of services for this. Googling for online storage will throw up plenty. Box.net and SkyDrive are two that spring to mind. You may also be interested in file synchronization. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have been misunderstood. I don't mean store a copy of my files on a distant server, for a subscription, I mean that the application effectively makes my computer a private fileserver itself.

I'll explain it a different way: I have a picture of Matt Eason on my laptop, a Macbook Air, and I want to print it from my desktop PC. Both computers are internet connected, but otherwise are not on the same network. I recall an application which securely shares a certain folder over the entire internet - directly from my laptop, not by copying it to a distant online fileserver. To print it, I use my desktop PC to login to the shared folder, hosted on my laptop, pull off a picture of Matt Eason and print him. Does my rant make any sense?78.148.51.11 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are probably looking to run some kind of file server on your computer, which shares a directory on your computer via FTP, SFTP, SMB, AFP, WebDAV, or some other protocol. I think somewhere in Mac OS X you can enable Windows File Sharing (SMB) and set up shares with their locations and passwords. Although someone more familiar with this can add more. --Spoon! (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OS X has file sharing over remote TCP/IP included as standard. I've never used it but the docs are here. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Set up an FTP server on one computer, mount it on the other one (Cmd-K in finder), and you're done. It would work for SMB shares and whatever else OS X cooperates with as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what I need: it to be accessible over the internet, from a PC, and from a web browser. That is, my university networked computers. The pages here and here  might help more.78.148.232.253 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When behind a router, the router must be configured to direct traffic on the filesharing port to the appropriate computer. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for something like GoToMyPC or Windows Home Server --mboverload @ 01:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't these PC only apps, if their names are descriptive? Afraid I'm using OSX 10.5. 78.144.170.213 (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, set up an FTP server? You can access FTP through web browsers. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

importing stats into another client
i've used the original bittorrent client but recently switched to utorrent. is there a way where i can move my stats from the original to utorrent? or do i pretty much have to start all over again to get a good upload/download ratio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.217.15 (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The stats that matter are not stored on your computer, in your bittorrent client. They're stored in the tracker you're connecting to. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)