Computing desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 26

slow computers

I know that over time, that a computer will naturally get slower, but i would like to know some tips on how to make it go a little faster. I've had this computer for almost four years now, and its starting to get really slow. Opening up programs will take forever, especially when i'm just turning it on. Can you guys give me any tips on making it faster? I've already done things like defragmenting my disk, but i would just like some advice from other people that know a lot more about computers. Thanx in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.107.117 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you want to boot faster, go to Start, Run, type in "msconfig", and then go to the tab called Startup. Uncheck any items that you don't want to run when the computer boots up. Be very careful not to uncheck anything important to boot up. Knock out items like quicktime. Also, defrag your hard drive. Useight (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also make sure you dont have any viruses adware spyware etc.--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And go to the Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs. Then uninstall any programs you don't use. Useight (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could go with the slash-and-burn method: back up all your files, erase the hard disk, and reinstall from the system recovery CD. Your computer will be every bit as fast as it was when you got it. --Carnildo (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for top posting, but that means you would suggest against installing MS Windows Vista on a baseline configuration MacBook. Is that right? Kushal^t 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jamba juice

jamba juice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.116.61 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? Paragon12321 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite flavor is Mango-A-Go-Go. But I don't see how that relates to computer questions. Useight (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Start -> Control Panel -> Jamba Juice and pick your settings from there --f f r o t h 08:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Apple > System Preferences if you are using OS X. Personally I think the OS X Jamba Juice settings are a lot more sensible than the Vista ones. And everyone knows you can't have Jamba Juice on Linux without spending a few hours hacking it first. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vista defaults may not be very sensible but at least you can configure them.. --f f r o t h 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape

This game is strange can some one tell me the point of it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.156.191 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See timesink and weeaboo --f f r o t h 08:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That second link has....issues. Can you tell us directly what you were trying to link to? -SandyJax (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weeaboo... Sort of like an Otaku. --Mdwyer (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of any video game? You never gain anything in long run besides better hand eye coordination. Doppelganger (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worm.Win32.NetSky

My PC seems to have caught a virus by the above mentioned name, but my anti-virus program isn't picking up the file. How do I fix this? 75.50.237.22 (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for the name suggests that this tool from Microsoft ought to fix it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. You see, I got a new computer for Christmas and have been busy trying to relocate a lot of online data I lost during the switch. I guess my computer got a hold of a codec or active-x file that diagreed with it. In any event, this fixed the problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZTE USB Modem

Hello Wikipedian ! I am using ZTE USB MODEM 3100.Are there any deriver for Ubuntu ?I try the ZTE website but cant find any .If any one have please tell from i can download it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.70 (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does lsusb say about it? --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 09:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAT-16 and Long File Names

Dear Wikipedians:

While working with the FAT-16 partitions on my USB stick, I observed something that perplexed me (In a pleasant way):

I thought that old DOS systems only allowed 8.3 filenames. And FAT-16, being the workhorse fs of old DOS systems, should likewise only allow 8.3 filenames. Yet I discovered that I am able to store LFN files perfectly on FAT-16 partitions on my USB stick, and if I boot up under real DOS, then those files show up as (first6letters)~1.txt or something like that.

So how can FAT-16 store long file names for Windows?

Thanks.

