Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2015 February 16

= February 16 =

Taking 3D pictures with iphone 6 plus
Why dont Apple put two cameras on the back of the larger Iphone 6Plus and allow the users to take 3D photographs? 175.45.116.65 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask Apple. We can't speak for them. However, it would cost more, so that's a good possibility. Also, most screens aren't capable of displaying it so it wouldn't really be particularly useful. If you want to do it badly enough though the Nintendo 3DS can do it.  Mingmingla (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My HTC Evo 3D can do it. Very badly.  It's a useless gimmick, far as I see.  Good stereo work still requires much larger, more expensive hardware. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lenses should be as far apart as human eyes to get a realistic effect. You can ask about all sorts of other features that are not there, why not coloured flash light?  Where is the keyring loop?  What about a cigarette lighter? What about air pressure or oxygen sensor? Where is the free to air TV receiver? What about an infrared filter or rotatable polarizing filter on the camera? When you consider the answers you will also know why no dual cameras for 3D. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that with a tiny bit of care, you can take 3D photos with any camera by taking one picture, moving the camera about two inches off to the side, then taking another one. So long as nothing in the scene moved while you did that, you have a "stereo pair".  If you use a program like photoshop or GIMP to take the red plane from one photo and the green and blue planes from the other and combine them back together, then you have a photo that will magically pop into 3D when you wear a pair of those cardboard red/cyan glasses.
 * To do it properly, you need to move the camera in a straight line, parallel to the plane of the lens and without rotating it...but sliding the camera along a horizontal surface will do that well enough.
 * But of course, 3D photography is a niche requirement - probably only 1% of potential phone buyers would want it - and that tiny increase in sales wouldn't cover the additional cost and complexity.
 * 3D imaging of all kinds goes through cycles of enthusiasm, then loss of interest with the general public...I think we're currently in a slump.  3D TV's were all the rage, now you can't buy one anymore!  3D movies were great for a while, but now people are losing interest in those too.  I believe there are good technical reasons why this is the case - but that's for another question!
 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree interest in 3D TVs isn't that high (I don't know if it's true they were ever all the rage, manufacturers were hoping they would help slumping TV sales but in reality they never got that much interest). But are you sure you can't buy 3D TVs? This would rather surprise me since it's very easy to buy them in NZ. And from what I can tell, many 4k TVs are 3D e.g. . It may not be a feature many of them bother to advertise for the aforementioned reason, just one they add to tick the box, and apparently one major manufacturer in the US has indeeded abandoned 3D, but I'm not seeing much evidence 3D TVs are particularly hard to buy, in the US or elsewhere in the developed world. (This search at a US retailer  seems to illustrate the point. It finds many 3D TVs, and also for whatever reason, perhaps because someone mentioned 3D in a review or something, some non 3D TVs like I think the Vizeo 4K. So they do seem to be sold. However the retailer doesn't seem to have bothered to implement any filtering for 3D TVs other the not very accurate search, even though there are a number of other filtering options. I presume because there wasn't that much interest.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We bought a 55" TV here in the USA (Texas) about three weeks ago - and I didn't see a single one with 3D capability in any of the half-dozen stores we visited.  Our local cable TV long ago stopped transmitting shows in 3D - so you'd have to find other sources of 3D shows.   As far as I can see, it's 100% dead in the US.   I'd heard similar stories in the UK.   The problems are that poorly done 3D gives people blinding headaches - and even well-done 3D has problems with live-action shows because the camera has to be focussed at a certain distance from the eye - and our brains get confused (and therefore puke-induced and headachey) when we're trying to focus some imagery that our eyes are telling us is at some particular distance, but isn't.   3D movie theaters avoid that to some degree by keeping the screen far enough from your eyes - and by mostly using 3D in computer generated animations where the focus can be perfect over all ranges.   This is such a fundamental problem, that 3D is essentially doomed from the outset until we can get a better way of dealing with focus.  SteveBaker (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But the obvious question is, how did you assess that none of them supported 3D? As I said above, 3D has become a feature that many higher end TVs may include, but don't advertise much because it isn't in demand. A highly detailed spec sheet would obviously say, but even for that I wouldn't be sure (and if it's not highly detailed, there's a fair chance it would suffer the same problem). I can't comment on shop assistants in the US, but I suspect they're no different from much of the world and often have limited knowledge of the products, so would also not be a trusted source of knowledge on whether the TVs support 3D. Telling whether a TV supports 3D from outward appearance is difficult. If it's passive 3D, you might be able to tell from the way it diffracts light in certain cimrcumstances. You may be able to tell if you look close enough, but I would be less sure of this. You could also obviously tell with the right polarised glasses too provide you aren't too far away. For an active 3D TV, it would probably be impossible, and I know even when they were more popular many didn't come with shutter glasses so looking in to the content wouldn't help. You should definitely be able to tell from the full manual (not necessarily a quick sheet though), or from going through the TV menus but many people don't bother to do this when just browsing, or at least only do this for a select few TVs they're interested in. The demise of 3D channels is something I agree with (and they never existed here in NZ), but this doesn't affect what I was addressing namely whether or not it's as hard to find 3D TVs are you suggsted. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pocessor
which Processors better intel dual core 2.4Ghz or intel core 2 duo with the same speed & why..219.94.83.162 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's ever been a processor branded just "Intel Dual-Core". If you mean Pentium Dual-Core, then I think the Core 2 Duo is better. ("Pentium Dual-Core processors were positioned above Celeron but below Core and Core 2 microprocessors in Intel's product range.") -- BenRG (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you meant Intel Core Duo, then Core 2 Duo will be better (not that surprising, but there have been odd cases in microprocessor development where a next generation has been slower on a clock for clock basis). BTW, while Pentium Dual Core of the same generation would usually be worse than the Core 2 Duo of the same generation, things would be less clear cut if you're comparing between generations. I.E. a Wolfdale (microprocessor) Pentium Dual Core of the same speed would probably come out on top in most benchmarks over a Conroe (microprocessor) Core 2 Duo. (Beyond the lesser cache, which often didn't make that much of a difference, and bus speed, which may have made a small difference but varied from generation to generation anyway, there may also be feature differences. E.g. The Core 2 Duo may have had some form of x86 virtualization, but possibly the Pentium Dual Core wouldn't. Maybe even between generations.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Computer issues started after running spyhunter
2 days ago I ran spyhunter the anti virus program and canceled the scan half way through and then was prompted to restart my computer which I canceled. I restarted my pc a little later and then while rebooting a prompt came up which had 3 options to choose in this order, spyhunter, vista, win xp/win7. I wasnt quick enough and let it boot in spyhunter and then it said it was missing the .fix file and then rebooted back to the 3 option menu. Then I choose win7 and windows 7 booted up with a couple slow loads and everything was fine. Now today when I exit out of firefox after using my pc for almost 24 hours I am now unable to use anything, I can only use the programs which are already open like firefox, my music player program, and skype. I cannot open programs or files of any kind. I restarted again and the same problem occurred. I dont know what to do and I just wanted to fix this so I dont loose all my documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.42.31.250 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Try what's suggested in the last post on this page: go to SpyHunter's settings, uncheck everything, close the settings, then uninstall SpyHunter. -- BenRG (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC

