Computing desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 22 >

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 21

Intel Xeon vs Core 2

Which of the two processor families is faster, Intel Xeon or Intel Core 2. EDIT: for PC'sJamesino 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impossible question to answer without knowing what metric/scale you're using the measure them. Do you mean raw frequency? Time to execute a standard process? General usage? 68.39.174.238 02:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the intel stuff price is generally a decent guide, whatever us newer and faster will be more expensive. Vespine 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Xeons for servers and Core 2s for PCs? If so, if you're getting a PC processor, Core 2 is the way to go. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even knowing the metric, it's impossible to measure. Typically, a Xeon is a version of a desktop processor with a larger cache and circuitry for multi-processing, so you need to know the model the Xeon was based on. --Carnildo 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC vs Workstation

Whats the major difference between a personal computer and a workstation?

Are workstations just more powerful versions of PC's?

Can a workstation do everything a PC can do?

Generally are workstations lots louder and hotter (temperature) than PC's?

Also, what is the fastest computer (non-mac) that everyday consumers can buy from major computer corporations?

Thanks. Jamesino 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the definition of Workstation comes from the UNIX world, where one would normally have a dumb text terminal connected to a UNIX server in the basement. If you're lucky, you had an X-terminal connected to the server. But if you were really lucky, you had a complete unix machine on your desktop, with a monitor, input devices, and sufficient graphics; it would be called a workstation (in comparison to a terminal or a server).

By that definition, a workstation is probably quieter and runs cooler than a server.

As for a comparison to PCs, I don't think those comparisons make sense anymore. In today usage, nearly any PC could be considered a workstation. However, the word is usually reserved for machines with specialized hardware, like larger monitors, graphics tablets, etc.

For your second question, I wouldn't even try to answer. There are too many dimensions. I could point you to the fastest clock-speed processor, but clock-speed doesn't necessarily equal speed in a generic sense.

Sorry to give you two non-answers, there... --Mdwyer 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're difficult to compare nowadays. Workstations are intended for complex technical tasks (in a factory, or laboratory for example) and will usually be part of a network, whereas PCs are general purpose standalone machines. The power of both depends upon the intended task. They aren't really that much different, some workstations will have features useless to a home user (Mass spectrometer any use to you?) or might lack features useless to a technical user (what use would a chemist have for a high-end sound system?). What exactly do you intend to do? For general home computing (typing, emailing, web browsing, etc) which is fairly undemanding, Dell et al are alright; for gaming, which is extremely demanding, try Alienware. I'd expect a workstation to run hotter and louder than a mid-range PC, but a gaming PC to be hotter and noisier than a workstation. The fastest PC is a hard call to make, it doesn't stay as any one model for long as competitors move to outdo eachother. Again, Alienware springs to mind, they are the first high-end manufacturer I can think of. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to trick out your box with strictly consumer components, go for:

- The highest-clock-speed core 2 duo you can find or a couple of Itanium 2s.
- As much DDR SDRAM as your mobo will support
- Two GeForce 7900 GTXs in an SLI configuration
- A redundant RAID 1 array of 15k RPM SCSI hard drives

