Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 October 10

= October 10 =

Any free voice analysis tool for vocal training?
Are there free tools that will graphically show the pitch of one's voice to allow a singer to know where he/she is relative to the note he/she is trying to hit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.148.134 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would instrument (guitar, piano) tuning tools work? Most of those show the pitch of the sound you play into the mic. I don't know anything about it, but here's a FOSS one and plenty more show up on a google search for free pitch tuner. Indeterminate (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Filmstrip to DVD
I have a number of c. 1975 educational filmstrips I would like to transfer to DVD. Currently I'm running them through a scanner turning each frame into an image file, copying the soundtrack to mp3 via a modified turntable, then combining the sound and images with iMovie. As you might imagine, this takes a LONG time. Is there an easier way? Horselover Frost (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about DIY applications, but the Yellow Pages (if you're in the U.S.) are full of companies that will quickly do that for you, for a fee of course. Considering the time required by your current method, I recommend seriously considering just paying a professional. EDIT TO ADD - you might also consider just checking to see if the original publishing company has already done all the work for you and rereleased the materials on DVD... if they're mainstream teaching materials, that is. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet growth & size // IPv4 & IPv6
Question 1: Where can I find an estimation of historical data regarding the internet's size and growth? The internet article here on Wiki doesn't go into details as far as I can tell...

Question 2: Excuse my stupidity, but why is the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 so difficult? Isn't it just changing ONE datapoint - the length of the IP data? Why would the fundamental hardware of the internet need to be changed other than extending the length & characters of address strings?

Thank you.218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * History of the Internet and IPv4 address exhaustion talk about internet growth. For the second perhaps I better send along the BOFH with a clawhammer :) Seriously web sites aren't keen on the idea of losing visitors and sales because some customers haven't upgraded their system so they see no reason to upgrade. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see 'IPv6 readiness' in the IPv6 article. Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In brief: There's more to IPv6 than just longer addresses. But just that alone explains why ISPs sometimes need to deploy new hardware to support it: the addresses are four times as long, meaning that the routing tables occupy more memory and require more processing power to manage. So an older router can't always handle as big of a routing table, or handle as many packets per second, of IPv6 as it can of IPv4.

In some cases, routers and firewalls were built with ASICs (specialized chips) built to handle IPv4 traffic, but handle other protocols on the main CPU. This design made sense when almost all of the traffic on a network was IPv4, with a small amount of other protocols such as IPX or AppleTalk. But when you try to handle traffic that is majority non-IPv4 with such hardware, it bogs down because it can't use the ASIC to accelerate processing ... and the CPU isn't fast enough. --FOo (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A chain is as strong as its weakest link. If you try to go to http://ipv6.google.com, you'll see what I mean. If you're using the latest version of your operating system, then it can understand IP v. 6 addresses, but there are many routers out there that can't.--Drknkn (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * IPv6 is supposed to make routing tables smaller, not larger. With the extra bits you can set up enough hierarchical levels that every router only has to inspect a small part of the address to make its decision. That's why the addresses are 128 bits long even though 64 would be far more than enough to give a unique number to every device in existence. -- BenRG (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Programming/developing a graphical based designer - where do I start?
My third year project at university is programming a graphical based designer. The program will have boxes, boxes within boxes, lines connecting them, highlighting, drag/drop functionality, right click menus, etc. etc. Very similar to making UML diagram editors.

I don't know where to start technology wise. Which language should I use? I'd like to use an OO language to make things easier. I'm leaning towards Java or C#. Are there advanced 2d graphics packages/frameworks out there that have this kind of functioanlity already built in? Will I be doing low(ish)-level graphics progamming to make the shapes I want? I just need some ideas of where to start really. 94.193.253.249 (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It really shouldn't matter as to the language—any language worth its snuff (including those you mentioned) will have the ability to do 2-D graphics without too much difficulty, and dragging/dropping, right clicking, etc., similarly. You should not have to do lowish-level graphics programming if you are just drawing shapes with any of those languages. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as an example, you could peruse the Sun Java Tutorial that deals with 2d graphics to get a feel for drawing in Java. You can also check out Processing, a Java derivative which makes 2d drawing really, really easy (although it might not be great for a hugely advanced app). 83.250.236.212 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Commodore 64 games restoration project, part trois
I was suggested on the OpenCBM mailing list to see what happens if I attach my 1541 through an XM1541 cable to my parallel port replicator and power up the system, and see the output in /var/log/messages. Well, what happened is this: The 1541 starts up normally. When the Linux kernel has loaded, the access led lits up, and stays lit up the entire time. Issuing the command " " has no effect. Here is what /var/log/messages has to say: Oct 8 21:22:55 localhost kernel: cbm_init: using passive (XM1541) cable (auto), irq 7 Oct 8 21:22:55 localhost kernel: cbm: resetting devices Oct 8 21:22:55 localhost kernel: cbm: waiting for free bus... Oct 8 21:22:58 localhost kernel: Quiting because of timeoutcbm: resetting devices Oct 8 21:22:58 localhost kernel: cbm: waiting for free bus... I take it the system has recognised the 1541 through tbe XM1541 cable, but can't actually access it, because it has no free bus, or something. My knowledge about PCI peripheral technology stops at "plug the device in the PCI slot, and plug the cable in its socket". Anything related to bus or IRQ configurations is outside my scope. Can anyone help me here? J I P | Talk 22:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in your project, but I've never used OpenCBM before. Your OpenCBM mailing list friends can confirm, but here's my initial impression. After a quick look at OpenCBM documentation, the term bus seems to refer to the IEC bus, the original Commodore disk and printer serial bus communication protocol. In other words, I suspect it's not a PC bus, but the 1541 bus that's busy. If that's correct, then the 1541's red light and the log's "waiting" messages both seem to agree that the IEC bus is busy, but then we're still not sure what's causing that. --Bavi H (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sharing files wirelessly with this setup.
My setup is the internet goes right to a router, and two PCs, and whatever other wireless device, get their internet wirelessly. How would I go about sharing files from one PC to another? I think it would be easier if one computer is directly attached to the router, but since I don't have that setup, wondering how to get around it. Here is a link to an image I made in case it is not too clear, link. Thanks! Infiniteuniverse (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you are using a recent version of Windows (XP, Vista), the built-in file sharing should have no problem with that kind of setup. (Window XP File Sharing Guide) There should also be no difference whether the PC be connected with wireless or wired. As long as the PCs can "see" each other on the same network, they will be able to share files WikiY Talk 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC).