Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 November 16

= November 16 =

windwl32.rom
Hello Everyone, Upon booting up (or restarting), my computer now displays the message "There was a problem starting windwl32.rom The specified module could not be found." This missing module does not seem to cause any problems thereafter. What is this module, does its absence adversely affect the operating-system, and what is the appropriate remedy? Thank you - any insight is appreciated.


 * That file is not a necessary part of the standard Windows system. A web search indicates that the file "windwl32.rom" is associated with a malware infection.  You may want to completely reinstall your operating system.  At the very least, consider running some malware-removal software.  Nimur (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd stab that it's Vundo. A strong rinse in antivirals could fix it. Res Mar 03:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have performed a full scan (which took three hours) of my computer with McAfee Security Center, and it reported "No Issues Detected: During your scan, McAfee did not detect viruses, spyware, or other threats. Remember, you can run a full scan any time to thoroughly check your PC for threats." Nonetheless, the message "There was a problem starting windwl32.rom The specified module could not be found." is still displayed upon booting up. How do I get rid of this malware without wiping my C: partition and reinstalling my operating-system; this is not possible because I do not have the reinstallation disc(s). Rocketshiporion ♫ 11:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the past, I've had issues where the virus is removed, but the registry entries that started it at boot-time are still there. Virus detectors tend not to pick that up, presumably because they look for the virus itself, not its lingering side-effects.
 * That sounds like what you're describing. If the virus itself was still there, you wouldn't get the 'module not found' error, it would find the module, start it, and do nefarious things to your computer.
 * If you're comfortable poking around in your computer, you might use the registry editor tp search for all references to "windwl32.rom" and get rid of them.   You do that at your own risk, though. You can seriously break your computer with the registry editor. APL (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps running MalwareBytes Anti Malware will help? Maybe changing the executable name may work (if the malware is still present, that is) General Rommel (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I ran Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, and then used regedit.exe to search for remove one remaining reference to windwl32.rom (which I discovered under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SECURITY). My computer no longer displays the "There was a problem starting windwl32.rom The specified module could not be found." message upon boot-up. So, thank you to everyone, and in particular to Nimur (for informing me that windwl32.rom is not part of a standard Windows system), APL (for suggesting the use of the registry-editor) and General Rommel (for pointing me to Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware). Rocketshiporion ♫ 22:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PPP connection with Ubuntu
I am trying to connect to the Internet through a PPP connection.

I thought I had everything right and gnome-ppp appears to establish a connection, but no browser seems to recognize the connection. I have tried changing the proxy preferences of the browsers but no luck so far.

I am using a cell-phone as USB modem and I have connected with this same cell-phone before (but under Windows).

My firewall recognizes the PPP connection. (The problem is not the firewall, even if I turn it off, the problem is not solved).

Thanks in advance for any help.

This is what I get from gnome-ppp's log:

WVCONF: /root/.wvdial.conf GNOME PPP: Connecting... GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Ignoring malformed input line: ";Do NOT edit this file by hand!" GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> WvDial: Internet dialer version 1.60 GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Cannot get information for serial port. GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Initializing modem. GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Sending: ATZ GNOME PPP: STDERR: ATZ GNOME PPP: STDERR: OK GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Sending: ATQ0 V1 E1 S0=0 &C1 &D2 +FCLASS=0 GNOME PPP: STDERR: ATQ0 V1 E1 S0=0 &C1 &D2 +FCLASS=0 GNOME PPP: STDERR: OK GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Modem initialized. GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Sending: ATM1L3DP*99# GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Waiting for carrier. GNOME PPP: STDERR: ATM1L3DP*99# GNOME PPP: STDERR: CONNECT GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Carrier detected. Starting PPP immediately. GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Starting pppd at Tue Nov 16 00:04:30 2010 GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Pid of pppd: 6981 GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Using interface ppp0 GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Authentication (CHAP) started GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Authentication (CHAP) successful GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Terminate Request (Message: "No network protocols running" ) GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Terminate Request (Message: "No network protocols running" ) GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Disconnecting at Tue Nov 16 00:05:08 2010 GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> The PPP daemon has died: A modem hung up the phone (exit code = 16) GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> man pppd explains pppd error codes in more detail. GNOME PPP: STDERR: --> Try again and look into /var/log/messages and the wvdial and pppd man pages for more information.