--⁪froth^T 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifying "Non-Mac" is now rather moot if your asking about the fastest PC. Macs now use the upper end Intel CPUs, (Macs will soon have the Quad-4 Intel CPUs), and can run Windows natively. So if one wanted the fastest "PC" it currently could very well be the fastest Mac Pro machine running Windows. With a Mac Pro one gets everything, a very, very fast PC, a very, very fast Mac, and with the upcoming version of OSX 10.4.9 Leopard, a certified UNIX machine also. (Presuming OS 10.4.9 Leopard passes the upcoming UNIX certification test of the Open Group.) Zeno333 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also moot since you can't build a custom mac, and so you don't have access to performance components --⁪froth^T 03:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster was asking about computers made by companies, not building their own. Buying a Mac Pro Tower and specifying among different video card and hard drive components etc available from Apple would be no different than doing the same thing at Dell for example, or any of the many PC companies out there. Again, its moot to rule out the Mac Pro among PCs when searching for the fastest PC. One can rule it out after one finds a PC that may be faster, but to rule it out from the start has no merit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeno333 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Certain components like (I believe) the Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition are only available if you build your computer yourself or order it from a specialty retailer; apple doesn't carry it. Also the latest graphics card technology like the geforce 7950 and radeon x1950 is unavailable from apple. Since apple doesn't allow you to customize your machine (and no, selecting a build from their ordering website isn't what I'm talking about), the best tech isn't available to these closed systems. That's why I discounted macs --⁪froth^T 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you mean by Apple not allowing one to customize beyond the order options since one can add a variety of video cards easily after a purchase of a Mac Pro. Maybe the x1950 is a little bit faster than the x1900 which is available from Apple, but many high end video cards can easily be added to a Mac Pro after the person buys one from Apple. And as new cards come out they are also available if one chooses. Zeno333 10:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apples aren't impossible to customize. However keep in mind that most people don't want to ever have to open up their computer and are terribly scared of doing so X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 10:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I'm fairly sure that apple doesn't look kindly on any hardware that they don't directly support (anything that you couldn't get from the factory anyway) and there's practically no driver support --⁪froth^T 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't "look kindly" on it for certain features, but otherwise it's possible. On the latest Macs the CPU, RAM, hard drive, optical drive and (on towers) expansion slots are all upgradable. It might void your warranty for some parts (CPU, naturally), but it can be done. -- Kesh 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The highest end workstations in commercial production are probably the IBM pSeries (formerly RS/6000) running AIX or Linux on a POWER4/5 platform. These things generally fill highly graphically/computationally intensive niches that used to be dominated by SGI boxen running IRIX; geographical mapping and discovery, oil exploration, high-end CAD, etc. These workstations aren't even near the consumer price range, though... A fully loaded POWER5 based workstation will set you back about US$15k. Offerings based on Intel Core2, while great for graphics professionals and low-to-mid-end stuff, are fairly indadequate for the tasks that high-end workstations fill. Take a look: base workstation, graphics acclerator, overview -- mattb @ 2007-01-31T18:20Z

*drool* Those are incredibly nice systems. Droud 02:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vista high-def DRM

I hear that Vista's graphics drivers will refuse to play high-definition protected content (from HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray disks) if your monitor doesn't support HDMI handshaking or if you use unsigned drivers. I'm pretty darn mad at this stupid situation and don't want my computer's functionality restricted in any way.. is there any way to disable these content protection drivers from the get-go and just live without watching protected content? --⁪froth^T 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the answer, but this type of intrusion is why some people are going to Linux and dropping Bill Gates' junk. StuRat 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't knw either, but Mac OSX 10.5's DVD player app is supposed to play HD DVD and Blu-ray, so maybe you should become a switcher? I was, and I'm happy! :)--Ryan 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can decrypt the streams then it's either participating in the HDCP transaction or alternatively accepting a much lower-quality stream, exactly as all drivers will behave. Same applies to linux, unless we find some way to get around it (like VLC bruteforcing CSS keys to play DVDs). It's not windows's fault for supporting the technology as much as it is the studios' fault for demanding support. Then again if windows refused to support DRM then studios wouldn't have much of a market... --⁪froth^T 06:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD Digital Restrictions Management (which is AACS encryption I think) needs to be on every bit of hardware you want to use it on. That means it is needed on the HD-DVD drive (which should have it), the operating system (ie vista only), the graphics card (both HDCP and HDMI are needed) and the monitor (HDCP+HDMI again). If any of these are missing, you should get "fuzzy" pictures, about DVD quality.

The problem is that all those monitors saying "HD ready" actually only refer to HDMI only and not necessarily HDCP, so a "HD ready" monitor might not work at full quality with HD-DVD. However they will work at full quality with the HD-DVD downloads on bittorrent. Ironic really.

