Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 May 22

= May 22 =

iPod Data Recovery?
Help! I lost all my files on my iPod USB storage. How can I recover them? Is there any free software to solve this problem? Any solution, any at all. Please Wikipedia, rescue me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.106.183 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at our article undelete. It lists a few programs that should help. I hope this helps– Elliott (Talk|Cont)   18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

.SDF file
How do I open a .sdf file? All the websites I've visited keep asking me to download a registry cleaner, which is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. Does anyone know? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See if any of these match what you think the file should contain. Xenon54 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The file extension does not uniquely define the file type or the program you need to use (in fact, the file-extension may not even match the true file-type). What is this SDF file and where did you get it / how did you make it?  If you open it with a text editor or hex editor, do you see any sort of header or description?  (Often the first few bytes of a binary file will be plain text to help identify the file).  Nimur (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

IE7 / Google "Find" function
I'm running IE7, version 7.0.5730.11 as I write. I also have the Google toolbar installed. I generally do MS-Win autoupdates as they come in, and a month or so ago I relented and let the Google toolbar notifier past my firewall so it could play.

The "Edit->Find on this page" function in IE changed to a very cool method. Instead of popping up a sub-window that had to be closed, a searchbox appeared at the bottom of the window in the non-client area, and when I started typing my search text, the browser page showed text matches immediately. Then a week or two ago, it all vanished and I'm back to getting the Find dialog box again.

