Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 September 2

= September 2 =

PCIe slots
I was looking at the spec sheet for a computer. It has: What does the second line mean? Is it a x16 slot but is only wired for x4? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 half height PCIe x16
 * 1 half height PCIe x16 (wired x 4)
 * 1 half height PCIe x1
 * It means that, although it acts as a x16 slot, it's actually only got 4 wires. This means a x16 card will work, it'll have a slower bandwidth than if you connected it to one of the true x16 slots. drewmunn talk 10:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The PCIe article mentions 4x speed in a 16x slot, but I didn't know if this was the same thing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

HTML 5 and IE10
Hi, when I try to play the video at Greenland's Grand Canyon in IE10 I get a message "For a better video playback experience we recommend a [HTML5 video browser]" and the "play" button remains unresponsive and nothing plays. I have read elsewhere that IE10 does support HTML5, so should it work? The word "better" also suggests that it should work (in some way), so what's up?

(Please note that I am not seeking advice to use another browser, not nor asking for advice about which other browsers might play the video.) 86.179.4.11 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have IE10 on hand to check (only 9); but here's the HTML5 compatibility "score sheet" - and IE10 ranks low (compared to other browsers...) Also, in IE9 I get a dialogue asking me if I want to save or open the file, and if I click open it opens in winamp (my default media player), which plays nothing then gives me an error... just checked in Firefox 23 and all I get is a tiny vertical bar with an X at the top... no video. Obviously it's having some problems. -- .Yellow1996. (ЬMИED¡) 18:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Try again; it seems that this edit may have fixed it. It seems to be an odd and unrelated glitch... 86.179.4.11 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fixed; just tried it and it works. -- .Yellow1996. (ЬMИED¡) 01:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The HTML5 spec covers a lot of different tags, and Internet Explorer, being IE, supports one or two, and in its own way. One of the tags it doesn't support is the Video one, so you can't use it to watch HTML5 video. Some browsers will play the video even if they don't support HTML5, but again, IE isn't one of them. I'd suggest using Chrome; not only does that support the video tag, but it also accepts many industry standard tags and conventions that IE ignores completely. As with every person I come across who uses IE, I'd never recommend it, and I'd always recommend changing to something else. drewmunn talk 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but it seems you did not read my note that I am not seeking advice to use another browser, not nor asking for advice about which other browsers might play the video, which I specifically included so that people would not waste their time with unneeded advice. 86.179.4.11 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weighing up the amount of time it took to write reply versus the amount of time I'd spend as a developer trying to make a site accessible via IE, I'd rather encourage anyone using IE to switch. Anyone who says they're using it illicits the same response from me. drewmunn talk 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I already know that some people dislike IE. It is tiresome to be continually told this when it is irrelevant to the question. 86.179.4.11 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you wouldn't have these issues on better browsers. IE has improved over time, but still doesn't touch the others.  As tiresome as it may be, there is a reason people are suggesting you switch, and it isn't to piss you off: it's to give you a better user experience. Mingmingla (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know from past experience that any question about IE tends to elicit "you should use another browser" responses rather than actual answers to the question. I am extremely familiar with these opinions and the reasons for them. However they are totally irrelevant to my present purpose, which is to establish whether IE10 ought to play Wikipedia video. That is precisely why I asked people not to bother with the usual rants (not that I am characterising your response or Sonicdrewdriver's as such). 86.179.4.11 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Really, I think that there's so many different browsers out there; people should be able to find which one(s) suit them best and use them, even if that browser happens to be Internet Explorer. -- .Yellow1996. (ЬMИED¡) 01:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true. The problems come when it doesn't do what the user wants it to. Mingmingla (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. But if someone is determined to stick with a certain browser, there's always a workaround to get it do do what they want. Well... most of the time... ;) -- .Yellow1996. (ЬMИED¡) 01:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed since IE10 does support the HTML5 video tag and uses system (Media Foundation) codecs (although I'm a little uncertain if it's all or only approved codecs), all you have to do is install appropriate codecs, as Microsoft themselves have no problem telling you (linking to ) for VP8/WebM support. This may still not help with sites which only use Theora, and I'm unclear if IE10 can support Theora, it was supported at one stage  but I'm not sure if that continues and can't find much about either that or a Media Foundation Theora codec (although I didn't look that hard). As I said below, other than a few sites doing so primarily for legacy reasons but perhaps occasionally because of mistrust of Google, VP8 has pretty much taken over as the theoretically royalty free codec which is likely a big reason it's hard to find out about Theora. I believe all WMF videos should be available as VP8 unless the transcoding hasn't happened so it should be much of a problem here but I'm not entirely certain. There may be plenty of reasons to move from IE (for me it was the tendency of IE to lose stuff I was writing when going back although it pales to iPad Safari), but it's questionable if HTML5 video support is one of them considering the history and politics here and suggesting it is without providing full information is I presume the sort of response the OP considers unhelpful and let's not forget the open didn't even ask 'can I get it to work' but simply 'what's going on/why doesn't it work'. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I left because I found it lagged a lot, and I just wanted to try something new. Actually, Wikipedia is pretty much the only thing I still use IE for (just out of familiarity; and of course - what viruses/problems will you get by editing WP? Not impossible per se, but very rare.) In addition to that minimal usage, my main browser is Firefox (currently 23) and I also have Lunascape. -- .Yellow1996. (ЬMИED¡) 15:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Internet Explorer 10 doesn't support HTML5 tag, the solution will be to find another website that has the content in a way your browser does support. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IE10 has some limited video tag support. Videos seems to indicate that Wikipedia wants Ogg Theora videos, which IE10 doesn't support, at least not 'out of the box'. Unilynx (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The WMF actually supports both VP8 and Theora with server side transcoding between the two as the only two codecs promoted for HTML video claimed to be patent unencumbered (well with Google's patents being available under a free licence) and therefore theoretically always royalty free but IE supports neither by default as with Safari. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For all those above lecturing about the evils of IE or IE10, it would be helpful if they actually knew what they were talking about. As people keep highlighting HTML5 video) yet as Unilynx has inidicated IE supports the video tag and has since IE9 (2011). It doesn't support Theora or VP8 without addins but nor does Safari. And really whatever people may think of the patent and open source issue, with iOS and other mobile devices being one of the pushers of HTML5 video and lack of hardware acceleration (Android) or simple lack of support (iOS and older Android), outside Wikimedia projects H.264 support is generally far more important than VP8. Yet Firefox only supported H.264 on Windows by default (presuming OS support) on version 21 (2013) and something similar on OS X with AFAIK Mozilla previously being reluctant to support it even using the OS provided codecs as they currently do, Chromium still doesn't, Chrome has for a while but Google has threatened to remove it. It's no wonder the OP is annoyed if you are not only offering advice the OP specifically asked you not to, but your advice is just plain wrong. (And yes it's probably helpful to know this sort of stuff which is mentioned even in our article if you're a webdeveloper, more important in fact than the OP learns the evils of IE.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know all of the above, but I deemed it not to be important to the question as asked. Yes, IE does have partial support for the video tag, but it is significantly more partial than other popular browsers. It's severely limited compared to that of Chrome (which has the best HTML5 support cross-platform for all tags that I've come across in testing), so I suggested that. Although Google has threatened to remove certain container support, they haven't yet. As there is no standard required format, it is suggested that either H.264 or Theora is used in video tags, and it is preferable that both are made available. Chrome supports one of the above, but IE doesn't. In my mind, and it's something I know has been discussed somewhat previously, there is little reason to fill up WMF's servers with data to specifically support IE, say, when the number of users are minimal compared to those who are using supported browsers. Bundle that with the fact that certain other Wikipedia features don't work with IE, it's logical to suggest editors consider another browser to enrich their experience. I don't really take kindly to being told I don't know what I'm talking about; I'm a qualified web developer and software engineer. Weighing up the options, I don't believe a user who wants information as requested needs to know the background behind the scenes, when switching browsers is by far the simplest solution. drewmunn talk 09:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But you provided information which the OP specifically asked you not to provide (suggest the OP change browser) and also provided completely wrong information "One of the tags it doesn't support is the Video one, so you can't use it to watch HTML5 video". The OP themselves has indicated they did not find your information helpful, and frankly I'm not surprised. It's not a personal attack to provide information to you which you consider useless, when you yourself have already indicated that there is nothing wrong with providing such information by providing such information when it was specifically requsted not to provide it (and you no where even said you did not want to hear about what you should know as a web developer). And if you're going to use your credentials to try and give weight to your arguments, there's nothing wrong with someone pointing out that whatever your credentials, you seem to not actually know what you should know (note that I never suggested you were not a webdeveloper). And between assuming someone said something they knew to be untrue or was simply mistaken, assuming someone is mistaken is generally the more good faith assumption so a fair one to make. If you're going to effectively lie to the OP to try and justify an answer the OP specifically asked you not to provide, and not even provide helpful information to explain their actual question, than use a lame excuse about the actual accurate information is "background behind the scenes" which the OP doesn't need to know, this is frankly more offensive than anything I have said.