Mr.K. (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do look at /var/log/messages like it said. There's probably more information there. It seems to be failing in the IPCP phase (which is where the 2 endpoints negotiate IP addresses) but from the incomplete log above we can't see why. Also you could try adding "debug" to /etc/ppp/options and if you're going to follow up, also mention the name of your service provider. 67.162.90.113 (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the help so far. At the bottom is the information from /var/log/messages. You seem to be right when you say that the problem is the IPCP. Actually I do not get any IP number, even if gnome-ppp sets the status as connected and report that some data (a couple of KB) is being transmitted.

My service provider is the Spanish branch of Orange.

Nov 17 12:41:01 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: pppd 2.4.4 started by root, uid 0 Nov 17 12:41:02 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: Using interface ppp0 Nov 17 12:41:02 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyUSB0 Nov 17 12:41:02 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: CHAP authentication succeeded Nov 17 12:41:02 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: CHAP authentication succeeded Nov 17 12:41:02 mrk-laptop kernel: [ 1201.019309] PPP BSD Compression module registered Nov 17 12:41:02 mrk-laptop kernel: [ 1201.177566] PPP Deflate Compression module registered Nov 17 12:41:34 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: IPCP: timeout sending Config-Requests Nov 17 12:41:40 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: Connection terminated. Nov 17 12:41:40 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: Modem hangup Nov 17 12:41:40 mrk-laptop pppd[6413]: Exit.

for enquiry
dear madam/sir:

my question is if i want to get any information from wikipidia, what procedure will follow to the required information,

eg: how can i get the list of I.T parks in U.A.E from wikipidia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.12.77 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. We have a list of technology centers worldwide; but the only one listed in UAE is Dubai Internet City.  That article mentions a few others, including Ras Al Khaimah IT Park.  We may have information on other technology centers in UAE, but it doesn't look like they're organized in a single list yet.  Nimur (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If your question is about how to locate information on Wikipedia; you can either type keywords into the Search-Box (which is located on the top-right corner of every page in Wikipedia) or use Wikipedia's Search page. Rocketshiporion ♫ 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Creating a wireless network using an aircard
I have an aircard from Verizon Wireless. I also have a wireless printer and a Wii. I was under the impression that I could get a router to plug my aircard in to, to create a wireless network that I can connect my computer, printer and Wii to. The two options I have come up with are the Verizon MiFi and a Cradlepoint. I have read that the MiFi is not worth the charges when going over your minutes, which apparently happens very frequently. But I do not know anything about the Cradlepoint, which has been a very popular suggestion. Can anyone help me find out about the Cradlepoint, which one I should get, or something else that can give me a wirless network without breaking my wallet? Thanks in advance!Amstokes1 (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your friend asked the question below, and I answered it there - but the article on celluar routers might help. A MiFi will do what your aircard + cellular router could do, with less components. I'm not an expert on Verizon's data plans, but if you have unlimited data it should not be an issue with either device. If you are out of contract on your aircard, you may be able to get a MiFi for cheap or free with a contract renewal. Do keep in mind that DSL or cable modem Internet access will likely be cheaper in the long run, and provide you with faster speeds and greater reliability. It's not mobile like the aircard or MiFi, though. coreycubed / talk 19:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

making "sed" match only once
I'm trying to make a single change in a text stream using sed; that is, I want one change for the whole stream, not one change per line. So I've been running: printf "hello jello\nsmello\n" | sed "s/ll/y/1" and getting heyo jello smeyo whereas I want heyo jello smello Is there a way to make sed make a substitution exactly once, or alternatively to make it stop treating each line as an independent thing? 87.112.174.140 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Add "0,/pattern" to the beginning of the sed command, as in: printf "hello jello\nsmello\n" | sed "0,/ll/s/ll/y/1" -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just the ticket. Thanks for your help. 87.112.174.140 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