76.65.12.133 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When long filenames came out, every file ended up having two names -- its short name and its long name. Since there's nowhere on a short-filename-only filesystem to store the long names, they're stored in a hidden file in the same directory, which contains the mapping between short names and long names. This sort of technique is known either as a "disgusting kludge", "neat hack", or "elegant engineering solution", depending on your proclivities. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, except that the long filenames are not stored in a hidden file, but in additional directory entries (disguised as volume labels so operating systems unaware of them would ignore them). --Dapete ばか 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long file names are stored on FAT volumes in the same way regardless of whether it's FAT12, FAT16, or FAT32. The original Windows 95 didn't support FAT32 but did support long file names on FAT16 and FAT12. Windows 95 OSR2 and later shipped with a version of MS-DOS that supported FAT32 but not long file names. -- BenRG (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand now, so LFN has nothing to do with FAT 12/16/32, and FAT 12/16/32 has nothing to do with LFN. It's all an elegant hack of mutual ignorance between fs and overlaying OS. Wow, that's very interesting. Now my further question would be: is LFN natively supported under NTFS/ReiserFS? Or is it just another interesting hack? 76.65.12.133 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way long file names are stored on FAT volumes has nothing to do with the size of each field in the File Allocation Table, which is what the number after "FAT" means, but it is specific to the FAT file system. It uses weird invalid directory entries which depend on the details of FAT's directory structure. NTFS was designed from the start to support long file names (up to 255 UTF-16 words, I think), and it also supports optional short file names for compatibility with MS-DOS and Win16 apps. ReiserFS is a Unix file system and just has file names (up to 255 bytes, I think). There may be a hack to store short file names on a ReiserFS volume, but if so it's unrelated to the FAT hack. Early Unix file systems had fairly restrictive filename limits (14 or 15 characters), but it was never entrenched enough to require a permanent backward-compatibility hack. -- BenRG (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. now I totally understand. 76.65.12.133 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overconfidence

Well apparently I was too confident in my abilities to mess with computers. I took apart one of my old computers and now I seem to not be able to put it back together again. Is there a source online I can use? Thanks, schyler (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will [1] help? Kushal^t 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that will do nicely. schyler (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. Good luck! Kushal^t 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Bridging networks

Hi...I have a laptop with a wireless network card. I use this to connect to other laptops in ad-hoc mode. I also have a wired LAN which I use frequently. Is there any way to bridge both the networks?? I know that wireless and wired LAN can be somehow bridged in XP but I don't know how to do that. Also is there a special way for the same in Vista?? I want to bridge the network so that I would be able to play multiplayer games with users of both the LANs simultaneously. Please help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyushbehera25 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Windows XP, try this: Go to Control Panel, Network Connections. Select the two connections in question (click on the first, Ctrl+click on the second). Right click and choose Bridge Connections. --Bavi H (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my first spam

For some reason my hotmail email account now gets some spam every day - mostly in the junk folder, mostly it appears from someone with dyxlexia with viagra to sell... My question is - is there any way to stop it coming, or reduce the amount - it seems to come from multiple addresses.. ??87.102.89.223 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've put up your e-mail address somewhere - take it down. Don't give your e-mail address out all over the place (like when registering at weird sites). If it really annoys you and you can afford it (if relatively few people know the address and and it's not very important, and it'd be easy to inform them that you're switching) - get a new one. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to get rid of spam is to just hit "delete" when it comes in. When it gets to the point where that doesn't work anymore, change your e-mail address. Annoying? Sure. Apocalyptic problem? Not really, not on an individual level. (The collective effect of spam is great, the individual effect is not.) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent dyslexia is an attempt to trick the spam filter. Kushal^t 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Pobox address (about $15/year) which relays to a Gmail address (free). Pobox and Gmail each do some automatic spam filtering, and between them they catch nearly everything, with very few false positives (every few weeks I find something in Gmail's spam folder that shouldn't be there). —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Because of stylistic similarities in the spam I'm getting I'm assuming it's all from the same source - I was hoping there would be some way of blocking this source.. I'd like to avoid to having to trawl through a spam junk box just in case something legitimate is also in there. I press 'mark as unsafe' which is supposed to block the sender but messages keep coming. Maybe they'll eventually run out of mail addresses. Thanks for your responses.87.102.126.26 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look the leap of actually reading the hotmail help page - realised I wasn't reporting the spam just blocking it.. I'll try the new method I've found and see if that helps. Thanks anyway87.102.126.26 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They'll never "run out of addresses" because most of the addresses don't exist anyway. Unfortunately, the SMTP protocol (which handles internet e-mail) allows you to send messages and put anything you want in the return address. (see SMTP#Security_and_spamming for technical details). Spam blacklists will never really work, heuristic approaches become just an arms race between programmers and spammer (and sorting through spam boxes to find the few pieces of legitimate mail is about as time consuming as just deleting the spam as it arrives—I see no advantage). Legislation only confines those within their jurisdictions, and even then is hard to prove and prosecute. In the end only universal use of authenticated protocols will probably produce any real results. Until then, just click "delete." --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... Does this also mean that it is possible to send mail and pretend that it came from some address that does exist? This can have results much more devestating than spam. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, most of the spam is sent with forged address. Spammers have a lists of millions of email addresses. They pick one address from the list to be used as receiver address, and another address to be filled in "from" field. That is why you often get "returned mail" spam. If the original spam was sent to non-existent address and your address was used in the from field, you will get the returned email. Also, this is the reason why you usually can not block the spammer using blacklist. - PauliKL (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about the way organizations use email for communicating. If someone receives an email from an authoritative figure with a request for an action to be made, I think the reported sender address is assumed to be sufficient for determining that the mail is legitimate. Apparently this is invalid since anyone can pretend to be anyone else and give bogus orders. Oh well, one more item to the list of stupendously wrong things with the world. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