I think that's right (correct me if I'm wrong!) More here: anti-microsoft and pro-microsoft. --h2g2bob 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the torrents are just rips of the HD-DVDs (and I have no idea how they manage to rip it) that are encoded with xvid or h.264 or whatever. There's nothing to decrypt on your end. But my original question still stands: is there any way for me to force vista to recognize my drivers as compromised so it'll unconditionally refuse to validate for HDCP? --⁪froth^T 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you make some mistakes in you initial assumption. They will play, even if your monitor doesn't support HDCP, they will just downscale it so the graphics isn't as great. Second, they might not even do that. All such policies (downscaling, key-revokation, etc.) are completely voluntary things, and so far the content industry hasn't done any of it (I think they're afraid of getting sued if they did).

To answer your question, why would you want to? If you don't want to play HD-content on your computer, why not just not play them, why in the world would want vista to think you're a hacker? Doesn't make any sense... However, if you really wanted to, for no apparent reason, then you should....well.... start soldering on your graphics card or something, that would activate the tilt bit I think. Oskar 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for how they ripped, that's not hard really. The spec for AACS is public (there is no reason for it not to be) so if you have the keys, you can just decrypt them. Keys are given proprietary DVD/HDDVD/BluRay programs, so they are able to play the discs. Since they have to be stored somewhere in main memory, if you look hard enough you might find 128 bits that seems to be accessed alot. And, bam!, you now have AACS-keys. This is, however, not an ideal system. DeCSS actually cracked DVDs (good on ya, Jon!) so you don't need any keys. Not so now. Presumably people will become better at hiding their keys in main memory, and then it will be harder. Oskar 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AACS was already cracked. It's very likely that software like VLC Media Player and mplayer will be able to play HD-DVD and BRD content regardless of Vista's built-in content protection. What you should be worried about is the new licensing, designed to make you purchase a new copy of Vista when you upgrade your motherboard or processor! Droud 13:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. DVDs uses a single key, and that was cracked. AACS uses different keys for different players. It is not cracked, but the key for DivX Player has been discovered. Future disks that are printed will not allow this key, and the DivX software will be updated, fixing this issue. See http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ for a long discussion of how AACS works and what has and has not been cracked. Frankly, I don't see VLC supporting HD-DVDs any time soon - VLC currently does not support any DRM except CSS. --h2g2bob 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I want to do it is because I belive my new monitor may support HDCP (and it's hooked up through DVI). I don't want to accidently open protected content and have it work; I refuse to use any kind of DRMed media whatsoever. Also I'm not going to try to flip the tilt bit; I don't want to damage my computer.. I didn't know that nobody has actually implemented downscaling yet, but I don't mind a blank screen instead of downscaled media. --⁪froth^T 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty hard-ass stance to take, but you have to respect a genuine boycott I guess :). In that case I have a suggestion: as we all know HD-DVD/BluRay content is seriously encrypted, and you need the keys to play them. The keys are provided in software players, like PowerDVD or WinDVD. You can't play content unless you have these products installed, so you could simply uninstall them (I presume that they came with your computer if you have a next-gen DVD drive). That would ensure your DRM-safety. I'm not sure if Windows Media Player can play AACS content out of the box, but since it can't play DVDs out of the box (you have to download plugins that contains the CSS keys), I'm assuming it can't. You could uninstall that too though, if you are unsure. That, or just run Linux all the time :D Oskar 00:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just checked Comparison of media players and apparently WMP can't play HD-DVD or BluRay, so no worries there. Oskar 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Vista will provide this support in the graphics drivers. --⁪froth^T 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think it's that radical of a position. Most content protection is easily cracked. --⁪froth^T 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I'm 100% sure about how exactly this all works (I ain't reading that spec!), but if it only encrypted it in the graphics driver, it would be fairly easy to crack. I mean, software could pretend to be an authorized AACS player, or it could just snoop on the stream of bits coming from the driver. Also, the dude that was able to rip the HD-DVD movies got his keys from PowerDVD, so it has some sort of keys. What is happening, I think, is that the graphics driver peels of one layer of encryption and passes it on to the software, which peels of an other layer and reveals the data. That way, if either the driver or the software turned out to be "hackable" the content guys could revoke either one. Oskar 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how good the encryption is it had to be decrypted before finally representing on screen. Doesn't matter if it's screen capture software or capturing the raw signal to LCD panels after decrypting from HDCP in the monitor some people are going to get a legit copy, find a way to capture the stream, and will "share" it on the net. It is something unavoidable by nature. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that without compromising the encryption in some way (like those guys did with the powerdvd/divx player keys), you'd literally have to break open the monitor and salvage the embedded components and recapture the image- and like resampling audio it would result in a loss of image data. And don't forget the tilt bit, which would certainly activate if you're messing around with contacts in the monitor controllers. But come on, someone answer my actual question already -_- --⁪froth^T 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I just did!! Just uninstall the Hi-Def content software, and that way you could never watch any AACS-encoded shit! Oskar 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uninstall the graphics drivers? o_O --⁪froth^T 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the graphics driver (you need that for games and aero and stuff) or the HD-DVD driver (although that probably wont be used for anything except movies for a few years), the player software. PowerDVD or WinDVD, or whatever you have. That software has the keys necessary to play AACS content. If you uninstall them, you can't play AACS content, you haven't got the keys. Simple as that. Oskar 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, doesn't vista provide stream decryption transparently through the drivers, so the player doesn't even necessarily have to know it's protected content? --⁪froth^T 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, here goes... I hear that Vista's graphics drivers will refuse to play high-definition protected content (from HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray disks) if your monitor doesn't support HDMI handshaking or if you use unsigned drivers. That's right, except it will play at a downscaled rate (about the same as a DVD). That is, it won't just black-screen. This only affects the window with HD-DVD content and not anything else playing at the same time, according to Microsoft (see the pro-ms link i posted above). I'm pretty darn mad at this stupid situation and don't want my computer's functionality restricted in any way.. Damn right, that's why I use Linux :D is there any way to disable these content protection drivers from the get-go and just live without watching protected content? The content protection only kicks in for protected content, but there's no way I know of to disable it. But if you're looking for a media player which simply doesn't play DRM'd media then there's always VLC. --h2g2bob 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the downscaling, and I know that it only affects the secure content window. The content protection only kicks in for protected content, but there's no way I know of to disable it. I guess I'll have to wait, maybe someone will find the flip bit and write a program to change it manually. If that's even possible- I don't like windows moving towards this extreme memory protection; admins should be able to flip any bit they darn well please. But if you're looking for a media player which simply doesn't play DRM'd media then there's always VLC. VLC isn't modular enough for my tastes. Programs should do one thing and do them well- i.e. query a directshow decoder and display the stream of decoded video. I don't like how it's compiled with libavcodec and all of those other codecs, although I can't deny that it's a very utilitarian system --⁪froth^T 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vista upgrade?

