Computing desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

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.

February 7[edit]

which processor is better[edit]

which processer is better intel or amd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.147.239 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you would have to be a lot more specific than this to get the answer you require - here are links to some comparison sites [1], [2] - which is better depends on which ones you are comparing and what criteria you wish to compare, a particular task or tasks, or power usage, or longevity/coolness, ---- _nonsense ferret 01:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, I dare say most would say with AMD you get more “bang for your buck” than with Intel, but there’s more to it than that. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't about better but Intel's chips are holier ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a speed comparison for the various current chips Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

try cpuboss.com for the ultimate comparison guide. at first glance it's overload, but if you focus you can select whatever aspects appeal to your particular needs. (it's free, of course). Gzuckier (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do edit conflicts get reported[edit]

Why do edit conflicts get reported — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.250.56 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because the person who experienced the edit conflict notice felt that despite a conflicting editor having already pointed out something they might have pointed out, their effort should still be presented; or that despite their effort, they are not prepared to alter their response based on what was added in the interim. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for information addressing edit conflicts on more than just talk pages, see also Help:Edit conflict. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I get an edit conflict, I want to quickly try to post again, before I get yet another edit conflict. This means I don't have time to read the conflicting post, which might make mine redundant. Therefore, I add "(ec)" so others will understand. StuRat (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my own curiosity, is that at least in part motivated by the knowledge that historically browsers both crash, and also unreliably or not at all recover? ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also because I want to finish my post and move on. For example, I might be posting between moves in an online game, and want to get back to the game by the time my turn comes up. Getting edit conflict after edit conflict doesn't help. StuRat (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Heh :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Windows XP Mode eventually be disabled?[edit]

Once Microsoft stops issuing security updates for Windows XP, what will become of Windows XP Mode? --anon. 71.183.139.124 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Window XP operating system, then no, it will still be usable, it just won't receive any more updates. If you mean some type of Windows XP emulation on another operating system, then you need to tell us which O/S you meant. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I mean this. --anon. 71.183.139.124 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP Mode is a feature of some editions of Windows 7. The FAQ says (unsurprisingly) that support for the virtual XP ends at the same time as support for other versions of XP. However it seems extremely unlikely to me that it will actually stop working; Microsoft would take a ton of flak for that. -- BenRG (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would they force XP to stop working? They'd have to release additional software to instruct the system to stop working, and in many or most cases they'd have to get it onto computers without consent from the users, which they'd have to have installed without users' intentional coöperation in some cases, and that would amount to malware. The outlash would be far greater than it would be if they'd installed some odd sort of auto-destruct timer in the operating system, since furthering your ends by means of malware is generally illegal. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they could add something to Windows Genuine Advantage which would verify that each Windows installation is valid, using the internet, before it would boot. And, when Windows XP is not longer supported, any request from a Windows XP computer to verify authenticity would be refused, and the PC would then refuse to boot, since authenticity could not be proven. (I'm so evil, I really should work for Microsoft.) StuRat (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

In this brave new world where Apple can unilaterally revoke end users' rights to run iOS software, it's hard to know what to expect. But Microsoft, at least, is still scrutinized pretty closely for this kind of thing, and even if they weren't it would make no sense to disable XP Mode since it would just drive customers back to real XP, or failing that to Windows 2000 or 95. They wouldn't be using XP Mode if they didn't need it. -- BenRG (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep a copy of Virtual PC around the one and only purpose of which is to run copy of Windows 98 under which I run a Windows 95 program from a company that disappeared many years ago. I'd guess you'll be able to run something like hat for XP for quite a few years yet. It is quite convenient - I don't need to start up the operating system just start the Virtual PC which is very fast. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J04414489, undefined, Wsearch.php, etc.[edit]

I just discovered WP:5000 and have been amused to see pages near the top that are obviously getting lots of non-human traffic; a good example is index.html, which is probably produced by bots searching for http://en.wikipedia.org/index.html. I was confused by a few entries, however:

What's Wsearch.php, and what does it do? I have no experience with PHP, so I can't understand why a bot would search specifically for this command.
Searching Google for "2MASS J04414489" returns nothing except pages that discuss 2MASS J04414489+2301513, a small faraway star. Why would bots go for this so much, either with the full name or the truncated one? But how likely is it that an unrelated topic would have precisely the right arrangement of characters?
Undefined gets lots of hits; do lots of pages use /undefined as some sort of 404 error page?
com/fluendo/plugin/KateDec.class is also on the list, and unlike the .php thing, I have no clue at all what this does.