One solution I enjoy is to pretend that you're signed up to an avante-garde poetry mailing list. "Pyrophosphate melodious ponchartrain pussy / crotchetybegging annex spayed dolomitic ductwork", far out, man! --Sean 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try Steven Frank's coping strategy. -- BenRG (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ray tracing hardware

Does anyone have (links) to the ray tracing hardware ARTVPS sells http://www.artvps.com/ I've tried the site but couldn't find much detail - I'm looking for info on what exactly their ray tracing processors do - how much hardware acceleration is built in, as well as technical details..

(Also there's no artvps page here should anyone want some work to do..)

Thanks87.102.89.223 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Startup

Hey Guys. I have a HP desktop, and when I start it up it goes to a black screen with a flashing underscore for a while. It then boots Vista. If instead of letting it go to the black screen I go to the boot menu and select the hard drive, it goes straight to loading Vista. Is there anyway of telling it to do this by default? Thanks for your help. Tiddly-Tom 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you need to change your boot priority. Can you say what order the boot priority is in your BIOS? Kushal^t 20:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would I tell? Tiddly-Tom 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I found it. It is 3rd in the list, after floppy and CD, I tried to move it up but it would not move! Tiddly-Tom 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed the boot menu of an HP in a while, but if I recall correctly, you just hit enter or space and move it up and down... If that doesn't work you could try and de-select the other two so that the hard drive is the only option left. --((FLYINGNINJAMONKEY)) ^((BANANA!)) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be demeaning but if moving hard disk up does not work, try moving floppy disk down. Maybe that will work. Kushal^t 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimp or Inkscape bug?

I followed the tutorial here to make a nifty radial pattern in Inkscape but when it's opened in the GIMP, some of the stripes appear dark red instead of with their gradient. This is a link to the SVG (you can open it in Inkscape or GIMP to see what I mean} This is a link to a screenshot of the GIMP with my file open

Is this a GIMP or Inkscape bug? The image displays correctly when opened in Firefox AND, interestingly, when I rotate the radial spokes around, the dark part moves as well. There's something about those particular radii. ----Seans Potato Business 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks wrong in Safari—a lot of the spokes don't render at all. It looks fine in Firefox. My guess would be something strange in rendering the SVG. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's wrong, but here's a remake: new.svg

I deleted all the clones (except for the "main" spokes), then I grouped the four spokes, then rotated them (with Ctrl to snap angles) and stamped them with the space bar. (You have to let go of the Ctrl key to stamp. Just remember to hold the left mouse button.) --Kjoonlee 10:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu demo cd

i tried booting from an Ubuntu demo cd, and this is my first ever experience with linux. how come .exe files don't work in ubuntu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A MC' asdf (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.exe files are intended for use in Windows. If you download WINE for Ubuntu, you can run .exe installers and use some .exe programs (check here for compatibility information). --((FLYINGNINJAMONKEY)) ^((BANANA!)) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"executability" of a file really shouldn't be described by file extension- even plain text can be executed with the proper interpreter. That's why in linux, any sort of file can be executed.. it's a filesystem permission called +x that you set on executable files like scripts and binaries. --23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froth (talk • contribs)

