Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 January 12

= January 12 =

Laptop question concerning internet
I'll try to provide as much information to make this question easy to answer. As you may remember, I have a dial-up internet connection at my home (Netzero provides it). Every night I have to plug my PC into the phone jack to get to the slow internet. If I were to purchase a laptop, what would I have to do to get internet for it? I have a disc from Netzero with the internet program on it that I had to install on my PC. I'm assuming I would install that on my laptop and then I could just hook my laptop up to the phone jack like normal. But what if I were, say at a friend's house, who has broadband (I believe that's the right term)? Could I use my laptop there and access that internet or would I need specific software? I ask that because I have seen friends use each other's internets with laptops, but they all have high speed internet at their homes. Thank you so much : ] Evaunit ♥666♥ 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on how your friend accesses the Internet. It is likely that no external software is required. If that is the case, then all you need is to plug the ethernet cable (it looks like a phone cable, but the male end is a bit wider) into the ethernet port (usually next to the phone port). Your operating system should automatically recognise the new connection and take care of everything. If, for some reason, your friend needs special software to access the Internet, you'll need to install it on your computer. Xenon54 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing to be cautious about: Many(?) modern laptops don't have a dial-up phone modem built in, and also don't have a serial port or other Legacy ports either (for example my Dell laptop has VGA, Ethernet, Firewire and USB ports only).  You might be able to get a dial-up modem with a USB connection, or maybe some kind of PC Card or ExpressCard.  Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And if your friend has WiFi, you don't even need a cable - just switch on and go. 121.72.172.186 (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Word processors
I need to find five (5) word processing programs and seven (7) things that cand be done on a word processor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.147.40 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We will not do your homework for you. However, if you type the topic (singular form) in the Wikipedia search box on the upper left of your screen and click go, I expect you will find the information that you need.  -- Tcncv (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion moved to talk page. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Decrease in RAM.
I have a PC with 256 MB RAM and 3.06MHz CPU Pentium 4 with Windows XP loaded. A few days ago, my computer RAM was reported to be 223 MB only. And, recently, I've seen that the RAM has decreased to 191 MB only. As a result, my PC is getting slower and slower. Can anyone please explain to me what is happening? And how can I bring back the RAM of 256 MB in my Computer once again? Any help is gladly welcome. 117.201.98.147 (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are you getting these RAM numbers from? --74.137.108.115 (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an important question, yes. Are you reading the numbers from BIOS, Windows (Win+Pause), or some other software? By the way, 256 MB is very little by modern standards. If I were you, I would upgrade to at least 1 GB of RAM (at least 2 GB if you are planning to upgrade from XP to Vista). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am getting thses RAM numbers from several softwares, namely 1.CCleaner (a registry cleaner). 2.Windows Doctor 2008 Professional Ed. 3.XP Tools (a collection of essential tools for XP). Furhter, in BIOS, the RAM number is yet displayed to be 256 MB. In response to User-Andreas Rejbrand, I want to state that we live in a remote area named in India, which is quite far away from our local megacity Kolkata (or Calcutta). So, here all services related to Computers are not available. So, please excuse me for using 256 MB RAM.


 * Windows XP was designed quite a while ago, when 1 GB of RAM would have been considered excessive by many standards (64MB was the listed minimum--yes, it has been that long ago). The addition of service packs in the interim has probably pushed the minimum up significantly, but I would expect 256MB to be usable. Anyway, to answer your question, the memory isn't missing, it is currently being used by one program or another. You can find a list of programs currently running in "Windows Task Manager" (accessible via Ctrl-Alt-Del) under "Processes", with a convenient "Mem Usage" column. Unfortunately, the names given are sometimes cryptic, but searching the internet for the process name generally gives more information on what it does. To reclaim memory from processes that you don't want to run, you can end the process (note that windows warns of dire consequences, but generally nothing bad happens). Also, rebooting your computer would tend to reclaim memory from all but system and autorunning programs (and should probably be performed every few days with only 256MB). --74.137.108.115 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an old laptop with 256MB of ram. For web surfing and occasional document editing (OpenOffice) it is usable, the main problem being the boot time. I set up a dual boot with Ubuntu Linux as an experiment and this loads significantly faster but shows similar performance when loaded. 256MB is certainly sufficient for home use (go and make a cup of tea while it boots) but when I tried to edit a 60 page document on it the machine came to a virtual halt. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have an XP virtual machine with 256 MB of memory allocated that runs good, but then again it's a fresh install. If you have enough gunk on the machine, even 2 GB wouldn't be enough.


