Computing desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

biggest p2p networks nowadays (besides bittorrent)

All the data I can find on the subject of comparative size of the various p2p networks seems OLD. Can someone track down some current or semi-current figures for comparative size of the various networks by number of users? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are scarce.. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entire computer freezing when I click just about anything in IE 8?

Hello. My computer has taken to freezing most of the time when I click things (namely, links and the back button) in Internet Explorer 8. It freezes for about a minute or so, and when it unfreezes, the page I was going to is completely loaded already (it's as if it loaded while the computer was frozen, and the computer took a long time to be able to show it). When it's frozen, I can't access task manager, the start menu, etc. Caps lock won't even turn on. This freezing doesn't happen every time I click, and it doesn't seem to happen when I click things in other applications (even my other browser, Opera 11.61), either. I'm running Windows XP through Boot Camp on a Macbook Pro. Thanks for any help. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have some malware doing something unwanted. I suggest running some anti-virus scans, etc. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this makes any difference, but it actually is happening in Opera as well. I'm still running a virus scan. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't like IE - simple. I find it too prone to bugs. I'd suggest trying firefox, google chrome, or both. Easiest solution. 58.111.224.202 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I've tried to install Firefox on this computer, it's been prone to crashes for some reason. Even my portable version, which typically works fine on other computers, has had problems (though my portable version probably needs to be updated). I personally am doing a little bit of a boycott of Google products (I've developed a growing dislike of them recently), and I've never really liked Chrome's design, anyway. I also prefer to use IE for certain activities (like Wikipedia and SkyDrive documents). Either way, this no longer appears to be a problem restricted to IE. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two possible solutions:

Press CTRL + SHIFT + DEL and check the box to the left of Temporary Internet Files and then click on the button that says Delete. Restart IE and try again.
Press ALT + T and go to Internet Options → Advanced → Reset. Restart IE and try again.

—Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try downloading any available stability patches from windows update, if you haven't already tried that. Just curious, when you use the computer for non-internet activities, do you have bug issues as well? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what exactly fixed it, but it's not happening now. I did Best Dog Ever's suggestions, then shut down the computer, which is when it installed 5 updates. I rebooted this morning, and it hasn't frozen since. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of problems are commonly a result of not having enough available memory, forcing the computer to use the hard disk as memory, which is very slow. The ultimate cause, if that's what is happening, could either be that you have other things running on the computer that are hogging memory, or that you simply don't have enough RAM to properly support both IE and the operating system. How much RAM do you have on your computer? Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it would freeze, a couple times, I had task manager open (and had "Always on Top" checked), and it said that IE was using most of the CPU (though I have no idea if that might have changed immediately upon freezing). The Macbook itself has 4GB, but Windows only says 2.16GB. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting backup partition by accident leads to Windows failure

So I went to install Ubuntu on my system, but while playing with the partitions in Windows, I accidentally deleted both my HP_RECOVERY partition and the Windows recovery partition (it is a long story... don't ask), but not the Windows drive itself. I backed up only the HP drive. Now Windows won't boot at all for some reason! A few seconds into the boot, it very briefly (~.25 seconds) goes into a BSoD before rebooting altogether. And the Windows Recovery Loader fails too!

Needless to say, I am distressed (I have urgent need to use the Windows content for work on Monday). Help!