RAM stuff

Okay, so I'm going to update my computer's RAM eventually and had a few questions. The Dell that I'm currently using has 512 MB RAM (it has two separate slots, though, and only one is being used), and I'd like to bump it up to 1 or 2 gigs. I found this on Newegg and like the looks and price of it; however, I know absolutely nothing about RAM except that I'd like more. How can I tell if it would be compatible with my computer? And how do I know if it can actually handle two gigs? According to the hardware information I could find (I'm running Ubuntu 7.10 and I'm a first-time user, do I don't know exactly where to find the type of RAM and all that), I've got an Intel Celeron CPU 2.60GHz processor. Could it handle this type of RAM? Or do I need more information? I'm lost. Thanks in advance, --((FLYINGNINJAMONKEY)) ^((BANANA!)) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newegg. Rules. --f f r o t h 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... Well that certainly helps. :P Thanks a bunch. Can you think of any recommendations for good brands? I got a bunch of results (all slightly more expensive and a little slower that the one I was looking at), and I'm not entirely sure if any one brand trumps the others. --((FLYINGNINJAMONKEY)) ^((BANANA!)) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The brands don't matter much. Every once in awhile you'll get a dead chip but I don't think that has to do with the brand at all. In any case you can usually exchange it if it doesn't work. Just get the cheaper offerings—you're just throwing money away if you don't. --140.247.11.35 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks everyone. I think I'll go with this one, as it's cheap and bumps my RAM up to a gig, which is just right. --((FLYINGNINJAMONKEY)) ^((BANANA!)) 23:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The danger with bad memory isn't outright failure, it's dodgy bits. If none of the bits work it's only a minor hassle, but a single bad bit can cause significant loss of data and hair before you figure out the problem. It's probably worth running Memtest86 on new RAM. It is (or used to be) included on the Knoppix live CD, which is a generally useful thing to have around. I don't know whether the big names like Kingston and Crucial are actually any more reliable or whether the extra cost all goes to advertising. -- BenRG (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses, you do NOT want to buy cheap RAM. If you don't get solid, name-brand memory like Corsair then you're looking at a significant risk of major system instability resulting in widespread data loss and your system generally getting borked. Buy quality RAM. --f f r o t h 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I've never seen anybody have trouble with cheap RAM, at least any more trouble than they had with name-brand RAM. I'd want to see solid independent evidence that "cheap" RAM was any less reliable before I start believing the advertising of the "name brand" guys (who of course are happy to claim there is a difference). --24.147.69.31 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"EVERYBODY KNOWS" that cheap ram is the worst thing you can do to an otherwise solid rig. You wouldn't buy a cheap PSU would you? --f f r o t h 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well, if you think "everybody knows" is going to be convincing to me, well, let's just say that "everybody knows" quite a few things that aren't true. In all of the tech support work I've done over the last decade-and-a-half, I've only once ran into a problem that ended up having buggy RAM as the culprit. I don't think it's a big issue these days, to be honest. The comparison with the PSU is quite inadequate—PSU architecture can very widely from manufacturer to manufacturer; to my knowledge RAM architecture does not, as long as you've got the same type and all. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, wintec is cheap so don't build a killer rig out of it, but it's generally pretty stable memory and you shouldn't have a problem --f f r o t h 01:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dealram also has a system selector and will let you comparison shop, though you're unlikely to find anything much cheaper than Newegg. crucial.com also has one, and there are probably many more. You typically have many more options than these system selectors will show you. I just tried looking up my Thinkpad T40 2373-xxx on Newegg's and it gave me only two options, both of them 512MB PC-2100 SODIMMs costing $30. It didn't show me the 512MB PC-2700 SODIMMs which cost $25 and work just as well if not better; it also didn't seem to know that this system can accept 1GB DIMMs (I've got one in there right now). In general I would check your system's official specs (you can probably download this from the manufacturer's website) to see what it supports. Recent systems take either DDR (with names like PC-2100 and PC-2700) or DDR2 (with names like PC2-4200) and either DIMMs (desktops) or SO-DIMMs (laptops). Only the SO- and the PC- or PC2- part matters; the four digits are the speed, which doesn't affect compatibility and probably won't noticeably affect your system's speed either. -- BenRG (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Lots of stuff to think about. Thanks all, you've been very helpful. --((FLYINGNINJAMONKEY)) ^((BANANA!)) 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]