I'm relatively sure the very useful Find function was something Google did (MS only "innovates" when they have to destroy a competitor) and I'm not really sure why it went away. But I want it back. Any ideas on how I could recover that cool functionality? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try Internet Explorer 8, which has this functionality built-in. Short of that, try uninstalling then reinstalling the toolbar. If that doesn't work, they've probably "updated" the toolbar and deleted this functionality. 144.138.21.37 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a good point. I kinda thought that one of the MS automatic updates a month ago was to move to IE8, so maybe that's where the new functionality came in. If that's the case though, how it got removed again is a complete mystery to me. I'm definitely running version 7 ATM. Franamax (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I work in a computer shop, and that Automatic Update for IE8 caused a lot of problems. I saw quite a few computers that still reported and basically looked like IE7, but had the IE8 files. Washii (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Washii, I've encountered this problem as well. I had tried out Internet Explorer Beta 2 and later installed the Release Candidate after it was released and then finally installed the Release to Web version when it was released. With the RTW version, I left the option to download and install updates automatically checked. (As a test of what the option did; I had unchecked it for the previous installs, thinking it might cause the install to take longer) This caused problems. After reboot, I started up Internet Explorer. It looked like Internet Explorer 7 and it even gave me the Internet Explorer 7 welcome page! Clicking on Help-->About gave me an error message. Reinstalling with the option to install update updates automatically unchecked allowed Internet Explorer 8 to install just fine. As it is, Firefox is still my preferred Web browser. :-) Due to these problems, I'd recommend that users download and use the Internet Explorer installer from the Microsoft website, rather than install Internet Explorer 8 through Automatic Updates. Internet Explorer 8 is, as as I know, more secure than Internet Explorer 7. (Additions like the SmartScreen filter [Which is surprisingly effective] mean I recommend Internet Explorer 8 as pretty much the only Internet Explorer version you should be using if you absolutely insist on using Internet Explorer.) As for searching for a phrase or word on a web page, pressing Control + F will bring up a search-box at the top for Internet Explorer 8 or a search-box at the bottom for Firefox.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "...recommend Internet Explorer 8 as pretty much the only Internet Explorer version you should be using ...": I can't help but disagree with Xp5431. The new search is pretty nice and I appreciate the gesture to adhere to standards, but I still regret updating IE7 to IE8.  Simply put, it has made editing Wikipedia more difficult, with difficulty placing the caret where I want, and random scrolling of the edit window (though this seems much reduced compared with how it was just after the update).  I can think of some reasons to move to IE8, but IMHO there are some pretty compelling ones to stay with IE7.  Astronaut (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When it comes to Wikipedia editing, Firefox is tends to be better. (For me anyways) ;) I don't use Caret browsing so I can't speak as to how it is under Internet Explorer 8. I should note Internet Explorer 8 is more sluggish than Internet Explorer 7. Other people who have tried it out have also stated so. [They reported often having to pause to wait for Internet Explorer to do something] Firefox though, snaps to my command. :-)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 23:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Samba file permissions
I have a directory on a Redhat box that I want to set to permissions 666. Every file in that directory (and all subdirectories) must be 666. With sticky bits, I have no problem with local users or NFS users. No matter what permissions they try to set, the result is 666. In Samba, even if the user specifies that it should be completely public, the permissions are set to 600. Short of writing a cron job to chmod -R 666 every couple minutes, what can be done to force Samba to work properly? -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In your smb.conf file add in: create mask = 0666 (either to the individual share or to [global]) and that'll do what you're asking. Also if you want to do the same with directories (probably?) you'll want to add: directory mask = 0777 - Hope this helps! ZX81  talk  15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had create mode and directory mode, not "mask". I changed them to mask to see if it helps. -- k a i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Winme
Can you run Windows ME in DosBox? All earlier DOS-based and 9x-based versions of Windows can run in the emulator, so why haven't I found any mention of ME? And, only half-joking, can DB run NT-based operating systems? 143.238.237.25 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see why it would not work as Windows ME was the last to include real-mode MS-DOS subsystem. As for an NT based OS, i don't know. I say give it a try and let us know :) But if your looking to run multipliable Operating Systems consider having a look at VirtualBox. I hope this helped. – Elliott (Talk|Cont)   18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just guessing here, but there's probably not a lot of interest in supporting ME because there are (as far as I know) no games that require it, whereas there are 95-only games and 98-only games. Win9x is an extremely complicated software system and there are insanely many little details involved in emulating something as complex as a PC running DOS, so just because 98SE (kind of) works doesn't mean it's easy to get ME working also. Support for NT seems unlikely to me since it's too far from the project's goals. You could probably get a better answer at the DosBox forums. -- BenRG (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest using Microsoft Virtual PC. --grawity 12:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DOSBox is intended for running DOS games only. Although Windows 3.x happens to work, it's not one of the project's stated goals. Some have been known to attempt to run Win 9x on it with mixed success, but there's quite a few pitfalls and caveats (it's not exactly reliable). ME was flaky even on real hardware. The best way to find out is simply to try. Just don't expect any help from the official developers. An NT based OS is not likely to work at all, due to those OSes wanting complete control over the hardware and DOSBox emulates the hardware only to the extent that is needed to run games. Suggestions that have already been made are VirtualBox and MS VPC. Other possibilities are VMware Server, QEMU and Bochs or any other virtualisation system you can find. 82.95.188.243 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Try VirtualBox or VMware Workstation. No Virtual Machine can beat those two... -- SF007 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Youtube
How can I turn off that annoying "time-teller" that appears when you highlight a particular point on a YouTube video's seek bar? 143.238.237.25 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately YouTube does not allow you to configure this option. It is possible but extremely difficult to stream the original source video file to a different player of your choice (web-based or otherwise).  Maybe you could write a message to the YouTube feedback teams.  If your complaint is common enough, they may include an option to change this feature.  Nimur (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Free webcam recording program
What is a good free program I can use to record videos with my webcam and mic? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Sure your webcam didn't come with one to start with? What's the make and model of the webcam? Vimescarrot (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You will find that a lot of video editing programs offer the option to capture video from a Webcam. On that note this website offers some free programs, I have no experience from this website so i can not vouch for the safty of these programs. – Elliott (Talk|Cont)   18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are using Windows XP or Vista, Windows Movie Maker should already be installed, and it will allow you to "capture" or record video directly from a webcam and mic.--66.167.128.96 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Port forwarding
Amongst my modem/router setup pages, there are two related to port forwarding. The first page is titled Single Port Forwarding and lets me forward a single external port to a single internal port on a specific internal IP address in the 192.168.1.0 - 192.168.1.255 range - I think I know how this works and for example how it lets me run a webserver that can be seen by the rest of the internet. The other page is titled Port Range Forwarding and is similar to the Single port version but has a "Port Range" (start and end) instead of "external port" and "internal port".

If I was to setup a range, forwarding ports 20 - 23, would that provide the same facility as having four entries on the Single Port Forwarding page, forwarding external port 20 to internal port 20, external port 21 to internal port 21, external port 22 to internal port 22, and external port 23 to internal port 23 (all to the same IP address)? i.e. for each port in the range, is the forwarding between the same external and internal port numbers? Astronaut (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is typically how such firewall management utilities work. What type of router or NAT translator do you have?  Nimur (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the information provided i'd have to say Yes. Using the range would be the same as entering in 4 sepreat entries in the single area. Try it, if the range does not work then try the single option, If that does not work then you might have some setting to fiddle with in your firewall. Good luck! – Elliott (Talk|Cont)   18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same with my linksys router. The two pages achieve the same thing. Who knows why they therefore bother to have two pages. Rjwilmsi  23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the GFDL
I asked a question at the Humanities Desk about why the Wikimedia Foundation is able to use the "or later" clause of the GFDL to change the license under which Wikipedia editors have, to date, made their contributions. I wanted to point there from the Computing desk because this is also a clause of the GPL. If you're knowledgeable, please comment over on that desk. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)