Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 October 28

= October 28 =

32 bit verses ?
I was just on some website and I got some type of pop up message from my computer or from Firefox, something like "a plugin is trying to connect that requires a 32-bit connection. Would you like to switch to 32-bit and restart?" I meant to click no but I clicked yes by accident and Firefox restarted and relaunched. I can't see any difference in my surfing experience or the way anything looks as of yet but I was just wondering what I have done. First, is this just Firefox, or did I just make a change to my computer, or the way it connects to the Internet? How do I change it back if I wanted to? What did I have before if not a 32-bit connection? Are there any advantages or disadvantages to what I switched to verses what I came from (which I don't even know)? Some specs: I am on an iMac11,3 Intel Core i5, 2.8 GHz, 4 core, 8GB.--108.46.103.88 (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A while back Apple switched from the PowerPC line of processors to the cheaper Intel ix86 line. The ix86's have had a lot of features hacked on to a 1970's design over the years, and the latest one is 64-bit support (already implemented on PowerPC some ago). What this means is that your computer can access all 8GB of memory (or considerably more)- rather than only 4GB as would be the case with a 32-bit processor. Individual applications can also use more memory. However, there are compatibility issues, especially with software that hooks in intimately to other software, as plugins do to browser software. Hence why Firefox is able to revert back to 32-bit mode, and why new versions of Internet Explorer still don't operate in 64-bit mode. If you want to avoid this message in the future, figure out what the plugin is and investigate whether a 64-bit version is available. Nevard (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? IE has had a 64bit version since Windows XP x64 and IE6 and AFAIK has been installed by default in every version of Windows x64 since then and updatable along with the 32 bit version. It may not be the default IE so may not be used much but is there. P.S. I'm presuming you're referring to Windows since I thought, and a quick search confirms Internet Explorer for Mac has been dead for a long time (2003) Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to call for a reference on Intel CPUs being cheaper than equivalent PowerPCs. It is notable that all of today's video game consoles are based on PowerPC chips, and as consumer electronics there's an emphasis on cost savings over performance.  However, in my brief research yesterday, it looked like PowerPC chips stopped trying to compete with the Intel equivalents around 2004-2005.  My point of comparison was the PowerPC 970 chip of 2003-2004, the first 64-bit PowerPC chip, which had a single core that ran at 1.6GHz to 2GHz; and I was going to compare it with the contemporary Intel Xeon CPU of roughly the same time frame, which ran at 2GHz.  However, I have never found a great site on the Web that lists the retail prices of CPUs over time, to my regret.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously it did help that IntelCyrixAMD invested a hundredfold more than IBM did. Nevard (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's probably no reason not to run Firefox in 32-bit mode all the time. It will probably use less RAM that way, and might be faster. In any case, it makes little difference, so don't worry about it. -- BenRG (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree with this. When software is available in 64-bit and 32-bit versions and you have a choice, I've noticed that software from Adobe Systems runs noticeably faster when using the 64-bit version; software that doesn't shovel and manipulate as much local data around, not so much.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Running Android on a Windows Mobile smartphone
Can it be normally done? Could it be something like running Linux on an originally Windows PC? Quest09 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure someone has/will manage/d it, out of sheer boredom. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Argh. It is not necessarily possible. Maybe the architecture is too different. Quest09 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out the forums on XDA Developers. It's been done on quite a few of the Windows Mobile devices and I've personally had versions of Android running on an old HTC TyTN II and an HTC Touch Pro2 without too much of a problem!  ZX81    talk  20:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Compiling code on a smartphone
Smartphones are getting more and more like computers, is it yet possible to compile code on them? Quest09 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Smartphones (and also not smart phones) _are_ computers. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but modern wash-machines are also computers, but cannot compile code. Quest09 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh some probably can, but I was using your definition of computer, as one that can compile code. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Smartphones are general purpose programmable computers - i.e. is in principle capable of executing any program, in particular a compiler (as opposed to your washing machine that probably has some hardwired logic, that although executed by a CPU, cannot be changed). Typically however smartphone apps are programmed in a simulated/virtual machine type environment on a PC - not because the cannot be compiled on a smartphone, but because application development is a lot easier with a proper keyboard. 109.150.107.49 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely possible, although you first have to get a compiler onto them, which means, for the iPhone at least, getting App Store approval (or jailbreaking the phone), and Apple has funny rules about stuff like that. But on more developer-friendly platforms, like Android and WebOS, it's not very hard to do, and I've heard of it being done, albeit as more of a party trick than anything.
 * On the other hand, the JavaScript engine in each JS-capable mobile browser almost certainly does Just-in-time compilation, so in that sense, they already do. Paul (Stansifer) 22:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

More briefly, sure; it's just a SMOP. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Folder renames by itself
hello,

I have currently an odd bug; nothing serious, but it is worth to fix it. I have a folder with the name "ZZ Top", consisting of songs by the band ZZ Top. So far so good; however, it renames by itself to a random letter, for example to "C". If I rename it again to ZZ Top, it still do that. Do you know what is wrong here? Thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 21:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Windows, Mac, or Linux?
 * Does the folder get accessed by anything like iTunes?
 * Is it just this folder? Or is this just a random example?
 * Dismas |(talk) 21:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that it's Windows and actually a drive rather than a folder, but more info would certainly clarify the situation. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have Windows Vista, yes it is accessed by iTunes, it is just that folder. And no it is not a drive :P. It occurs sometimes and unfortunately I don't know when. Now it seems to be normal though.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 22:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have iTunes set to manage your music automatically, it will do things like rename folders according to the meta information stored in the music itself. It seems probable to me that it's something of this nature. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was going for. If you're going to have iTunes manage your music files, it's best to just let it do its job and leave the folders alone.  It's likely getting its name changed because your music files say the artist is named "C" and not "ZZ Top".  Dismas |(talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)