Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 September 13

= September 13 =

old computer doesn't play HD video
My decade old P4 computer having an Intel D845 chipset board and SDRAM cannot play high definition video clips. The monitor would go black and then after a minute or two it comes back with a crash report of some driver but the display would be crude and grainy. Is there a way to make the system play HD with some additional contraption like video card?--117.204.84.46 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First try VLC media player. Not likely to help but worth trying for free. Second, check out cards with video accelerations: AMD HD 5570 or Nvidia GT 220 should have no problem with Full HD video playback, not to mention 720p, plus they would let you play a lot of 3D games. But be careful, most variants of HD 5570/GT 220 use PCI Express. Your motherboard could support only AGP, in a latter case you would be limited to AGP video cards. 70.52.185.227 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my mobo. It has two versions with DDR and SDRAM of which mine is the older SDRAM compatible. Can my PC show HD avi files (absolutely no gaming requirement) with an entry level AGP card?--117.204.94.35 (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not. We need to know your video card model to be sure. In Windows (correct?) click Start > Run > and type "dxdiag" (without quotes) and hit enter. Then when the DirectX Tool comes up, select the (probably) 3rd tab marked "Display" and tell us the name and model of your graphics card. THEN we can tell you with certainty whether HD is a possibility (though the likely answer is no). Masked Booby (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have an Nvidia card, it's recommended that you get PureVideo installed for HD playback. You would also need the latest DirectX 9 drivers, not because your player needs them, but just to see if your system can handle it. You would need the latest compatible video card drivers. Even then, your CPU and GPU (not to mention probable lack of RAM for buffering) are going to struggle displaying HD smoothly in 30 frames per second (I assume you don't want stuttery playback). Sometimes you just have to upgrade to move with the times. Sandman30s (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

--- Display Devices ---       Card name: Intel(R) 82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV Graphics Controller Manufacturer: Intel Corporation Chip type: Intel(R) 82845G Graphics Controller DAC type: Internal Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2562&SUBSYS_4C598086&REV_01 Display Memory: 64.0 MB Any chance of getting more juice out of this old gadget? --117.204.81.140 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Afraid not... onboard graphics from those days, especially Intel, was horrendously bad. I suggest you find an AGP card for cheap... try to get at least a 7000-series Nvidia card. Sandman30s (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Meta date
How can I get rid of metadata? I want it all gone, and I don't want it to come back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrymine (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the metadata you want to get rid of? --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As our metadata article says, metadata is "data about data", so we don't know what sorts of files you're referring to. Technically, all of the files on your hard disk have some metadata about them (like the file creation date and the file modification date), but I'm sure that's not what you're referring to.  Do you mean the EXIF metadata that's associated with each of your photos, by any chance?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Computers double
Why do computer things always double? 16 -> 32 -> 64 -> 128 etc. Also, when will 128 bit computers be here? Painiscalling (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because [0, 2n - 1] (2n different numbers) is the unsigned integer range that can be represented in n bits. 128 address bits is enough for a huge amount of memory (1026 terabytes) so probably never. --85.76.188.101 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "128 address bits is enough for a huge amount of memory" - somewhat irrelevant IMHO. 64 address bits is enough for 16 exbibytes of memory which is also a huge amount of memory by many definitions. The reason we have 64 address bits is not because we want 16 exbibytes of memory but because 32 address bits was no longer enough (amongst other things). Similarly we will move to 128 address bits if and when 64 is no longer enough (which is also likely to be a very, very, very long time away, if it ever arises), we aren't going to stick with 64 address bits if we need more because 128 seems like too many. It's possible we might do 96 bits or something but I doubt it. (Although it wouldn't be surprising if initial or even all 128 bit CPUs only support 96 bits or less, similar to the way all? current x86-64 CPUs only support 48 bit addressing. However even if you argue that means they're not really 128 bit, the relevant issue remains how big 96 bits or whatever is i.e. when or if it will no longer be enough, not how big 128 bits is per se. ) Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, doubling is an easy way to design. Take something that works, and just double it. 128bit processors, as in addressing 128bits of memory, are probably unlikely for the time to come. However, how do you define the 'bits' of a processor? If you consider the data size of the CPU instructions, SSE4 already operates on 128-bits of data. 16:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unilynx (talk • contribs)


