Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 May 14

= May 14 =

Free website links checker
Can anyone please recommend a free links checker for my website? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are using Windows: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html - don't mind the freaky-looking web site, the software itself works like a charm.
 * If you're on Linux, I've had success running it under Wine, but since I haven't used it for a while, I cannot guarantee that the latest Xenu and Wine releases still work together. -- 188.99.201.140 (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Link Lint works fine - at least on html and xhtml; I've not used it to verify links in css. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RAM
I have an old Windows XP computer. According to speccy there is "1.0GB Single-Channel DDR @ 127MHz 2.5-3-3-6", however Windows is only seeing 512mb. What is wrong, and how do I get the full 1GB to be available? Here are the full details;

RAM Memory Type	DDR Size	1024 MBytes Channels #	Single

DRAM Frequency	127.9 MHz CAS# Latency (CL)	2.5 clocks RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCD)	3 clocks RAS# Precharge (tRP)	3 clocks Cycle Time (tRAS)	6 clocks Bank Cycle Time (tRС)	9 clocks Command Rate (CR)	2T SPD Number Of SPD Modules	3 Slot #1 Type	DDR Size	256 MBytes Manufacturer	Micron Technology Max Bandwidth	PC2100 (133 MHz) Part Number	16VDDT3264AG-265B1 Serial Number	1E1128AD Week/year	27 / 02 SPD Ext. EPP JEDEC #2 Frequency	133.3 MHz CAS# Latency	2.5 RAS# To CAS#	3 RAS# Precharge	3 tRAS	6 Voltage	2.500 V						JEDEC #1 Frequency	100.0 MHz CAS# Latency	2.0 RAS# To CAS#	2 RAS# Precharge	2 tRAS	5 Voltage	2.500 V				Slot #2 Type	DDR Size	256 MBytes Manufacturer	Samsung Max Bandwidth	PC2100 (133 MHz) Part Number	M3 68L3223DTL-CB0 Serial Number	F20045F1 Week/year	35 / 02 SPD Ext. EPP JEDEC #2 Frequency	133.3 MHz CAS# Latency	2.5 RAS# To CAS#	3 RAS# Precharge	3 tRAS	6 Voltage	2.500 V						JEDEC #1 Frequency	100.0 MHz CAS# Latency	2.0 RAS# To CAS#	2 RAS# Precharge	2 tRAS	5 Voltage	2.500 V				Slot #3 Type	DDR Size	512 MBytes Manufacturer	Hyundai Electronics Max Bandwidth	PC3200 (200 MHz) Part Number	HYMD564 646CP8JD43 Serial Number	FFFF6140 Week/year	33 / 06 SPD Ext. EPP JEDEC #3 Frequency	200.0 MHz CAS# Latency	3.0 RAS# To CAS#	3 RAS# Precharge	3 tRAS	8 Voltage	2.500 V						JEDEC #2 Frequency	166.7 MHz CAS# Latency	2.5 RAS# To CAS#	3 RAS# Precharge	3 tRAS	7 Voltage	2.500 V						JEDEC #1 Frequency	133.3 MHz CAS# Latency	2.0 RAS# To CAS#	2 RAS# Precharge	2 tRAS	6 Voltage	2.500 V