Ps. I am willing to pirate the material if I have rock because I have a legitimate copy of Windows on here anyway, and seriously fuck Microsoft for not providing a recovery disk with my new system. 198.228.194.241 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the error it gives in the BSoD is "a problem has bee detected on your computer, and Windows has been shut down in order to protect it." Or something similar. Turning off driver authentication does nothing to help. 198.228.194.241 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the store, buy a new hard drive, put it in your computer, install ubuntu on it, then get the stuff off the old drive in read-only mode through a usb adapter. Any attempt to boot the old drive is asking to screw it up worse than it already is. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how are you logged in right now? If you have another computer you can use, then take the hd out of the computer with the problem, and use a usb dock/adapter and file recovery tools to get your stuff off. Again, you're best off not trying to boot windows from that drive until you've safely migrated all your important files from it. Note that if you don't want to swap hd's, you can use a live-boot linux distro (Arch Linux maybe) that you can boot from a usb flash stick or from cd-rom. I'm assuming you know your way around linux already. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am using my smartphone. 198.228.194.241 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out what mint be the problem: I overwrote an extended partition in Windows. 198.228.194.241 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I've narrowed it down a bit. I plugged it into another computer, and the Ubuntu boot recognizes the partitions correctly but Windows 7 is out to lunch and can't recognize the data at all (it thinks it I'd an unformatted RAW drive). Can someone PLEASE help me with this? 198.228.194.241 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it BSODs, do you see (or remember) any numbers near the bottom? - Purplewowies (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really advise copying the entire partition of interest to another drive before doing anything potentially destructive, like booting the drive, though you've already done that so maybe doing it again won't make it worse. If this is an NTFS partition there are some Linux tools that can read it, so maybe you should just try to get your files onto your Ubuntu system. Or you can use another Windows system and file recovery tools. Generally when a file system has been scroggled into an inconsistent state, trying to mount it and use it "live" can mess up whatever is left of it really badly, so it's almost always best to use a second computer analyzing the drive read-only. There are even external enclosures you can get that have special hardware to electrically prevent the host system from writing to the drive, to keep you from messing up by accident. It should be enough to just be careful though. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How accurate is Wolfram|Alpha?

I frequently use Wolfram|Alpha for several different types of queries. Usually they are related to Math, places or dates. So far, I have had good experiences with it (although the number of topics "currently under investigation" is quite annoying). However, its article says that it has received mixed reviews. What do those people have problems with? I'm not exactly how accurate it can be, but there was one time I input "Derrick Rose", but it does not recognize him and instead gives information about the names Derrick and Rose. Is this the reason? And exactly how accurate are Wolfram|Alpha results? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try the search with the quotation marks ? StuRat (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. It really doesn't recognize his name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example that you give isn't an inaccuracy. It could be considered a lack of precision and recall. I would expect the numeric results of Wolfram|Alpha to be quite good (these are the folks who built a workaround for the Pentium FDIV bug into their software, way back when). As for the data about the outside world, it'll be as accurate as their sources are. I believe that they do indicate where their data comes from, so it's possible to investigate. Paul (Stansifer) 11:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Paul S says, the data you get from Wolfram can only be as good as the sources available. Also, bear in mind that WA grew out of Mathematica, and still has a mathematical bias. Whilst they are working on increasing the engine's knowledge of popular culture, it's obviously not perfect yet. Here is a blog post on the subject of NFL statistics, containing the information that "..we’ve also got data on basketball, baseball, and more coming soon. We know we’ve only scratched the surface here..." You can see the results of the recent introduction of NFL stats by searching Aaron Rodgers - the NFL equivalent of Rose - for whom there is much more information. Basically, WA is still growing - have patience and I'm sure you'll soon be able to find out all about your favourite basketball stars. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you give them feedback they may eventually get around to improving the results. I have had one of my several suggestions implemented. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all mobile phones get their clock automatically kept on time?

Hi there Ref Desk volunteers,

i have a quest which i think could end up helping to improve several WP articles, if the relevant contributors took an interest in it.

I am wondering how come that cheap pay-as-you-go SFR mobile telephone i recently used in France was unable to obtain the local time-of-day from the network, and i had to set its clock manually to the best of my ability. For the anecdote, a friend loaned it to me prior to my departure over there, and we loaded a bit of money on it online; the phone worked as expected upon my arrival in Paris. During my stay, i walked in an SFR boutique, asked the salesman that question, to which i got a "Well, don't expect a cheap 30-€ device to get its time from either satellite or Internet", which i feel certain is the wrong answer, as i feel sure that even the most elaborate mobile phone will get its clock set from the cell phone network, not from a satellite.

I have conducted a bit of research, and located the NITZ article which confirms my suspicion above, but NITZ is for GSM networks, and i have yet to locate a similar feature for other types of networks such as CDMA. To start with, i do not know which network protocols SFR uses or serves. The device itself is simply an "S (within a circle) by SFR". Being rather new to mobile phone usage, I was unaware that not all of them got their clock synched automatically.

I am fancying this research an interesting approach to the mobile telephone articles review, and, in addition to the answer which i am seeking, i would enjoy knowing that whomever took to this research left appropriate comments and questions in the several relevant WP articles.