Kylenator21's suggestion, the program is probably a virus! uninstall it

Is the Inspect Element button classified as "hacking"
I am being called a hacker because i use the inspect element button and i explain that i am changing how my computer looks at the code, is this correct?Kyle 14:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Kylenator21


 * Maybe yes in one sense but not in the usual modern pejorative sense.   D b f i r s   14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it's all about your purpose for doing it. Assuming you're using the term "hacker" in the sense of some evil-doer who tries to break into someone else's computer - then the "inspect element" feature is just a tool, no more so than a mouse or a keyboard.  I use the feature all the time for debugging my own websites - and occasionally to figure out why someone else's website isn't working so I can use it properly.  I'm quite sure that neither Google nor Firefox would include a feature like this if it was a tool that was solely there for the evil badguys.


 * The significant distinction here is that the person who owns the website that you're inspecting deliberately sent the HTML/JavaScript/CSS code down to run on YOUR computer.  All "inspect element" does is to provide you with an alternative way to view what they sent you.  You're not doing anything to their computer - you're merely interacting with code on YOUR computer.   That means (IMHO) that you have not crossed the line into interfering with THEIR computer...which might indeed be called "hacking" (in the evil-badguy sense).


 * Of course what you do with what you discover might cause you to cross that line.  So, if, for example, you discover a set of parameters that can be sent to their HTTP server like this:

maintenance.php?action=edit&section=28


 * ...and decide that you might try giving it a negative section number or an SQL command wrapped up in quotes as the 'action' parameter - in an effort to see if you can break something...then you've just crossed that bright line into hacking because you're trying to do something to THEIR computer.  But it wasn't "inspect element" that did that - it was your application of the knowledge you obtained from that tool.


 * Whether the fact that you did this constitutes proof that you did something illegal would be to stray into the realms of "legal advice" and we're not allowed to do that here on the Wikipedia reference desks...so consider this to be a moral viewpoint, not a legal one!


 * Now, if you're using the other sense of "hacking" (which I, personally use) - the sense of learning something deep about a complex system and using that knowledge to produce something better out of it - then it's certainly likely that "inspect element" would indicate that you're engaging in this kind of activity.  However, I very much doubt that this is what you're talking about here!