Ah, again with the Windows Vista mish mash. I don't quite understand this upgrade business. Under Wikipedia's article for this operating system, it shows the price listings for all the different versions (Home, Home Premium, Ultimate, etc.), but there are two columns for prices. The first shows retail prices, and the second shows upgrade prices. What is the "upgrade"? There's an $80 difference between the two, and I want to see if I can't nab the cheaper upgrade. Is it upgrading from XP? From a lower version of Vista?--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The upgrade version is for if you have Windows 2000 (32-bit), Windows XP (32-bit), Windows Media Center Edition, and maybe Windows Server 2003, not sure about that one. The upgrade edition is just like the normal edition except it can perform an in-place upgrade- that is, you can keep all of your data and programs installed. Don't do this though, it's highly inefficient and you won't get very good performance out of your computer- also there are several caveats and you can't always perform an in-place upgrade depending on what version of Windows you had and what edition of Vista you're upgrading to. Also if you get the upgrade edition, then install a full clean upgrade (not an in-place upgrade) you might need to put in your XP cd during installation to prove that you actually have XP (if you don't have an XP cd because you got it on your computer preinstalled then it shouldn't ask you). The "full" vista license doesn't have any of these restrictions but you can't perform an in-place upgrade. Also it costs a lot more. Personally I bought the upgrade edition. --⁪froth^T 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! How do I figure out if I have 32-bit XP? And about installation...I should save all of my documents and...exactly what else? I'm so clueless in such large parts of computer information...:|--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before installing Vista, get all your personal files, any saved-games, important cookies, emails, photos, and other stuff (Installer files for patches, antivirus?), onto a separate partition/hard drive. Secondly, almost all Windows XP copies owned (So I've heard) are 32 bit. It's labelled as x86, I believe, in comparison to x64. If I'm not mistaken, msconfig might read it, under the system tab... maybe. User:Logical2u_Talk 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a bundle!--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if you have a 64-bit processor like the Core 2 Duos or an AMD 64, you should get the 32 bit version of windows. 64 bit operating systems have serious compatability problems with non-native-compiled code (most applications). --⁪froth^T 00:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for what you should back up... keep in mind that you will lose everything during a clean upgrade so the simple rule is "if you want it, back it up". Just FYI, this is a checklist of what I'm backing up:

All of my music
All of my video
Several isos that I wouldn't be able to redownload until I return home for spring break
All of my roms and classic games (like BOWEP)
All of my programming work that's not mirrored on my school's red hat servers (mostly php & database stuff)
Various useful and hard-to-find programs that I don't want to lose: ffmpeg CLI, mptrim, pwdump3, mdcrack/john, hymn
A list of programs I have installed now that I'll need to find post-install: firefox, thunderbird, inkscape, vandalproof, putty/winSCP, etc
Old homework

Now would also be a good time to start collecting various CDs that you'll need to reinstall a lot of your programs. I've had to track down Office and visual studio. --⁪froth^T 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh... It's been so long since I have to worry about backing up and reinstalling... God bless Linux and cron and rdiff-backup... :p --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VLC + Quicktime Interactive Movie

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone knows if there is any way to get VLC to correctly play quicktime interactive movies, such as those produced by keynote? VLC will play them straight through and not play each section upon a mouse click as it should.

Thanks for any help in advance,

--195.137.67.86 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just not supported. VLC sees everything as "just a video" with very few exceptions. --h2g2bob 16:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After setting up a new hardrive and making it a shared drive by checking the "Share this folder on the network" checkbox and the "Allow network users to change my files" checkbox for the drive share name Windows XP will still not allow new subfolders to be created in existing folders on the drive even their share name has also been given permission for sharing through the same process as for the drive. Old subfolders, however, can be accessed if their share name is given specific permission through the process above. How do I get permission to apply to both old subfolders and for new folders for the wholde drive? -- Barringa 14:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you connect, what username/password do you give it? Is that account able to create new folders there normally? 68.39.174.238 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldnt need to give a user/pass if he did indeed use simple file sharing, and ticked the "Allow network users to change my files" box. Try going into the share properties, uncheck the "Allow" box, hit apply (itll change permissions, make take a bit), then when its done, re-check the "Allow" box again, and hit apply, (it'll again change permissions, which may again take some time), that should reset the permissions for every file on the drive, and hopefully allow what your trying to do, if it still doesn't work, you may need to use the advanced file sharing interface, which can be a pain. Cyraan 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several cycles of sets and resets seems to have worked with some existing subfolders specifically allowed to be shared (hand included in the subfolder icon) and the rest not specifically allowed to be shared as subfolders (no hand included its icon) but shared none-the-less through only the drive share allowance finally working. Whew! Thanks. -- Barringa 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced file sharing isn't that bad (Although the root shares can be annoying), however if it's working now with simple, there's no cause to break it again. 68.39.174.238 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I connect to a network printer

I am trying to connect to the printers in my school. The catch is that I have XP and the printers do not show up with the add printer wizard. The Printers are HP Laserjets that are wired directly into the network. Ive heard that u just need the IP address, but how would i find those?