Thanks in advance, and happy Easter Egg hunt?

--Jerome Potts (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think many networks just don't enable this feature. I've used GSM networks in Malaysia and New Zealand (and briefly in Australia). I wasn't even aware this was a feature that my phones supported or worked until 2degrees started here in NZ and I've spoken to people with similar experience. (And then I had to find a way to temporarily turn it off because they hadn't updated their NITZ for the daylight saving time changes here in NZ.) BTW the article suggests timing in CDMA2000 networks is much better supported which probably explains why many Americans are surprised that people using GSM networks often don't have similar experiences. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have a Nokia phone on the Orange network (UK) and although the time is set to "auto update" it is currently running 1½ minutes slow according to my radio controlled watch and I will have to change it to BST manually next weekend (unlike my watch).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My UK purchased mobile has never updated the time automatically in the UK. However, it would get a time update if I entered France, but not when I returned to the UK. It seems to be network (and country) specific feature on GSM networks. Astronaut (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they generally have 3 approaches to setting the clock: Automating updates from cell towers, setting time manually, or allowing the user to select which they want. Automatic updates may sound great, but, as noted above, you can't really count on the network to provide the correct time. And, for those living near a time zone border, the time constantly changing as they near different towers in the two time zones would be annoying, as would the time changing repeatedly during airplane trips. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5.25" floppy drives with a USB connector - find please?

I've seen 3.5" floppy drives with USB connectors so that we can move antiquated media to newer hardware.

However, I have yet to find the same but for 5.25" floppies. There could be some files from my early, early life to transfer to a modern laptop.

It may sound like trying to transfer the contents of an 8-track to an MP3 player, but with enough ingenuity and resourcefulness, it can be done.

Moreover, there are USB turntables for vinyl records that have been around longer than 5.25" floppies, so if said turntables can transfer that antiquated media, why shouldn't there be a device that'll transfer from a 5.25" disk? Thank you. --Tergigress (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some out there. Here's one example: [1] RudolfRed (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your hopes too high, though. My experience is that those disks become unreadable after they've been sitting around for a few years. The medium is not nearly as degradation-tolerant as a vinyl LP. Looie496 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing floppy drives and LPs is completely apples and oranges, in any case. Floppy drives store their data through magnetic fields. LPs physically scratch the waveform into the plastic. The latter is a lot more durable over the long run than the former. It's kind of like comparing a chalk board to a stone tablet — they superficially resemble one another but they have really different ways of storing the data (due to their different usage priorities) and have really different results when it comes to long-term durability. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Tergigress was implying a physical similarity of form between the two media, but merely a similarity of need to transfer data from media of comparable obsolescence.

On a purely pragmatic level, LPs were a standard medium for a lot longer than 5.25" floppies (let alone 8" floppies, a couple of which I have, still in working order the last time I fired up their machine, an IBM DisplayWriter), and the devices for playing them, mostly lacking rapidly evolving software, were not so quickly made unusable – I myself still have a couple of working record players and couple of hundred or so vinyl records (and even few dozen shellac 78s), which is probably not unusual for anyone middle-aged or older, so the demand for transferring from vinyl (or using it directly, gramophones are still made and sold) is still substantial, and catered for in the market.

By contrast, users of floppies were, because of rapid software and hardware advance (perhaps artificially accelerated by manufacturers), generally more pressed to transfer data (which in any case was usually less discardable than pure entertainment material) as the newer media became the norm. Consequently, what now remains untransferred is less significant in quantity and importance, so there is less demand for the function. Nevertheless, there is still some demand, which Tergigress has (as, come to think of it, do I), so affordable means (which RudolfRed has indicated) is not an unreasonable desire. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recovered 99% of what I stored on 5.25 inch floppy disks from 1980, after 30 years, so they don't all decay fast. However I used an old PC with the two kinds of floppy drive, and booted DOS from the 3.5" drive. No hard drive was needed. (these were pre IBM PC disks though so lower density). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bought a gadget on Ebay that converted IDE(?) cable and signal to usb for old hard drives. One such gadget may work on an 5.25 floppy drive. Btw, I still have in storage an old 8-track stereo that can record onto 8-track. I though it may be fun to play modern songs from 8-track for a practical joke some day.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]