 * @117: Memory is really cheap and easy to install. A gig of memory is only about $20 if you order it off of Newegg.com. You'd still have to make sure it's the same type of memory you have now, and ground yourself to avoid static shock, but it's still a piece of cake.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previous comments that you likely still have 256 MB total, but that a reduced amount is currently available, as the rest is in use.  The only way I can see the total memory reduce is if you have more than one RAM card, and one either became disconnected or is broken.  That still wouldn't explain a constantly changing amount of memory, though, so this sounds more like the first case.  If much of your memory is in use, how do you free it up, you may well ask.  First reboot, then use the Task Manager to kill all nonessential processes.  That should help.  You might also want to stop CPU hogs, like virus scans, from running automatically at start up. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're better off using a program like Spybot to identify nonessential processes and stop them before they start up. Most people don't have a great sense of what an essential process is just by the name of it and are likely to crash their machine by just shutting things off at random. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's how you learn. If you kill a process and the computer crashes, write down that process, reboot, and don't kill that one the next time.  In a few tries you will have figured out which processes are essential and which are just mucking up the system.  Spybot is OK, but doesn't get rid of things that aren't spyware but still take up lots of resources, needlessly, such as RealPlayer. StuRat (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe your integrated graphics is using more of your RAM than usual? I suggest you stop running extra "cleaner" software in the background; they are usually completely useless. --wj32 t/c 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using a (free) tool like Autoruns http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx to check for programs that start automatically. Some of them might be unnecessary, and the software allows to "non destructively" turn them off to try out. 163.157.254.25 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Substitute switch - how much does amperage matter?
I am wanting to build my own light switch, but the switch I want to use is rated at 10A 240V ac - but so far as I know UK mains sockets provide 13A ~230V AC. Although my switch can handle the voltage, it is 3A short - how big a problem is this?

Will the switch still work? And if so, are there any side effects i.e decreased life of operation? Will it be shorted out? Will it overheat tremendously and melt solder connections?

I am not sure if this is posted in the right section, I was in two minds whether or not to post it here or in science.

I would appreciate any help.

Thanks in advance!


 * Lights normally take much less current than 10A so your switch should work, but it worries me that you are talking of delving into mains voltage circuitry. Please consider using a qualified electrician to do this wiring and under no circumstances work on live electrical conductors (wires). --GreenSpigot (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GreenSpigot is right, if you can't afford an electrician try to get a friend or relative with the right experience to help you or at least check your work before you switch the mains back on. (You must turn the electricity off at the main supply switch to the house before doing the work). -- Q Chris (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This should probably be a science question. Anyway, There are likely electrical specifications/codes that provide the minimum ratings for switches; I would highly recommend consulting them before you wire in any switch. To answer your questions, the most important concern is the fuse/breaker for the switch's circuit. If the fuse/breaker is rated for less than 10A then the switch should never reach the 13A overload. If the fuse/breaker is rated greater than 10A, an overcurrent condition could cause overheating of the switch instead of the fuse that is supposed to protect it. Since this can cause a fire, it is important to make sure your switch is appropriately rated for the fuse/breaker it is on. The tendency of a switch to short out is reliant mainly on voltages (higher voltages require better separation of conductors). Depending on what exactly the switched circuit drives, the circuit should probably never reach 10A anyway (that would be one very bright light!). This means that there would likely be no side effects of decreased life of operations, etc. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are doing something to the mains wiring of a house, then the lighting circuit is probably fused at 5A not 13A. f you are making a "plug into a socket" lamp, then use a 13A plug with a 3A fuse fitted. -- SGBailey (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, never (ever) introduce a situation where one electrical component in a circuit is "under spec'd". For example, DO NOT put a switch that is only rated to 10 Amps on a circuit that has an 20 Amp circuit breaker. You may never screw in something to the light socket that draws over 10 Amps... but you don't know what the next person in that house is going to do. Another example would be DO NOT use an outlet with special 30 Amp plug receptacles on a circuit with wiring only rated to 20 Amps. &mdash;Noah 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your help - especially the tip about fuses, i'll get a 10A fuse fitted first. Also, just so happens my uncle is an electrician, so i'll get him to check over it and give it the okay before I use it. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.36.58 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unknown weblink
Whenever I browse any web page by using Firefox, this unknown link open in new window in Internet Explorer. I'm worried with this link as it is appearing even when I don't browse. I have blocked this link through IE option. Also I cleared cashe and history file and installed a adware software to get rid off this link. But unfortunately, it did not work at all. I have searched about this link in hard drive where operating system installed, but failed to detect this problem. How can I permanently remove this link, so that it won't appear in future? :( --202.168.229.245 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a spyware/malware infection. You might try running Adaware and Spybot. If that fails, you might try upgrading IE and/or renaming the IE executable (unfortunately, IE is tied into windows rather tightly, so bad things might happen; if so, rename it back). Finally, reinstalling windows will definitely fix the issue (but may be more work than closing the IE windows occasionally). -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it'll probably still keep opening, but you can get it to stop loading content by doing the following: Hold the windows key and hit R. Enter notepad %SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts. Go to the bottom and add the line 127.0.0.1 www.aiqianming.cn. That'll prevent your computer from contacting the server. Indeterminate (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But when I hit the "save" button it says, cannot create the .......... Make sure the path and file name are correct. After pressing the OK button another interface shows up and take me to a folder name "etc" which is located in "system 32". It also makes a new folder named "hosts". Should I save it as new txt. file in that folder? --202.168.229.245 (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Aside Adware (I have already used it) is there any other software that prevent / remove this type of web link--202.168.229.245 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, dont make the hosts folder. You want to save the file as "hosts" (no extensions, which means when notepad asks you keep the quotes in order to prevent the notepad from saving the file as hosts.txt). &mdash; Shinhan  &lt;&thinsp; talk &thinsp;&gt; 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're also going to need to edit & save it with an administrator account. That's probably why you can't save it. As far as other software to try, I don't know of any, but that's not really my area of expertise. I'm sure someone can point you in the right direction. Indeterminate (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

