Computing desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

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.

April 27

difference between wireless broadband and wifi

Hi, I work for a telecommunications company, retail only (so I don't know much) and we use "wi-fi" generally to mean cable or adsl broadband with a modem that has a wired connection to the wall, and a wireless connection to your computer. Now it seems that wi-fi is a general term for a lot of wireless technologies. So I have a few questions on this and other matters:

1. Does the definition of wi-fi include our use of the term, or are we just using our own "in-house" jargon?

2. What is the difference between wi-fi and wireless broadband (which in Australia always means using a mobile phone network, and a usb, express card, pc card or mobile phone as the modem)?

3. Is it possible/ easy for someone to steal your bandwidth if you use these wireless broadband services? Where can I read more on this?

Thanks in advance. Please note that I've been looking for this stuff on wikipedia and google, but can't find anything to summarise the situation. This is partially because I still suffer under the tedium of dialup, so please take pity. 203.221.126.181 (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, firstly Wi-Fi stands for "Wireless Fidelity" a term coined by The Wi-Fi Alliance. Wi-Fi is basically a wireless network. A wireless router with internet cable plugged in sends out a signal to computer with built-in wireless cards, Laptop cards, USB sticks etc, or mobile phones with Wi-Fi enabled.

The term "Wireless Fidelity" is just part of a marketing slogan, invented after the name Wi-Fi was coined. It's probably best for the OP to just ignore the term "Wireless Fidelity" and stick with Wi-Fi. -- JSBillings 17:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets imagine for a moment that you have a wired network, all computer have to have ethernet cables plugged into them etc... This is a LAN (Local Area Network) now imagine all those computers are wireless, this is a WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network). Broadband is a fast connection to the internet which is always on. Wireless broadband just means wireless internet. It is possible for someone to steal/use your bandwidth, files and printers on your network, unless you have security enabled on your router such as Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), MAC address filtering. Mobile phone internet uses that carriers cellular network. Dial-up refers to internet over the phone lines, usually restriced to 56k. Anymore questions welcome :) Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use lots of technologies to implement wireless broadband: EVDO, GPRS, HSPA WiMAX, Wi-Fi, etc.F (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find this site interesting http://www.grc.com/unpnp/unpnp.htm As far as "stealing you bandwidth" goes, they'd have to either be your neighbors or park in your driveway. The wireless signal gets weaker with distance and usually doesn't make it farther than 2 houses down the street. Unless you live in a busy city block and your neighbor's teen is fixing for a carreer in electronic delinquency or you handle sensitive company data I wouldn't worry too much.--Lisa4edit (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be amazed. I can pick up 30+ wireless access points from my apartment, one of which I can definitely identify as being over a mile away. --Carnildo (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those answers. I'm still not entirely clear: if I have wireless broadband, but I'm not connected to a LAN or anything (just a USB wireless modem stuck in a laptop) and I live in a block of flats, and there's no doubt that the neighbours are in range - can they steal my bandwidth without a password? What do they need to do this? 203.221.126.206 (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a force-feedback pack?

What is the hardware in game controllers that actually causes the 'rumble' called? Also, if you happen to know, how much do they cost (the bits inside that rumble, not the controllers themselves)?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.35.115 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble pack--Goon Noot (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that that is what it's called. But what piece of hardware inside the pack causes the rumble and what is it called?

It's just a motor with an unbalanced weight attached. The motor is fixed in place and spins the weight at high speed, which causes the whole thing to vibrate. You can see an image here. The same kind of thing is used to make mobile (cell) phones vibrate, though obviously with a smaller weight and motor. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 09:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sometimes see the whole assembly sold in parts catalogs as a "vibration motor", but I have no idea if that's an industry standard term or not. Here's a small one right here. [1] APL (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WHAAOE, see our vibrating alert article.

