Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 April 27

= April 27 =

PS problem
I have edited this image in Photoshop, but the Windows Photo Viewer displays an older version (while PS shows the edited version). I've checked the filesize and it's larger than the original, indicating that the image was indeed edited. Is it safe to upload the pic and what's going on? Thanks. Brandmeistertalk  08:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like Windows Photo Viewer is messing up. If you upload it and something is amiss, anybody can just fix it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Think it is simpler than that. Windows Photo Viewer is just a cheap Microsoft freebie that displays the thumbnail. If one edits the image itself, one needs to save (update) the new image as a thumbnail as well, in-order   for Windows  Photo Viewer to display it. Photoshop and GIMP both have 'save' functions that allow you to create a new Thumbnail, based on the new edited image. Whilst GIMP is not so powerful as photo-shop, it is often a lot faster – and time is money. So for those using GIMP,it is File> Save (as JPEG) > Advanced Options > Save Tumbnail (check box with a tick). Then click Save button at bottom right. Job done!--Aspro (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As an aside: From Catherine_Schwartz Personal life: In June 2003 Schwartz became the subject of a stir in the Internet community when it was discovered that at least two cropped photographs of herself she had posted on her personal blog contained hidden Exif thumbnail images clearly showing her bared breasts, because the program she used to edit them, Photoshop, did not create replacement thumbnails.[3] So, forget expensive Microsoft and Photo-shop apps. Image edit with tools and Operating Systems that that you have complete control over.--Aspro (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My thanks go to Schwartz as well :) Brandmeistertalk  15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, Cat was brill. This warning of the  danger of unintentional EXIF  exposés (or her unintentional exposés) would not have been possible without her. I give Cat  credit  for her Good Humor to get the massage across.--Aspro (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt that GIMP is a lot faster than PS as Aspro, the Linux prophet, is preaching here. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ? GIMP is not exclusively Linux and nothing to do with Linux. I have it on both Apple and Microsoft.  PS is a very polished image preprocessing  suite. Yet for many people, 98%  their needs can be quickly be satisfied with just GIMP.  If you're  a professional, then yes, use PS.... as you can deduct the cost against tax but even then, if you have a quick job to do – time is money – so wouldn't you think its worth learning how to run it through GIMP quickly. Its common sense economics. Prophets  depended on people who you don't examine their own beliefs –  and here looks like  a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Download GIMP for your OS and try it out. here]--Aspro (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * gimp maybe is not very useful... but you can bet is way faster than PS…
 * that’s in windows… and my linux-based friends say that in windows, it actually is slow
 * Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, GIMP does have its limitation and one needs to spend a little bit of time to understand how image processing is performed. Yet it pays back handsomely when you only need 8 bit processing. And face it, for most jobs, that's all you need. Think what get up many people's noses is that it is free – instead of some £500 UK pounds for PS. Yet, if you have PS already, then what's the beef about using GIMP as well? If a brick layer wanted to charge you more for building a wall because he uses a silver trowel, wouldn't you tell him to go to hell?Aspro (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the lack of sources, what speed are we talking about here? I haven't used GIMP much, but my searches don't find any actual sources even from forum posts, blogs etc concluding GIMP is generally faster in processing time. There are random people saying Photoshop is faster and random people saying GIMP is faster, the one or two with actual times I found found Photoshop to be better but they weren't great tests although from the various things I saw, there was some indication for more complicated operations Photoshop tends to have the faster processing time. The only thing which most accept where GIMP has the clear and significant speed edge is in startup time (well at least after the first startup) and memory usage which I myself thought was likely. I would note for the actual task at hand, the actual processing time (opening and saving) would take very little time on either, unless we're talking about a very large image. Startup time would be a big proportion of the time, presuming the program wasn't already open. On the other hand, if someone regularly use Photoshop and don't have limited RAM, even the startup time saved may not necessarily be worth it if you're rarely going to actual gain from it and have to waste time downloading GIMP and learning new stuff. Note also for something as simply as saving a JPG, just using Irfan View or Paint.NET (looks like this won't support metadata until 4.0) or a number of other programs for various OSes would probably be fastest of all (although you're starting to get to the point of diminishing returns so it's not likely worth it if you're already familiar with or have GIMP for some reason). GIMP may be faster than Photoshop, but it's still a bit slow at starting up relatively speaking, at least on Windows. On the other hand, if you don't have Photoshop installed, even if for some odd reason you have access to it for free, given its size partially due to all the unneeded feature, obtaining installing it if all you're ever going to do is save a JPEG is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. As I hinted at, every GIMP is likely overkill, but not nearly so bad. Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages missing in IE9 browsing history
Why are the Wikipedia pages I have visited missing in my IE9 browsing history? This is especialy the case when using the "open in new Tab" option. I have searched for hours on the Net, the Wikipedia Help, the Wikipedia, Microsoft TechNet and MSDN for an awnser to this question. I have checked my IE settings and my Wikipedia preferences and have not found an awnser. I have found hundred of references on how to disable the "Browsing History" but almost nothing on how to make sure that IE9's browsing history is consistent and includes all sites visited.SamiAEH (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are making it sound like you have discovered a 'BUG' (tut tut). It is not. Microsoft has produced and continuous to produce the bestest software ever invented in all the world. What you are experiencing (by the  altruistic courtesy  and wisdom of Microsoft) is a feature. Repeat:  https://encyclopediadramatica.se/It%27s_not_a_bug,_it%27s_a_feature#When_is_a_bug_a_feature.3F   It is  not a bug, it's a feature.  If you really needed to view your history of Wikipedia visits... then Microsoft would have made that simple - wouldn't  they? But as you find you can't, then you should accept their subtle guidance and be thankful for the 'features' that have allowed you to use on your computer – which you own but they control. --Aspro (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, and your source for the claim Microsoft do not consider this particular problem a bug (presuming there isn't a good reason why it's happening) is? Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh. So, your saying Looie, that Microsoft answer users complaints with just sarcasm. That interesting... I shall have to go away and reconsider everything they pontificate from now on.... Thank you Looie , you  have just opened my eyes to the truth. Halle-Looie-jah!--Aspro (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Do they have to develop a Firefox OS device?
Can manufacturers like LG, Samsung and Co. just put Firefox OS on their Android devices or do they have to develop something for the new Firefox OS? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The most important drivers are likely already in Linux or they likely wouldn’t have bothered, so there probably won’t be a lot of hardware assembled specifically for Firefox OS alone (same situation with Android, really). ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome font problem
I'm giving Google Chrome a try - I can't say I'm particularly impressed or disappointed so far, but there is one specific issue that (I hope) will be easy to fix. On some pages (this, for example), IE9, IE8, and an ancient version of FireFox that I have on my old machine, display the text correctly in Arial. Chrome, however, is displaying the text in Times New Roman, presumably a default setting of some sort. How do I fix this? Tevildo (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your page uses basefont, which is a nonstandard HTML element, to set the font to Arial. Many browsers will not render the text in Arial font because the tag is not correct, according to standard form HTML.  The W3C Consortium's online validator found numerous other bugs that I did not catch by visual inspection: 504 Errors, 6 warning(s), which may also increase the likelihood that the page renders differently between various browsers.  Nimur (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It’s not nonstandard so much as tremendously outdated. More relevant, perhaps, is that the page in question is incredibly nonconformant. Browsers do their best in such situations, but can’t be expected to render things exactly as intended. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. In the bin it goes. Tevildo (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