Thanks for your help! Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind on 2MASS; I followed WhatLinksHere and found that the WP:5000 talk page discusses it as a likely coding error for something that was supposed to retrieve the star's article. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Undefined" is probably another coding error: many programming languages permit variables to have undefined values. If a user asks a script to retrieve a Wikipedia page without specifying which page, the variable storing the name of the page to retrieve will have an undefined value, and a poorly-written script in a weakly-typed language will simply convert that undefined value into the name "undefined" and ask Wikipedia for that article (a well-written script will see that undefined value and ask the user which article they want). "null" (#2890) and "(null)" (not on the list) can be the result of similar mistakes in C and related languages. --Carnildo (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

special effects doubt[edit]

if i shoot a feature film with Canon EOS 7D or RED and do vfx, performing matte painting and compositing etc. (using after effects, nuke, pftrack), will the special effects be in coherence with the footage-without-special-effects when screened on theatres or should the vfx part be processed further to make it compatible for the big screen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either they will be or they won’t; that is the name of the game in special effects. It is less a limitation of software than technician. That said, many people are quite willing to accept less than photo-realistic special effects, just as people are willing to accept stories about German or French people who all inexplicably speak in English (yet still use some words in their own language) :p. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flipora.com[edit]

I was just wondering if the website Flipora.com is a spammer. I've recently received a couple of emails apparently from people in my address book along the lines of: "[contact's name] wants to follow you. Is [contact's name] your friend?" followed by a yes/No option. I asked one of the people concerned about it earlier, but they seemed unaware of it, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks in advance. 31.54.151.30 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As useless as some sites might seem (LinkedIn also comes to mind), providing users the ability to send email requests for various reasons is not what I would technically call the clear action of spammers. Spammers can, however, easily abuse such services. In any event, virtually every email address will always receive unwanted mail, be it truly spam or not. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cat5e specs[edit]

I recently purchased some network cable from a Chinese supplier, and despite the markings, I believe it to be counterfeit Cat5e (if that is the proper term to use). Suspicious of its construction, I opened the sheathing and found that the wire pairs had only a few turns per foot instead of several turns per inch that I find in another cable I have on hand. I am looking for a standard or other reliable reference that specifies the minimum turns required to satisfy cat5e requirements. The reference in the Category 5 cable article is anecdotal. Does anyone have a better reference? Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Websters New World Telecom Dictionary says "3-4 twists per inch" for cat5e. EIA-568-B.2 simply says that the twist lengths should be picked so the cable complies with its specified signal characteristics (the standard specifies capacitance, resistance, loss, crosstalk, and propagation delay); it does specify pair colours and some mechanical parameters. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Would it be fair to say that a cable with 4-6 turns per foot would have a snowball's chance in hell of being spec compliant? (There's no shielding, no filler, or any other mitigating elements.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about shielding or filler, but do you mean that each twisted pair has a twist only every two or three inches? If so, then it does sound inferior and unlikely to meet the crosstalk limits. My cheap Cat5e has only about two twists per inch. The interweaving of the twisted pairs is less frequent, of course. Dbfirs 12:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look at the cable and measured the turns. The cable is labeled "--- MADE IN CHINA COMAUTER(sic) NETWORK IEEE568B NETWOPK(sic) CABLE CAT5E 4PAIR/24AWG ---". The colors are not quite standard. I measured the twists at approximately 7.5 turns per foot for the orange/black pair, 6.5 turns per foot for the green/light-green pair, and no perceptible turns at all for the other 4 conductors - blue, light-blue, grey, and white. The conductors themselves seem to be a bit light for 24AWG. In contrast, my reference cable, purchased by-the-foot from a building supply, has turn rates of about 30, 25.5, 21.5, and 18 per foot for the orange, green, blue, and brown pairs, respectively. This is somewhat tighter and in a different order than that referenced in the Category 5 cable article (after you do the conversion) - evidence that the manufacturers have a fair degree of variation in cable construction. So, would it be reasonable to conclude that the Chinese cable could not possible be compliant? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cat5e specifications do not include a minimum twists-per-inch requirement, but your reference cable will minimise crosstalk more readily. I suppose if the cable has passed the Cat5e tests, it can be labelled accordingly, but you will probably have to install it carefully to maintain the speed you expect. It sounds more like Cat3 or plain Cat5 cable to me, but it is possible that it has been tested and found to (just) satisfy Cat5e, in which case you would not have a legal right to return it for refund. Are you planning a long run that needs high speed? For short runs at average internet speeds, you may not notice much difference between this and Cat6 cable. The quality of the installation and termination can make more difference to the speed than the construction of the cable. Dbfirs 23:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i was planning about a 50 foot run from my cable modem and primary router to a second wireless router better placed for optimum whole house coverage. I think I'll abandon the Chinese cable. Even if it worked, I do not want to introduce it as a something I will wonder about every time I get a flaky internet connection. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a really long run, but sufficient to pick up significant crosstalk, so it's probably a wise decision. If you are buying new high-quality cable, and wonder what to do with the cheap Chinese cable, it would be interesting to run it in parallel (as a backup), then compare speeds. (I, at least, would be interested in the comparison.) Dbfirs 08:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]