Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 May 19

= May 19 =

Disable Nvidia Optimus so that the integrated Intel graphics card is always used
Many new laptop come with Nvidia Optimus where it automatically switches between the Nvidia graphics card and the integrated Intel graphics card. I don't play games so I don't need the Nvidia graphics card at all, so is there a way to Disable Nvidia Optimus on Windows so that the integrated Intel graphics card is always used? This way I would get better battery life and less chance of the Nvidia card failing and taking the whole logic board with it.

I googled around and 99% of the pages are about the opposite of what I want to do i.e. they want the Nvidia card active all the time for better performance.

From the Nvidia Optimus page it seems like it's off by default in Linux so I can exactly what I want on Linux, I just need the same thing on Windows.

And yes, it would be better to buy a laptop without any Nvidia stuff on it in the first place, but not many manufacturers make high end quad core 15" laptops with only integrated graphics cards unfortunately. Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a stupid question. If you don't do demanding tasks, as you claim, it will never really use it. Even if you disable it in Windows, it will still draw some power. Either way, the difference in power consumption is minimal. Of course, you would have found this out yourself if you had used Google.&mdash;Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Who pissed in your corn flakes ? It's a perfectly reasonable Q. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The first place I would look is in the UEFI/BIOS settings. If that fails, the second place I would look is the Windows Device Manager. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Laptop/Notebook BIOS'es are often very basic because you are not supposed to upgrade its hardware and therefor never have to tamper with BIOS settings anyway. If something is wrong you are supposed to use Manufacturer Services. Atleast from Manufacturer point of view. It's likely there is no option to disable it at all. Also dont expect Manufacturer support to help you with this. You are expected to use it as it is. --Kharon (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with 71.110.8.102. My laptop has switchable Intel/ATI graphics and you can choose switchable, Intel-only, or ATI-only in the BIOS settings. If there is no BIOS option, which is also possible, I would next try uninstalling the Optimus driver (from Device Manager) and replacing it with an Intel-only driver. The article says "When no software mechanism exists for switching between graphics adapters, the system cannot use the Nvidia GPU at all, even if an installed graphics driver would support it", implying that Optimus-unaware operating systems use only the Intel graphics. Windows without the Optimus driver would likely behave as an Optimus-unaware OS. -- BenRG (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you try disabling the nVidia adapter and/or display device via device manager? Just make sure your display is going through the Intel GPU otherwise you'll end up without a screen! RegistryKey(RegEdit) 06:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

resting a wiki api
Hello,

I am trying to use Wikipedia's API link on my webpage. Anytime I try to click a search on my page, it states, "You have clicked a broken link in your pen." This is the link I used = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=search&srsearch=content&srwhat=title&format=json. Can someone tell me where I went wrong? And, if this is not a valid link, how can I obtain one to link to a webpage I'm trying to code?

I appreciate the help.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Millsdee74 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have no experience with the MediaWiki API, but this page is the place to start looking for help. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you open the link and look at the result? It clearly states "Title search is disabled." Therefore, you cannot do a title search. 209.149.114.175 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May someone compile me spoof?
Hi there,

Can anyone compile me spoof? I use windows and visual studio doesn't support C99.

Here is the link:

https://github.com/madler/spoof

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.75.110 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Clang and GCC are both free as in beer, supported on Windows, and support virtually all of C99. See also the C99 article for other compilers that support it. I doubt anyone here is going to compile your code for you. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It might not be wise to rely on a random stranger to compile it, anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * TDM-GCC is a good GCC distribution for Windows. If you don't want to install another compiler, you could replace the code's few uses of variable-sized arrays with calls to _alloca. -- BenRG (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to stick with an IDE, you could use Code::Blocks, which runs on Windows and supports Clang and GCC. Otherwise, I'd recommend installing either Cygwin with GCC or MinGW/MinGW-w64 to compile C99 code on Windows. clpo13(talk) 20:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

TV antenna connector mystery
[This is an electronics question, not a computing question.]

I have a reasonably new digital television with what looks like a type F RF connector on the back for an antenna. But an ordinary piece of coaxial cable with a type F connector on the end will not connect to it. The reason is that the socket in the middle is not deep enough for the pin (actually, the solid inner conductor of the cable being connected) to be inserted.

It's as if this connector is not actually a type F connector, but rather, some kind of not-really-compatible descendent of a type F connector, that's intended only for use with some newer kind of, perhaps "digital", antenna.