synchronized block in java
The general form of synchronized block is

class table

{

.......

void printTable(int n)

{

synchronized(obj)

{

......

}

}

}

Here obj means object of table class or object of any class.

If we write this in place of obj ,then an object of table class can’t access the synchronized block from two different threads.

MYDOUBTS:

1)Is it possible to write name of object other than table class in place of obj?

2)If write other object’s name other than table class in place of obj,what it means?

3)Then which object can’t access the synchronized block simultaneously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanihup (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Objects do not access synchronized blocks any more than they do anything else; threads are the only agents that take actions. Moreover, synchronized blocks (or methods) have no identity: there is no notion (relevant to synchronization) of two threads being in "the same synchronized block".
 * It's simple, really: when a thread enters a synchronized block, it locks the object for that block. That object is what you called  ; it can be an object of any type, and can be the result of any expression (so it can vary between different entries into (lexically) the same block).  (It's implicitly this when a method is declared synchronized.)  With the exception of , it is guaranteed by the language that no other thread may lock the same object (that is, enter a synchronized block whose expression evaluates to that object) until the first thread exits the block (normally or abruptly).  There are also associated guarantees about the visibility in one thread of another thread's actions that are meant to give the "obvious" behavior when threads share data via synchronized blocks.
 * (The numerous synchronization questions are getting tedious; any respectable Java book answers them.) --Tardis (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)