When did "I think I have I a virus/malware/spyware etc" = OMFG REINSTALL YOUR ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM FROM SCRATCH BEFORE YOUR PC EXPLODES!
I've noticed at least a couple of answers recently where the poster has reported a possible infection with some kind of rogue program and the first or an early answer is to advise them to reinstall their operating system. Unless you are pretty tech savvy, this is NOT a trivial procedure - it's time consuming, not everyone has the original installation discs and they then have to download every security fix and patch and probably reinstall all their software. Surely this should only be considered as a LAST resort when all other attempts to remove the infection have failed? Most normal computer users will never install or reinstall an operating system EVER - they are liable to simply replace the computer with a new one with the same or a later version of Windows. Why would anyone advise this as an initial response to the problem? Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the viruses nowadays are pretty damn tenacious. Getting rid of them can almost literally be as much trouble as reinstalling. Half  Shadow  22:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think its because of one or two fanatics here. I disagreed with that approach. I'm tempted to delete the viruses article - the one with a nuclear plume - and start again, but I bet it would get reverted by its 'owner'. 92.15.16.149 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's a cure all way (99.999% of the time). Also it gives them a chance to make sure the computer won't die another time. And also makes sure that the virus is fully cured, some programs may not fully remove the virus and traces may remain. General Rommel (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a cure, like amputating your head wopuld be if you have a headache. 92.28.250.11 (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In What Colour are your Bits, (which is actually an essay only tangentially related to malware), there is a pretty profound discussion of why we trust a "cleanly installed" operating system, but we do not trust a compromised operating system. "The trouble is that because any of our files might be infected including the tools we would use to test for infection, we can't reliably compute the "is infected" function,..."  This problem is about establishing a base-level of certainty about what is running.  When a system is compromised, we don't know how badly it is compromised.  Basic features - like "copy file" and "delete file" may be replaced with illicit versions by the mal-ware.  By definition, using any tool to clean a malware infection is trusting that the malware has not taken certain defensive actions.  To be on the safe side, we presume that any compromised system is completely compromised, and can not be trusted to assist in "cleaning" itself.  I don't think this is heavy-handed - I think it is a correct assessment of the way malware works in 2010.  Can you, for instance, guarantee that your shell32.dll is the proper one?  Suppose you even want to use a technical mechanism to verify it: let's consider the MD5 hash of certain critical system files.  Do you know their MD5 hash off the top of your head?  Can you trust that any program(s) you use to compute or verify any MD5 hashes will operate properly when you know your system has already been compromised?  You can't - so if you feel comfortable "trusting" the compromised system, you're taking a huge risk.  Nimur (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As the OP points out, what do the fanatics suggest that a user does who has not got any OS disks - probably most people? 92.28.250.11 (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you HONESTLY want this from the opposite point of view... Whenever I visit anyone (friends, family, enemies...), or even whenever I get a phone call, it is the same scenario. "Hi, how you doing..." That is just a formality.  It doesn't take long before the conversation turns to, "Hey, Mr. PhD of Computer Science, make my computer stop doing (fill in the blank)."  Every single time, this error just appeared.  The user did nothing to the computer at all.  Did he install anything?  No.  Was he running any programs?  No.  Was he even anywhere near the computer within the last few days?  No.  Has he ever turned on the computer since he took it out of the box?  No.  The user will not admit to ever touching the computer, but wants me to fix some random error.  I know that he installed something stupid, but he won't tell me what it was.  So, I don't want to waste my time screwing around with his computer. I tell him it is a Windows thing.  Fdisk, format, reinstall.  What?  No install disks?  That's a Windows thing.  Go get some. Then, Fdisk, format, reinstall.  What?  You want to save your files?  Losing files is a Windows thing.  Fdisk, format, reinstall, and forgot about all those files you lost.  Of course, it isn't a "Windows thing."  It is a "user thing."  But, after 20+ years of "fix my computer" requests, I simply don't care to poke around through Windows to figure out what the user did so I can try to figure out how to fix it.  So, I do not answer the "how do I make Windows stop doing (fill in the blank) questions here."  