82.43.89.63 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your 512 MB memory card isn't seated properly ? Intermittent contact might behave like that.  Or, maybe it's damaged.  Did you open up the case and take a look ? StuRat (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If speccy sees it, it must be there. The video system of many Windows computers share the main memory.  The video may be taking up 512MB (just guessing).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried taking the chips out, cleaning them, putting them back, it didn't fix it. What do you mean by the "video system"? The graphics card? I don't think it has a graphic card except the monitor port on the motherboard. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If it has video on the motherboard, it shares RAM memory (AFAIK). That is, part of the system RAM goes to video.  I've seen 384MB of the system RAM used this way, so maybe it could be using 512MB.  If you have a real video card (i.e. in a slot), it has its own memory, rather than using system RAM.  You might try this - lower the screen resolution as much as possible, and see if Windows sees more RAM than it did.  If so, I think that is what is happening.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Shared Memory Architecture. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The computer doesn't actually have a screen attached, I connect to it via remote desktop. Would that make a difference? It's at the lowest color and screen resolution, 16-bit color. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At that resolution it shouldn't be using 512MB for memory, so my idea is probably wrong. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, a computer of that age wouldn't use nearly that much for graphics. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it at Control Panel/System/General tab where Windows shows only 512MB? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the general tab on system properties from right clicking My Computer -> properties. And process explorer shows only 512 too 82.43.89.63 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that the computer is actually running Windows 98 or ME? I realize that it is an unlikely mistake to make, but as I recall the older OSes only supported 512 MB.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it's running Windows XP Professional 82.43.89.63 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems no one has mentioned this yet. Does this BIOS actually show 1GB? Or does it show 512MB? If necessary, make sure you disable any boot logo and also turn off any option for quick power on self test (POST). You may be able to see within the BIOS config anyway. It's my experience that with very old motherboards (and chipsets0 there's no guarantee all sticks are going to work completely (you may only get some of the memory). Stuff like whether the sticks dualsided etc can make a difference. Worse then you fill all slots. (SDRAM is even worse.) If the BIOS doesn't see it, I don't think there's any way to get Windows to. You can try moving the sticks around. You may be able to get 768MB if you can't get the full 1GB working.
 * I'm a bit surprised Speccy (no experience with that specific program) sees it. But I don't really know how those interacts since I've never tried anything like that (once the BIOS doesn't report the full amount I stop trying). It's possible even if the computer can't handle it's still visible and the SPD can be read. And it's possible something like 128MBx2 comes from each of the 256MB and 256MB comes from the 512MB or something in which case all sticks are being used and so it's not surprising they are detected by Speccy which is going to report what the SPD reports.
 * Incidentally for a computer that old I strongly suspect the amount of RAM used by any internal graphics is set by the BIOS. It seems very unlikely 512MB is going to be used but 256MB is not impossible which would make the only some is seen by BIOS scenario more likely. For example it could be 256x3 i.e. only 256MB is used of the 512MB stick and the full amount of the other sticks.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speccy is a good program. I'm perplexed as to why it sees a different amount of RAM than Windows sees.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the Windows XP home system I'm on right now, Speccy shows 4 GB (which is what I have installed). Windows shows 3.62GB, because Windows XP home has that artificial limit.  But that should not affect you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For a third opinion, try Belarc Advisor, free download at http://www.belarc.com/ - on mine it show 3712MB. It shows what is in each memory slot and how much Windows sees. One thing - when it gets to 54% done, it appears to lock up. It hasn't - just give it a couple of minutes. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Being a good program is somewhat moot. If it's just reading the SPD which I guess it is, it isn't going to tell you anything about whether the motherboard is having problems working with the specific memory config you have. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Throwing out a new idea, but have you ever had the full 1Gb working on this computer> (with the current hardware configuration) The reason I ask is because some computers require the memory to be installed in matching pairs so although Speccy is seeing the RAM that's in the socket, your motherboard can't actually use it until the matching slot is also filled up.  ZX81    talk  15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is a good reason for running Belarc Advisor - let's see what is in each memory slot. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's in the original post (expand the green banner). Slot 1 and 2 are 256Mb each and slot 3 is 512Mb.  ZX81    talk  17:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't look at all of those details. It might be a good idea to run Belarc Advisor anyway, to see what it says is the total memory.  Also, it might be a good idea to go to www.crucial.com (on that computer) and run their utility on your system, and see what it says.  You might need the same type in all slots or something.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And memory is pretty cheap these days. I just got 16GB for under US$200.  I'd replace those two 256MB sticks with 512MB sticks, on general principles.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well memory that old isn't very cheap. The 512MB sticks cost about $25 - about the same as 2GB sticks. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * By and large the only reason you need matching pairs (or triplets) is for dual channel (or triple channel) memory. Generally speaking all memory should be detected sand work fine if you have sticks that lake a pair, just not in dual or triple channel. This does depending on the motherboard chipset, bios and processor (if it has a IMC) of course. If it doesn't work because of lacking a stick, the motherboard usually just won't POST. (If you have unmatched sticks either this or you may have major stability/memory problems.) While it's possible lacking a pair could cause some RAM to be undetected, as I said above I expect it far more likely a compatibility problem due to the specific RAM config you have. In such a case, adding another stick probably won't result in it all detected. In fact, you may get no more RAM visible to the BIOS. or some more from the new stick. Or you may even lost memory. Or it may just break things and the computer won't even POST (particularly if it is dual channel/triple channel and you are adding a stick which doesn't work well with its pair). As I said above, I would always start at what the BIOS sees. One thing I forgot to mention, if the BIOS is only detecting a reduced amount, a BIOS update is always worth looking in to although it obviously carries risks. For something that old even a beta bios is also worth considering if you can't get it to work. This is true even if there's nothing in the update list which would suggest it would help. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Windows May be only showing 512 M.B. since its using some RAM.Cjc811 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Software to correct video color and exposure
Photoshop does a great job of correcting still photographs as far as correcting color changes and underexposure or overexposure. Is there some software that can do that for video? (Also having the ability to change the speed is a plus.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Photoshop (at least some versions of it) works with video too. For free software try VirtualDub - there is a bit of a learning curve there though, with codecs and bit rates and all. There are others at List of video editing software and Comparison of video editing software. I would imagine the range of functionality varies greatly depending on whether you want to fix up a couple of home videos or do more professional work. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have Photoshop Elements (the cheap version).  Do you know if that does it?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Will overheating power adapter shut down laptop?
I've been having issues with my laptop suddenly shutting down. I was already following all the advice from, except for keeping the power adapter on a hard surface. I've moved it from the carpet to the desk; is this likely to make a difference? Neon Merlin  22:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Most laptops have a separate "power brick" and this is expected to get hot. The advice from Yahoo is about keeping the internal circuitry of your laptop cool enough to avoid shutdown.  An overheating power brick might possibly shut itself off, but this will not shut down the laptop if it has an internal battery.  Are you sure that the shutting down is caused by overheating?    D b f i r s   07:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This flow chart is so complete I can't think of anything to add, other than it sounds as if now is a good time to find out how to open it up and clean the fluff off the heat sink -which is a good thing to do from time to time.--Aspro (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki cookies
How come Wikipedia wants to set a cookie on my computer even though I am not logging in? It didn't used to... Are they tracking users now? 66.23.238.101 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what you mean by "tracking".