 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is calling you a hacker? If you are being accused of violating a law or a rule then all that matters is how that law/rule defines "hacker", not what random people on the Internet think it means. -- BenRG (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Will an RS-422/RS-485 Adaptor connect a telephone to a computer for a fax program / 66 year old man needs simple information.
I recently bought a new Dell Desktop that didn't have a telephone port installed on the back for FAXING!

I contacted Dell Technical Support & they told me to buy a RS-422/RS-485 adaptor & I wouldn't need a modem!

I purchased the adaptor, from the link Dell supplied, at Amazon.com & it arrived without instructions on use for telephone faxing.

I connected it, plugged in the phone & tried to send a FAX without any luck or modem from the information on the computers screen!

Fortunately, I had a dialup modem from a laptop purchased when we lived in the mountains without DSL or Cable internet services so I can FAX!

The Adaptor has the two phone jacks so I want to know, in simple terms, if I have a use for it & didn't know the proper way to connect it to my Windows 7 FAX program.

Searched this site for information but couldn't understand what was presented!

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.136.225 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you tell us how your computer is connected to the internet ? Presumably it isn't via an old phone modem, since then you would have a phone jack.  Does it have something similar to a phone jack, but wider ?  If so, that's an ethernet cable, and you can probably send faxes that way.


 * Also, faxing isn't much used these days. Typically you might scan a document into your PC, attach it to an email, and send it that way.  Is this a possibility for you ?  StuRat (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can necessarily send faxes through a modem. The series of beeps and squawks that are used for data transmission via a modem are not the same as those used by fax machines.  Some modems are capable of being told to send those tones - but it's far from definite that they can.   Furthermore, it's not at all obvious that modern fax software would be able to talk to such an archaic machine.


 * The two phone ports on those old modems were so that you could plug one into the wall socket and then plug your landline phone into the other one so that you could still send and receive calls. If the ports aren't labelled then you can probably connect either of them to the wall socket, it doesn't matter.


 * I think you're going to find it very hard to get this to work - fax machines are rapidly heading into obsolescence (and the sooner, the better IMHO!).  These days, your best bet for sending faxes is to use an email-to-fax online service...http://faxzero.com/ for example (I've never used this one - it was just the first to pop up in a Google search!)...there are other services that'll allow people to fax you on via a phone number they manage, and will email you incoming faxes (http://efax.com, for example).   If you don't need to do this a lot, that's probably the best answer.    If you do need to do this a lot, then there are many document scanners/printers that incorporate a fax capability, and which will allow you to download faxes into your computer or email them to you.  This makes sending a fax as easy as printing a document and you shouldn't need any special software.  Also, since most printers are WiFi enabled these days, you'll be able to send and receive faxes from any computer - even from your phone.


 * The ridiculous part about it is that almost always, the person sending the fax composes it on their computer and then faxes it from there - and the receiving person would by far prefer to get the document electronically and only print it out if they need to.  So using the incredibly horrible fax protocol to do it is just stupid.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * RS-422/RS-485 doesn't make sense to me. Would you give us the part number you ordered from Amazon. --  Gadget850talk 16:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You mention having an old dial-up modem. Is it free-standing, or built into an old computer. Have you attached it to your new computer? If so, how? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, now that you mention it, I don't see how an RS-422 to RS-485 adaptor would have anything remotely to do with this problem. RS-422 is a longer range version of RS-232, which is the old "Serial Port" interface.  Those ports were dropped from PC's at more or less the same time that modem/phone interfaces disappeared...RS-485 is a really obscure data transmission standard - nothing to do with phone lines.  This makes no sense at all.    Something like this: $11 widget on eBay makes more sense.  USB ports are everywhere - and it works with Win 7. SteveBaker (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My SWAG is that it is one of these converters: [//www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=RS-422%2FRS-485+rj-11&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3ARS-422%2FRS-485+rj-11] If so, then they are of no use. The RJ-ll ports are serial not phone. --  Gadget850talk 17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's correct that modem support for faxing is so rare. I'm fairly sure even for hardware modems, once you reached the v.90 era if not before, the vast majority supported faxing (at least group 3/14.4kbps, I think higher speed support was a bit spotty). And definitely in the soft modem era, I think it was even more unlikely it wouldn't support faxing, presuming you had the right drivers, although it would probably be class 1 . And I'm pretty sure most software should still support fax modems, Windows still comes with Windows Fax & Scan which does. I do agree it may be worth considering a multifunction device. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Fax_modem has some sparse details, every modem I had over 14.4 k had fax functionality. Also many businesses, governments and NGOs are still sending plenty of faxes. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also add that I don't think driver issues are that likely. For a USB soft modem, although there has been some chipset changes primarily I think for cost reasons, these don't seem to have been that significant (AFAIK v.92, modem on hold etc were basically the last real changes to modems) and so at least on Windows, it's likely most would be supported up to Windows 8.1 (and probably 10). Heck even for v.90 soft modems (which may or may not support v.92 but this probably doesn't matter to the OP. Even for a serial port modem (or other non soft modems), these would probably still work presuming you had a serial port, although I wouldn't be quite so confident and I'm not sure I would recommend them. (I fooled around with modems for faxing in 2010 and these were just old stuff I had lying around.) At the very least, if this was something that you wanted to do, it's probably worth just plugging it in and seeing if it works, you don't have to do a lot of work to try and make it work, and the time taken could easily be about the same that you would spend buying a new modem from eBay. Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