browsing internet on tv
there are many ways you browse internet on tv. one is msn tv. another is using wii. how is the experience? what resolution is yours?


 * I don't see the point. If you have a computer, why not use that? At least you can type with it (which you need for putting passwords in, and such).--KageTora (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some people who hate computers like the idea of using their TV as a computer. This applies to people who only use their computers for e-mail, for example.  I don't find it to be a very satisfying experience, myself, however.  A few notes on screen resolutions:


 * 1) A standard def (old) TV will have unacceptably low resolution, giving you a blurry pic with text you can't read.


 * 2) A new 720p resolution digital TV will give a marginally acceptable pic, but only expect to be able to view a few lines of text at a time.


 * 3) A 1080p resolution digital TV is quite acceptable. There are computer monitors with much higher resolutions, but this is certainly adequate.


 * The monitor size, sharpness, brightness, contrast, and refresh rate also come into play. Larger isn't really better for a TV used as a computer monitor, because you just have to sit back farther to see it all at once. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And why would anyone want to watch videos on their computer when they have a perfectly good TV with a remote and all? There are several reasons why one might choose to browse the internet from a TV: downloading new content (mainly game consoles), watching/listening to streaming media, checking a site for updates during commercials, playing web-games, or staying connected when your main computer is non-functional or in use by someone else. I have a computer connected to my TV; though it doesn't get a lot of use, I have found it useful in the past. My experience with TV browsing is that the resolution has to be cranked down to make small text legible, and reading large amounts of text will likely cause eyestrain. The lack of a keyboard can be rather problematic, but windows offers an on-screen keyboard utility which is sufficient for infrequent use, and most web browsers are capable of storing username/passwords. I would *not* recommend TV browsing as a replacement for a computer, but then I spend more time using a computer than most people. If you only spend an hour a week online a TV internet solution might work just fine. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The other problem is that the gizmo's like the Wii that provide this service generally have weird browsers that adhere poorly to de-facto standards - so a LOT of pages come out screwed up or won't run for some complicated reason or other - along with the awkard peripherals and the terrible resolution - it's useless. Use a PC. SteveBaker (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"2) A new 720p resolution digital TV will give a marginally acceptable pic, but only expect to be able to view a few lines of text at a time." Wait what? 720p is 1280x720, which is basically a wider version of 1024x768. That is hardly "a few lines of text at a time". That is two pages of A4 side by side at a readable resolution, especially on a 32"+ screen. And SteveBaker, the Wii uses Opera as the base of its browser, and apart from lack of flash 8+ support is more standards compliant than even Internet Explorer. 212.219.8.231 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But what you're failing to account for is that TVs tend to have "fuzzier pixels", meaning you need to use more pixels to be able to clearly read a line of text. This does vary by technology, though, with LCDs generally having sharp pixels, and projection TVs being fuzzier.  So, if you have a nice, sharp LCD, then maybe your statement is correct, but not for a fuzzy projection TV. StuRat (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The happiness of having Vista
I got a new laptop just before Christmas, because my old one's power cable died and I needed one urgently for my work. The power cable wouldn't come until after Christmas, which was way too long to wait, so I got a HP Dual Core with Vista Home Premium on it. Anyway, after a month, every time I plug my USB modem in (or even any USB), it has started asking security questions, like 'have you used this before?' and so-on. It wasn't doing this for the first three weeks. Why has it suddenly started now? I haven't played around with the settings or anything, so why does it suddenly change like this? I've had problems with Windows before (who hasn't?) so I'm starting to wish I just waited for a power cable for my Mac. It's just infuriating how it changes without you knowing or doing anything. I can see it just falling apart within the year and I'll have to fork out another £300 for a new one. Anyway, rant over. Does anyone know how to fix this?--KageTora (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only used Vista once and it bugged me with security questions at every turn. See this and this for how to get rid of it, but if you can install XP on your laptop, it's much better.