 * Your new claim that IE support of HTML5 video is far less than other browsers ignores the fact as I pointed out of several other popular browsers, one of them didn't support the far more important HTML5 video codec until very recently and one still doesn't support any more than IE. And while you did suggest Chrome, no where did you tell the OP to make sure they don't use Firefox or Safari or Chromium, in fact the tone of your response indicated that any browser will be better which considering that issue was HTML5 video is questionable considering the history. And AFAIK, Google have not yet withdrawn the claim they intend to withdraw HTML5 video support for H264 even if they seem to be tarrying a lot with it. Do you intend to visit the OP personally and tell them if Google does remove it? If not, I have no idea how you can claim to the OP one of the key features you're highlighting namely HTML5 video support may one day be far worse than IE10 outside Wikimedia projects, is stuff they don't need to know for the browser you specifically recommended.
 * P.S. In case it's unclear, while the original question was about HTML5 video on a WMF project, Unilynx was the first person to even highlight the fact that it depended on which codec you were referring to and the WMF used one (actually 2) so it seems fair to discuss the wider HTML5 video support issues with regard to earlier answers. P.P.S. Outside the WMF and a few like minded projects, Theora never really took off and appears to be dying in favour of VP8, even Youtube doesn't support it so the claim Theora and H264 support are what is important is questionable.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would have been better to say "The HTML5 video tag is not supported by IE in the way Wikipedia uses it". I'm going to disengage, because I could do without getting into an argument with someone right now. I gave the poster the information required to resolve their issue, and it was their decision what to do with that information. If they found it useful, then they could use it. If not, it hurt neither me nor them. Now, however, I'm discouraged from posting such advice here because it seems I've made an enemy of you for no reason. The fact that IE is the most restricted of HTML5 video-compliant browsers is true; it shares that title with Safari, each of which only supports a single codec. Theora may be dying, but it's still a suggested format, and is supported by as many browsers as VP8 and H.264 at this time. We seem to disagree over the status of your claim that I know little about my area of expertise, so I'm going to step away from this, and probably delete this page from my watchlist so I'm not drawn into something like this again. drewmunn talk 10:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.P.P.S. I didn't bother to read the above response since frankly I tire of this pointless discussion, which could have be answered without lying to the OP, as for example I did so here Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 June 28, and heck you could have still thrown in a 'change browser' response in addition without having to lie to the OP and maybe the OP would have been less unhappy with this if they actually got a proper explaination and weren't lied to. But I just wanted to point out that while H.264 is used a lot more on the web for HTML5 video, some may argue that it's actually not so important because probably most sites except Apple ones which use HTML5 also generally support Flash Video or perhaps occasionally Silverlight which on Windows you probably have both whereas some sites like the WMF and other parts of the open source community reject any of these plugins and of course patent encumbured video formats in favour of ones which should theoretically be royalty free forever. So in that regard Theora and WebM (I mentioned Theora here since these are also sites which may use Theora and not WebM for a variety of reasons including never bothering to change after they first supported it) could be regarded as more important than H.264. Personally I disagree but it's a legimate argument which I realise I didn't mention before. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.P.P.P.S. I also wanted to say that while I did consider the possibility the response was unintentionally misleading despite the person responding evidently knowing the background, I can't see how anyone with a decent level with English could not consider "The HTML5 spec covers a lot of different tags, and Internet Explorer, being IE, supports one or two, and in its own way. One of the tags it doesn't support is the Video one, so you can't use it to watch HTML5 video. .... I'd suggest using Chrome; not only does that support the video tag, .... As with every person I come across who uses IE, I'd never recommend it, and I'd always recommend changing to something else. " would be intepreted to mean 'IE10 doesn't support the HTML5 video tag' which I think we all acknowledge is wrong. Particularly considering the actual answer and so what it should mean is something along the lines of 'IE10 supports the HTML5 video tag but similar to Safari, by default due to a lack of system codecs it only? supports H.264/MP4 and doesn't support the VP8/WebM or Theora/Ogg codecs and containers which the WMF uses. There's no codec or container required in the standard so IE10's lack of support is in terms of feature set no worse than the Firefox 20 and current Chromium default on Windows of not supporting H.264 which means they will work with wikipedia but not many other sites out there. '. If it's claimed it really was not appreciated how misleading this would be and how the comment would be interpreted then I accept that and apologise for assuming there was an intention to mislead in my response to DrewMunn after they clarified they already knew what IE and the other browsers support (but not for all the rest which I feel is fair). And to be clear, I'm only referring to Drewmunn here, I presume the other respondents were simply confused about what IE10 supports as I initially assumed Drewmunn was. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What does SSF mean in this URL?
http://www.oregonlive.com/comics-kingdom/index.ssf?feature_id=Mgoose&feature_date=2013-09-01 — Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The .ssf extension, and some ssf comments in the html, seem to emanate from a closed-source content management system used by a number of newspapers. I have been unable to determine which one - I don't think it's any of the big ones described in this article. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)