 * Web applications are not normally allowed to read and write information to your hard drive for what I hope are obvious security issues. A cookie is a string that a web application can have your computer store and allow it (and possibly other web applications) read later.


 * I do not know what Wikipedia is trying to store for you: it could be the last date you visited, or what language you normally log in with so it can show you the correct home page, or whatever. The mere fact that it is storing a cookie is not malevolent or dangerous, it is just one of the ways that web sites "enhance the user experience".


 * I daresay Wikipedia will continue to work even if you don't allow the storage of any cookies, if you just don't like the idea.


 * rc (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question of "are they tracking users", one of the cookies Wikipedia stored on my browser is called "clicktracking-session" while another is called "mediaWiki.user.bucket%3Aext.articleFeedback-tracking". So yes, it does appear as though they are tracking you. But then again, even if you disabled cookies they could still track you via the server request log. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How do I stay logged into Google Chrome?
In recent days I've noticed Google Chrome has started logging me out of some of my accounts whenever I shut it down, meaning I must sign into everything on my next session. This started with my Google account, but has now spread to my BT Yahoo account, taking me to the sign in page whenever I go to my homepage. I've tried all the suggestions I can find (enabling cookies, reinstalling Chrome, etc) but none seem to fix the problem. Some readers will know I use a screen magnifier and have had a couple of problems with this, but I don't think that is the problem on this occasion as everything worked fine up until a week or so ago. Does anyone know of a remedy for this as it's becoming a real pain in the arse? Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should just add that it seems to work ok with IE7, Firefox and Opera. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, guys, this is a bug and nothing to do with my software, and I've found a solution. Next time you re-open Chrome it should keep you logged in. I've just done it and so far so good. Hope this helps anyone who's having difficulties with the browser. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Go to settings - options - under the hood - content settings
 * Manually check the box that says "clear cookies and other site data when I close my browser"
 * save/close the browser
 * Open Chrome again and go into the same settings, then uncheck the box.
 * Incidentally, I now realise my question was somewhat deceptive. It should have said "How do I stay logged in WITH Google Chrome?" TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)