Does anyone know what this connector might be, and what kind of antenna I'm supposed to look for to connect to it? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you tell us the make and model of the TV, so we can rtfm? It might, for instance, be a Belling-Lee connector socket, but from your limited description it's hard to tell. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Assuming it's a smart TV, it may be an RF connector for an external wifi antenna. There are several species of these. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Particularly a SMA connector, whose article says it "can be visually confused with the standard household 75 ohm Type F Coax Connector (diameters: Male 7⁄16 in (11 mm) circular or hex; Female 3⁄8 in (9.5 mm) external threads), as there is only about a 2 mm difference overall in the specifications. Type F cannot be mated with SMA." -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not at home and so don't have the model number, and I seem to have lost the picture I took. I had already Read The Fine Manual without enlightenment.  It's definitely not Belling-Lee.  I'm reasonably sure it's for "conventional" RF, not WiFi.  It might actually be SMA, though I can't imagine why.  I'll investigate further when I get home.  (Thanks, .) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your ordinary piece of coax with the type F connector attached, sounds like connector fitted incompletely. THe central conductor should not project too much. Obviously yours is projecting too much. Just snip bits off until it fits.--178.106.99.31 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Here is lk to fitting []--178.106.99.31 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To expand further... The center "pin" is not a pin. It is a wire. Coax is a wire surrounded by plastic. Optimally, it will have a metal shield around that. Then, more plastic or rubber. The F-connector is used for ground (assuming the cable has a shield) and to hold the wire in place. The wire itself should not extend past the F-connector. If it pokes out a little further, it should fit most connectors. If it sticks out a lot, it will bottom out in most connectors and you won't be able to screw down the F connector well. Similarly, if it is deep inside the connector, you might screw it down tight, but the wire won't make a connection. So, because it isn't a "pin", there is no harm in clipping it. 209.149.114.175 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys, but the situation here is that there's essentially no socket for that center wire to go into. Whereas a normal female F connector would look like this in cross section:
 *    |
 *    |wwwwwwwwwwwww
 *    |            ]   face
 * TV |    c========   of
 *    |            ]   connector
 *    |wwwwwwwwwwwww
 *    |
 * (where those wwwww are the threads on the outside of the barrel and <tt>c=======</tt> is the socket that accepts the inner wire), the one I've got is more like this:
 * <tt>   |</tt>
 * <tt>   |wwwwwwwwwwwww</tt>
 * <tt>   |            ]</tt>
 * <tt>   |           c=</tt>
 * <tt>   |            ]</tt>
 * <tt>   |wwwwwwwwwwwww</tt>
 * <tt>   |</tt>
 * So if I were to snip the inner conductor as you guys are suggesting, it would actually have to be up inside the threaded collar, which can't be right.
 * I suppose it's possible that this connector is simply defective. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Coaxial cable can be custom-crimped to any size or shape... it's possible that the manufacturer wants you to use only a specific connector - e.g., for an antenna or cable that they provided (or sell); and therefore, they have made the connector intentionally-difficult to use with commodity cables.
 * Or, they might have thought they were doing you a service by providing you one of these - a Push-On Quick-Connect F-Connector. You'll need a special coax cable (or adaptor) with that kind of connector - they're available in some stores.  You might want to look really closely for brand-compatibility - even though they are all supposedly "standard connections..." there is not great standardization for coaxial cable connectors.  There are hundreds of variations on the theme.
 * Nimur (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A few relatively useless thoughts. I assume the label on the TV's connector says something unhelpful like ANT. And the manufacturer should provide online and/or telephone support. My first instinct would be a Google search for "WTF is this antenna connector on the back of my [model here] TV?" &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, come on, Steve. What's the make & model number? I would not presume a defective socket and I'm puzzled that we have not read the manual yet. You'll also need to identify for us the location of the socket on the backplate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a Vizio E472VL. Here are two pictures of the connector in question.  You can kind of see that the hole in the middle isn't very deep.  The barrel is about 10.7 mm in diameter (measured across the tops of the threads), which I think is closer to Type F than SMA. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Manual seems to suggest it's a standard coaxial (RF) input. I'm more convinced than before that the input connection is intended for a "quick-release" coax cable / adaptor.  If that's not the case, you probably got unlucky and simply have an out-of-spec part.  Nimur (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Zooming WAY in on the photo in the manual, it does look like more of a dimple than a hole, very much like in your photos. I don't think you're out of spec, but which spec? 2) My Google hunting drew a blank, indicating that you're one of the first people to ever encounter this problem. 3) No other connection options I assume? You're stuck with coaxial RF? What device is on the other end of the cable? 4) If so, Vizio does have both online and telephone support, although I don't know how well they speak English. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (1) Which spec? That's what I want to know! :-) (2) Google drew a blank? Me, too. One of the first?  That's the part I don't get!  We've had this TV for 4 years, and AFAIK Vizio is a mainstream manufacturer. (3) What's on the other end is an old rabbit-ear antenna; we don't have cable, and we're doggedly trying to receive broadcast television.  (We had another solution -- too embarrassingly kludgey to admit -- but it stopped working, thus this question now.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaving us with the Vizio support path, as painful as that is. Much better to work with your Wikipedia buds down at the Reference Desk. If you go that route, we'd be interested to know what comes of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suspect that it's a standard F-type connector with a broken pin from a previous installation stuck in the female contact; or, of course, it could be defective. I've seen quite a few cheap female BNC connectors where the contact hasn't been drilled out, so it's just a solid lump of metal - this may be the case here. Tevildo (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The F connector is screw assembled on the prepared coax cable, only. It can be easily re-assambled. Sorry, the text in the video is German. Two things to know: Do not shortcut the inner cable to the shield. Do not cut the shield. The pin in the connector is the uninsulated inner cable itself. Check the jack for lost parts of a former connected cable. If it is an industrial assembled cable or no thread in the connector, it might be not repairable. F-Conncetors are an inexpensive solution for simple and reliable RF connectors. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well, the good news is that I got it working, and the bad news is that in the end it was a silly little issue, that shouldn't have plagued me for years, and that I feel a little bit bad for wasting y'all's time with.