 * I'd exercise caution before just "installing xp". Do some research first and make sure you can find xp drivers for the hardware you have.  Not all of the newer hardware has xp drivers. Ched (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And anyway, if you've paid for Vista, you're not just going to throw it out. It is trying to help, one must assume; turning UAC off cannot really be recommend; it would be like tearing down an entire city wall just because you couldn't figure out how to put a gate in it. What questions do you get exactly? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (Would it really be so wrong to tear down a city wall if there was no way to put a gate in? There are only so many times one wants to climb over a useless wall.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.243 (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Movie Maker
Hey guys, are there any free alternatives to Windows Movie Maker? Something like Virtualdub but easier to use. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. Most of the free non-linear editors are barely functional and much harder to use than VirtualDub. --140.247.236.243 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found this so I'll check some of those out


 * The list is really not that useful as it doesn't at all distinguish among the limitations/advantages of either of them. For example:
 * VirtualDub—fairly easy to use but limited in what it can do
 * Jahshaka—not user friendly at all. Very hard to use and apparently doesn't even really work yet (very alpha).
 * Avidemux—basically similar to VirtualDub
 * Kino (software)—Linux-only
 * Cinelerra—Linux/OS X-only
 * etc. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess I'll stick with VirtualDub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Headphones
The shared computer in our house has a problem. It's in a place where playing sounds bothers the other people around, so naturally I've been trying to use headphones. Unfortunately, none of the ones we have available seem to work. Switching loudspeakers on and off doesn't change anything and all the volume controls are open in the appropriate panel. What else can I try? - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Make sure you're plugging into the headphone jack, not the microphone jack; on many computers, this jack will be green (mike will be red). Verify that the headphones work using some other piece of equipment.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both checked. The headphones worked on another computer and they were inserted in the right spot. It is a specific problem with either the hardware or the settings of this particular machine.- 87.211.75.45 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not ideal but couldn't you plug the headphones into the same jack as the computers speakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So the speakers work correctly, but replacing them with the headphones in the same audio port results in silence? Since the headphones are powered by the computer while many speakers are externally powered you will may need to increase the computer's output volume significantly. If the headphone plug is not inserted fully you might end up receiving a single channel (and if the computer's balance is off center you might receive no apparent output on that channel). If your computer contains integrated audio (most do these days) you might be able to change a setting or two in BIOS--though I haven't seen any that would resolve this issue. If you have particularly power-hungry headphones and a relatively powerless audio out there may be insufficient output current to drive the headphones. It is also worth noting that "system sounds" (the annoying beep when you type too many characters or the computer boots in BIOS) are generally *not* handled by an external audio driver (they use an internal speaker). -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had this problem with a Dell machine at work - I was amazed to find that I had to install a new driver to get the headphones to work!! I gather that the card measures the impedance of the thing that's plugged in and figures out whether it's headphones or speakers!  There comes a point where these things are just TOO smart to be truly useful. SteveBaker (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Firefox vs IE
Hello,

I'm currently building my (very simple)website and IE seems to have difficult with my left hand navigation bar (the body text mashes into it).. I was wondering if IE has any 'golden rules' (i.e. things to be aware of) so i don't keep running into this problem?

Thanks 86.6.101.208 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it depends how you are coding it, really. IE has a different box model than other browsers, among other things. But we'd need to see the code itself to tell you what IE was interpreting differently. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point! Am i right in thinnking that, as the CSS is in a different file, you only need this one? If so its here:

If not, let me know and i'll post the rest of the HTML. Once again, the issue is with the nav bar and the rest of the main copy... thanks guys86.6.101.208 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)