 * The real reason is data structure alignment. The problem with large memory addresses is that they waste memory. But anything more than 32 bits and less than 64 would almost always end up padded to 64 bits anyway, wasting the same amount of memory. So it makes sense to jump from 32 bits to 64 bits in one go. That's also why your video card supports "32-bit color" that consists of 8 bits each of red, green, and blue, and 8 wasted bits per pixel. Intel CPUs have actually had 128-bit registers for SSE instructions since the Pentium III in 1999, and they are introducing 256-bit registers in 2011 (AVX), and they will no doubt go to 512 bits in the future. But the CPUs are called 64-bit because of the internal address size—although the external address bus is smaller than that. The naming has always been pretty arbitrary. The "16 bit" Super Nintendo had 16-bit CPU registers, an 8-bit data bus, and a 24-bit address space. The "16 bit" Sega Genesis/Mega Drive had 32-bit CPU registers, a 16-bit data bus, and a 24-bit address space, if I'm remembering correctly. -- BenRG (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the real answer to question 1 is the way computers do addressing in the first place. Remember that everything is in 1s and 0s, and consider the case of specifying a particular byte of memory.  The memory system somehow needs to provide the contents of that memory based on a set of 1s and 0s -- the "address" of that part of memory, usually a byte.  So you build hardware (memory chips, used to be memory boards) that accepts a set number of 1s and 0s, and allow every byte in that memory space its own combination of 1s and 0s as its address.


 * However many 1s and 0s you provide, the maximum number of combinations of them is a power of 2 -- 4, 8, 16, etc. So you get powers of 2 as the most efficient way to use the hardware, and hardware used to be the expensive part (not so very long ago, in elapsed time as measured by humans).  This is the same reason so many other things that need addressing one way or another -- ports on a hub or router, for instance -- also come in powers of 2 (4, 16, etc.).  Each time you add another 1 or 0 to a given number of 1s and 0s, you double the number of addresses they can specify.  4 bits can address 16 things, 5 can address 32, etc.


 * The size of computer instruction sets, registers, I/O systems, etc., is driven by this basic characteristic of binary addressing.


 * I don't know the answer to question 2 -- I presume they'll show up when they can be sold for more than it takes to make them.


 * rc (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resize
What would be the best program (free preferably) that could resize 30,000 images of my favorite singer I have downloaded? Windows computer, so I don't want weird linux stuff Canadian sk8er girl (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ImageMagick is available for Windows and does what you want. Insulting Linux was rather gratuitous. Marnanel (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IrfanView can also do batch resizes, and doesn't involve using a command-line interface. I think that ImageMagick might be considered by many people too much like a "weird linux thing" even if it's running on a Windows machine. Buddy431 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ImageMagick on a Mac is a "weird linux thing" (it requires all sorts of compiling and porting and etc., which is what I associate with "weird linux things"), but on a Windows machine it acts like any command line program. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that most computer users today (including myself) are fairly inexperienced with and adverse to command-line interface programs. When someone says "Linux" I immediately think of a command line interface (even realizing that there exist command-line interface programs in Windows, and that some linux setups do a good job with Graphical user interface).  To me, someone saying "I don't want weird linux stuff" is saying "I want an intuitive, well built, easily used program with a nice GUI that I can understand without memorizing a bunch of commands".  That's what I like out of my programs, anyway. Buddy431 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are people who call Linux "weird" by default, just because it's different from Windows. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree if one is talking about something one might use every day, but this sounds like a one-time job. You don't need to memorize any commands; you just look up what the magic settings are and plug them in. For a one-time batch operation, it's a pretty convenient way to do things, even if you don't use command line interfaces very often (I don't). No memorization needed, just a one-time consultation of online examples. In any case, I'm not pushing this method over another, I'm just pointing out that as far as "weird things" go, on a Windows machine it's not terribly hard to pull off, compared to a lot of things. To execute the command does not take any deep understanding of the command line or the program, which is where I would draw a line between what is "hard" and not. (If using a program requires five years of previous experience with similar programs, that's "hard" if you don't have that experience.) --Mr.98 (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would add that for doing the same thing to a bunch of different inputs, the command line has it all over the GUI. It's well worth getting used to, even if you're not interested in switching to Linux. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never had to compile or port ImageMagick on Linux in all the years I've been using it. We have package managers.  Do you? Marnanel (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever the terminology, it took me (who is pretty computer savvy, but not very experienced with Linux) literally days to figure out how to get it to the point where I could type "convert" into the shell and have it do something correctly. First I had to make the package manager work correctly, which wasn't straightforward, then there was some kind of compiling, some kind of errors, and so on, endlessly. I got it working but only after a lot of difficulty, and after going through a lot of instructions that seemed to already assume I had been using Linux for the past 5 years. Compare that to the PC version, where you can just download the convert.exe executable and you're done. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused &mdash; was this on a Linux machine, or on a Mac? Or were you running Linux on a Mac? --Trovatore (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Mac, but On Windows I'm pretty sure you'd just install Cygwin and click on the ImageMagick check box during install. Easy enough. APL (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To address the question: assuming the user is willing to install ImageMagick and use the command line, it seems the following will work. Say you have a directory with many jpg files. If "convert.exe" is in your path (I believe ImageMagick adds its directory to the PATH automatically), execute the following on the command line in the directory with the files:

for %i in (*.jpg) do convert -resize 50% %i resized_%i


 * Hopefully you can see that you can change the percentage resize factor (there should also be options for specifying an absolute width or height for all images), and that the new file name will be written to whatever you want ("resized_" can be changed to any term, though it needs to precede the %i portion. The files could later be batch renamed to get rid of the prefix. If you are willing to overwrite the originals, remove "resized_" altogether, but maybe copy the originals to a backup directory first). The OP may have a more complicated scenario, which we could look at if they are willing to head this direction. (I thank Fin. M. for introducing me to ImageMagick (I think it was him) and am "paying it forward".) Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose ImageMagick also has a GUI version that performs this function (I haven't used it). If so, my answer was probably a waste of time? Riggr Mortis (talk)
 * ImageMagick has a GUI (it's called "display") but as far as I know there is no way to perform the same operation on multiple files from the GUI, except by laboriously opening them one at a time. For what the original poster wants to do, the command-line version is clearly best.
 * My quibble would be though that you should specify what shell you're using. It doesn't look to me like the two I know best (csh and bash), although I don't know either one well enough to be sure it wouldn't work. --Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The shell with the for %i in (*.jpg) ... - syntax is the ms-dos/windows command-line. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Martin.
 * Ah, thanks. I have used that one, of course, but frankly I never knew it had any control structures at all. --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am lost can you please tracert me so I can find out where I am
I have been dumped in the woods. Fortunately I have a laptop with about 40 minutes battery and an available wireless network with free access. Can you please help me find where I am by using tracert and locating the results on a map for me? I will now turn off the laptop to conserve battery power, I will check back here in about one hour. Thanks so much.130.56.95.117 (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think that search-and-rescue-on-request is a service which Wikipedia can provide. Sorry. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sheriff  ─╢ 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out (a) where one would find a woods big enough to get lost in that has available free wireless, (b) why the user can't fire up google maps to find a way out, and (c) why he wouldn't send an email to the local police or ranger station.


 * I'm most curious about (a), though. if I could find a campsite that wouldn't threaten my internet addiction I'd be in heaven.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when you had 46 minutes of battery left you should have been doing something other than vandalizing? --Tardis (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case, tracert wouldn't give us that precise information. We can see you're somewhere in Canberra... which you'd assuredly know. The ISP might be able to triangulate, or at least figure out what base station you'd be coming from, but we don't have access to that information. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a Scibaby sockpuppet playing games. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * well, duh! but as games go, it's not a terribly disturbing one. -- Ludwigs 2  00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * General advice when lost in woods etc. (originally from boyscouts, I believe): go downhill until you find a river, then follow the river. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Martin (assuming good faith wp:agf from OP).

Compatibility of MGS2
Is the PC version of Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance compatible with Windows Vista or Windows 7? If not, can it be easily played on an average-quality computer with Windows XP?--99.251.211.17 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)