But, I do perfectly understand those who answer those questions with "Fdisk, format, reinstall." --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Under most circumstances, I like to recommend the standard virus scan + any virus specific removal tools + one other malware scanner (ideally run off a CD/flash drive). However in some cases, it really is easier to simply back up what's important and start from scratch (as the last virus question seemed to indicate).  If scans and removal tools have already been run and there are still signs of the virus or if it left junk around, the process of cleaning up after it can often be more time consuming and painful than simply reinstalling the OS and all your programs.  It should never be the first thing to try, but once there are signs of the current operating system being too far gone to bother cleaning it, then it's a valid suggestion. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is if you have malware in the first place and then have to ask here for help, there's a fair chance properly removing the malware is beyond your level of expertise. Reinstalling isn't trivial although many OEM computers come with some sort of partition or media which may make it easier. Reinstalling software is a pain, but if your the person who's got malware because you try everything and sundry it may be best to start fresh and if you're not there's a far chance software consists of browser and associated plugins, perhaps an email client, perhaps some Office software and perhaps a media player. As others have said, even if you do have a high level of expertise guaranteeing theres no trace arguably is very difficult although depending on the malware you may be confident enough for your purposes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As for what do the fanatics suggest that a user does who has not got any OS disks &mdash; I disagree with the premise, and also with the false "OMFG" premise of the original poster's section header; I am not a "fanatic" about this, but personally I prefer to be sure that the malware is gone, and the only sure way, as pointed out above, is to reinstall from scratch, because it is impossible for a user to know what exactly has been compromised, despite the best intentions of anti-malware software writers. As for the answer to the question, it seems obvious that if a user doesn't have the OS disks or the equivalent partition (as all HP computers have these days, for example), then the user has no choice but to gamble, and just use anti-malware software, and hope for the best.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article about viruses ought to suggest doing scans etc first, not just Armagedon. 92.15.28.182 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a manual for removing viruses. So, it shouldn't suggest any method for removing them.  The article on viruses should explain what they are and nothing more. --  k a i n a w &trade; 18:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 92 is referring to the RD "Viruses" FAQ at Reference desk/Computing/Viruses, which is as unofficial as anything else on Wikipedia, and which is intended to help us answer the very frequent question encountered here, "What do I do to get rid of my malware", without us answerers forgetting things, and without having to write an entire page each time someone asks this question. To 92:  I agree; please help us by improving the FAQ.  But you haven't rebutted any of the arguments in this thread that detail how scans may not work, depending on how your system has been compromised.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See the third comment down. 92.24.187.23 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is my system so slow with 2D DirectX graphics?
I recently updated/rebuilt my computer, here are the basic system specs of the new system: I know it's still not exactly a high-powered gaming rig, but it's enough for my needs. As expected, I experienced huge performance increases in 3D games (tested with Portal, GTA4 and Mafia 2, all of which run much smoother now than with the old system). What I don't get is that 2D DirectX graphics are markedly slower than on the old system; it's especially noticeable with my screensaver (I use JWZ's Matrix screensaver, a simple 2D display scrolling down letters in various shades of green) and with RPGmaker XP games - I'm toying around with making games with RPGmaker, the engine is pretty crappy and starts lagging heavily as soon as there is a bit going on on the map so a good part of making games in RPGmaker consists in coming up with clever anti-lag measures anyway, but the lag issues have become really unbearable on the new system. I've even noticed some lag when scrolling large maps in the editor. So...does anybody have an idea what's going on here? I'm aware 2D graphics do not benefit from the Geforce's 3D acceleration, but with twice the memory and a slightly faster processor I would have expected 2D performance to increase at least slightly, or at the very least stay the same. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Asus M4A87TD board (upgraded from a crappy Elitegroup MCP78M)
 * AMD Phenom II X2 545 (upgraded from AMD Athlon II X2 240)
 * 4GB RAM, DDR3 @1333 (upgraded from 2GB DDR2, 256MB of which was used by the onboard graphics card)
 * Geforce 250 GTS, using Nvidia's 260.99 driver (upgraded from the crappy onboard Geforce 8100)
 * WinXP SP3 (fresh install, no change otherwise)