THANKS EVERYONE! Obviously bought a useless item! At my age I couldn't afford the "full meal deal" from Dell so kept my 10 year old Dell Photo 924 AIO Printer/Scanner! The dialup modem is from Dell about 1" square X 4" long & plugs into a USB Port. Works fine for my limited purposes. I'll keep the RJ-11 Adapter so my Grandchildren can take it to "Antiques Road Show" someday! I'm connected to the Internet through an Ethernet cable that runs to a DSL Modem/Router that's connected to a designated DSL phone line! The router also services a small Home Wireless Network. I am amazed I got this all set up! We live in a rural area that doesn't have cable services so this is the best we can do. In closing, if Microsoft would have continued to support XP I wouldn't be in this situation! Forced to buy a new computer, learn Windows 7 & try to figure out how to do all the things I knew before with the old desktop. Really appreciate everyone taking the time to explain this to me!70.233.136.225 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but do you have a solution ? What are you trying to fax, exactly ?  If it's something already on the PC, you can just email that directly (you could cut-and-paste text or add anything else as an attachment).  If it's a hard-copy (printed paper) you need to fax, then you will need to scan it first, then add it to your email as an attachment.  If you can't get any of this to work and you don't need to fax things very often, another option is to go to a copy center and either scan it and take it home on a flash drive, say, or just fax it directly from there. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My Gmail messages are truncated on right side
There's just white past a certain point on the right side of each message, and scrolling right doesn't reveal the right side of the messages. I tried a reboot, no help. Any ideas ? (Using Google Chrome on Windows 7, 32 bit.) StuRat (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sound suddenly stopped working
So the supposedly fancy sound (Beats Audio) has stopped working on my HP laptop in a very odd way. The sound will just cut off ten minutes after start-up and then the mute button won't light up or function at all and for whatever reason, the sound button functions will lag on-screen (Press volume up or down and there'll be no on-screen reaction until a minute or two later). Headphones won't work either. I tried updating the sound drivers (which were up-to-date), rolling back, and reinstalling. Nothing. I even did a factory reset (which I've been meaning to do) and the problem is still there. Sometimes a weird sound (a distorted Windows error tone that sounds a bit like a mix of spraying water and a laser) will play if I'm attempting to fiddle with the Sound Mixer, but then nothing, or if I put on a show, it will play a loud distorted sound for a moment and then return to silence. So, anyone know what in the nine circles of Hell this is? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 27 Shevat 5775 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it's the sound card itself that's causing the problem. The 10 minutes after start-up symptom makes me think it's overheating.  Try starting it up cold in a very cold place (like an unheated garage) and a very hot place, and see if it craps out sooner in the hot place.  If so, then we know it's temperature sensitive problem and can investigate ways to cool the laptop better.


 * Also, does the laptop feel hot ? And does it have a temperature monitor you can check ?


 * If the laptop's only a little hot, you might be able to cool it just by putting it on a metal surface that will conduct the heat away. (Placing it on top of fabric is the worst option.)  StuRat (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that as well re: it might be the sound card, but my computer generally runs cool and silent (marvellous cooling system for air-cooled). The only time it's ever been warm and loud was whilst playing graphics-intensive Inquisition and even then it just lagged a bit. I haven't played that for two months though and it's mostly been used for word-processing, anime, and shows. Anyway, I did try putting the computer in the ~35 degree (Farenheit) garage for a bit and then ran it and all that happened was the fan was incredibly loud and then it did a BIOS update (which I don't recall this computer ever doing). The problem's still happening though. I had the computer on for a about a half hour, went to play a show, and there was about a second of sound and then nothing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 28 Shevat 5775 00:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Could be some type of poor connection on the sound card causes it to overheat when used much. I'm afraid it sounds like it will require a new sound card, or at least somebody to open it up and fix the connections, either of which will be expensive.  If it's an old laptop, I'd be tempted to just use it without sound and get a newer replacement laptop for things that need sound. StuRat (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a laptop, so the sound card would be integrated onto the motherboard. If it has failed (and I have seen sound chips blow up) then the options would be to have HP repair it if it is under warranty or to add a USB sound adapter and disable the onboard audio. --  Gadget850talk 09:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)