Here's another ASCII art picture, similar to the above, but rotated by 90 degrees. This time the threads on the side of the barrel are the <tt>3</tt>'s. (It was tempting to use &Sigma;, but you never know how many people have full-Unicode browsers these days.)


 * <tt>  face of</tt>
 * <tt> connector</tt>
 * <tt></tt>
 * <tt>  ___ ___</tt>
 * <tt> 3   ][  3</tt>
 * <tt> 3       3</tt>
 * <tt> 3       3</tt>
 * <tt> 3       3</tt>
 * <tt>-</tt>
 * <tt></tt>
 * <tt>    TV</tt>

Anyway, it looks like the female part of the connector consists of two leaves of metal <tt>][</tt> that are designed to grip the center conductor. But it looks like those two leaves have relatively flat front faces. And it looks like they were displaced just far enough to one side that the center conductor of the antenna cable I was trying to connect was hitting the front face of one leaf, making me think there was no deep socket at all.

But I managed to stick a pin into the socket at an angle, and find the pocket between the two leaves, and lever it sideways until it was more properly centered. And, finally, I've got the antenna cable properly connected, and the TV is receiving broadcast signals all by itself, without the kludgey external converter box that I didn't mention. But thanks so much for everyone's patient advice! —Steve Summit (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, this kind of mechanical-connector-fitting is a non-trivial problem. A lot of mechanical engineers are employed to solve the challenge of mass-producing connectors that actually meet the design-specification.  It's easy - perhaps even trivial - to draw a mechanical diagram or produce a CAD model for a connector-part that says how many microns wide the connector needs to be... it's a totally different challenge to design a part such that the tolerances are realistically deliverable by a multitude of vendors at mass-production scale.  It seems like your connector sheath mechanically dislodged by a tiny little fraction of an inch - just enough to knock it out of spec.
 * Here's another connector that we're all-too-familiar with: the USB Plug form-factor mechanical guidelines. USB is even worse than Type-F, because its mechanical design explicitly requires deforming a soft piece of metal so that the connector slides "snugly" into the socket.  There are entire chapters of the specification document that explain what you have to do to meet spec, bending the metal sheath by the correct amount without bending the metal too much.  You have to specifically qualify various metal alloys for brittle-failure, for repeat insertions and stresses... imagine what this does to cost-of-manufacturing - for a minor part that most people don't even care to think about!
 * Nimur (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is yet another example of how Vizio fails 6 sigma. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)