thanks in advance Omnipotence407 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Control Panel->Printers and Faxes, go up to file, and select "Add Printer", hit next and you get to a screen where you have to choose whether the printer is hooked up locally (to your computer) or if its on the network printer, in your case, it'll obviously be a network one. Next you'll be brought to a screen that allows you to browse for it, or punch in an IP or URL for it. You can try to browsing for it, but if that doesnt work, check the second selection with Name under it, in there punch in the location and name of the printer in \\IP\PRINTERNAME format. Check the manual or printer settings to find these out, many printers now have build in DHCP, so you may be able to find it in the router settings, but its easier to set the printer to a static IP in its settings, that way it wont ever change on you. Example, if you set the printer to an IP of 192.168.1.10 and the name given in the manual/settings is HPLaserJ (Which it may be by default anyways) you would put \\192.168.1.10\HPLaserJ in the Name box. It should connect, ask if you want to set it as default, and then you should be good to go. Cyraan 17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as finding the printer's current IP address goes, is there some way of printing a test page, menu settings page or network settings page using the buttons (and possibly LCD screen) on the printer itself? These should show the IP (and maybe the printername too), but if the printer has DHCP turned on, enter \\hostname\printername, not \\ip\printername . Hope this helps, Davidprior 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way to print to HP LaserJets from Windows is to create a new TCP/IP port to print directly to it:

go to Add Printer, click next
select "Local printer attached to this computer", don't select "Automatically detect ...", click next
select "Create a new port:", choose type "Standard TCP/IP Port", click next
add port wizard comes up, click next
enter IP address in the "Printer Name or IP Address" field
Port Name is automatically filled in, leave that alone, click next
sometimes, due to printer security, detection of the device may fail; if it does, choose Device Type -> Standard -> "Hewlett Packard Jet Direct"
click next, click finish
now you are at the choose manufacturer and model screen
click "Windows Update"
go do something else for at least 5 minutes
when it's finished (when the Windows Update button comes back), choose Manufacturer "Hp" not "Hewlett-Packard", and for the Printer scroll down to :the appropriate "HP LaserJet xxxx PS" or "HP Color LaserJet xxxx PS" for black&white and color printers, respectively, where xxxx is the model number
click next
answer the questions on the next few screens (what you want to call the printer, whether it should be default, whether you want to share it, whether you want a test page, etc.)
wait a few minutes for it to finish

--Spoon! 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP has a very useful "install network printer wizard" tool, which, if you have the printer's IP address, will do all the rest of the work of acquiring drivers and setting up the printer. I haven't used it in some time, but you can get a current version here. grendel|khan 23:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTML background image question

My mother is designing a web page for her friend. She wants to stop the background image from tiling, and preferably centre it on the user's browser window. I have searched the HTML standard and haven't found any way to do this. Is it possible with CSS stylesheets, for example? JIP | Talk 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

body {
 background-image: url("logoe-bg.png");
 background-attachment: fixed;
 background-repeat: no-repeat;
 background-position: center;
 background-color: white;
 color: black;
}

--Kjoonlee 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use url("http://www.example.com/img/logoe-bg.png");. --Kjoonlee 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just shorten the whole thing to

body { background: white url("logoe-bg.png") fixed no-repeat center center; color:black; } (replace colour keywords to shortened hex like #FFF is even shorter)--antilived^{T | C | G} 10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but "center center" is equivalent to "center" AFAICT. --Kjoonlee 11:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, just realised that, and also the path to the image doesn't need to to be quoted, and will actually break if used as inline style like that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. When I tested it earlier with Firefox 2.x, quoted URLs worked in both cases. --Kjoonlee 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try <body style="background: white url("logoe-bg.png") fixed no-repeat center; color:black;"> and it will break because the extra quotes can end the quote in the html tag prematurely and thus breaking it. Plus, quoting adress are useless as it is already done with the parentheses. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're meant to mix single quotes and double quotes if you're using the style attribute directly in the HTML code. --Kjoonlee 13:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is qutie a common mistake, and why include something that does absolutely nothing? It is already escaped by the parentheses and quotes mean absolutely nothing in CSS. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Phone ID

Can anyone remember the name of this phone? I know that it's a Nokia, but I can't remember the name. Many thanks!

--Fadders 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Nokia 6310. --Canley 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Push' Email

A lot of mobile phones are using push email accounts. Can you point me toward a webstie that give details on setting one up? I have my own domain/email hosting and currently have Pop3 accounts, and would like to know more of what I am talking about when I contact my host.

Thanks! TrekBarnes 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]