Atlant (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Install/Unistall

Excuse my ignorance if this is a basic question. Why can it take what seems like an eternity to install a program, but only takes less than a second to uninstall it? I'm guessing they're not installing completely, am I right? I thought I'd give 'world of warcraft' a go, I installed from the DVD, then it downloaded all kinds of updates and patches, all up it took about an hour. After 5 minutes of the game I decided it wasn't for me so I pressed uninstall. One second later (Literally just ONE second!) and it said 'uninstall complete'! Surely it couldn't have uninstalled that quick?Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? To install WoW your computer had to read lots of data from a DVD, download it from the internet, and so on. That takes time. Uninstalling can be more complicated, but at a bare minimum, your computer has to rewrite your hard disk directory to say the WoW files aren't there any more. This doesn't take much time. Remember that deleting files doesn't actually remove the data from your computer (that would take longer). Algebraist 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, when you delete something it is really only "marked for deletion", which means other programs can then overwrite that location in the future. Also, it can take quite a long time to read the contents of a DVD, depending on the speed of your DVD drive. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you mentioned that it downloads stuff from the Internet. The installation time might be further delayed by your Internet connection type. Kushal 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it take longer to copy the Bible, or to pour whiteout all over it? Or, even better, to dab the upper right corner with whiteout to indicate the pages are to be written over? -- Ironmandius (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Error message

I keep getting a pop up box with my google page that says "http://7,gmodules.com says: There is no data!" That box will block the page until I click the X (I try to remember not to click "o.k." in case it's a parasite.) It comes up intermittently. I tried to google for it (sic!) but nothing came up except that it seems to be linked somehow to videos. There is no feed for videos to my page that I'm aware of. Anyone know how I could get rid of it or where I might find more info. (And yes, I've chased all my antivirus programs after it and they came up empty.) Lisa4edit (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't need to use the gModule, you might as well remove it from your iGoogle page. Once you are on the page, just close the misbehaving module by clicking [x] next to it. Alternatively, you can also use the classic page. Kushal 11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that I can't figure out which RSS causes the box to pop up. If I use the classic page I don't get access to all the toys. (e.g. no wikipedia search window). I guess one thing I could try is to start building my igoogle page over and see with which feed the pop-up gets introduced. I guess I had hoped for an easier way out. --Lisa4edit (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to find out which modules are definitely NOT from the 7,gmodules.com and delete everything else. In a best case scenario, you might be able to find out precisely which module IS malfunctioning. good luck, Kushal 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bar at the bottom of the browser

...that shows the url of links when you hover the mouse over a link. How do you call it?217.168.3.246 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the Status bar. --Kateshort forbob 11:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have enabled the status bar in my Opera browser, but I still don't have a bar at the bottom. What went wrong?

217.168.3.246 (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just downloaded Opera, and oddly it doesn't have the status bar on by default. However, mine did appear when I used View >Toolbars >Status bar. A quick Google showed a couple of people missing bars on Linux, or the bars showing up at the top of the page instead in various versions of Opera. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Opera will be able to help, or you could try the forum? --Kateshort forbob 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't normally use Opera but I've had it hanging around for a while. I just checked and I had to enable it but it worked fine for me...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. But nothing happened :(. I'll reinstall Opera and see what happens. Thanks for the help. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the problem on a Mac OS X 10.4 tiger. is it platform specific? Kushal 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strings in Java

What are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.200.119 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Java is a programming language and String is a class which represents character strings, like "The quick brown fox" or any other combination of characters. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 12:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a particular String is an object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.200.119 (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Java, the type "String" has a capital "S" because it is more of an object than the standard data types (int, float, char...). Unless you want to get into the particulars of the Java compiler and runtime engine, you can just say that it is a data type that has a little object functionality. -- kainaw ™ 14:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so is it unique in that sense (being in between an object and a data type)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.200.119 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking it is an object, but the documentation does say this:

"In addition to the eight primitive data types listed above, the Java programming language also provides special support for character strings via the java.lang.String class. Enclosing your character string within double quotes will automatically create a new String object; for example, String s = "this is a string";. String objects are immutable, which means that once created, their values cannot be changed. The String class is not technically a primitive data type, but considering the special support given to it by the language, you'll probably tend to think of it as such."

Java does also have primitive wrapper classes which provide object methods for each primitive type. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 15:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK in Java, Strings are just like any other objects. It's just the Java source code that gives them special treatment by allowing a syntax where you can write a String's contents in double quotes. But once the code is compiled, Strings are just like any other objects. JIP | Talk 17:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can abbreviate "string1.concat(string2)" as simply "string1 + string2" (well, pretty close) and abbreviate "string1 = string1 + string2" as "string1 += string2". See syntactic sugar. --Sean 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux video editor?

Where can I find a video editor for Linux that can input and output WMV files and perform basic editing, such as making the video picture size smaller? JIP | Talk 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Cinelerra will do all that. --Prestidigitator (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's Kino and PiTiVi, both come with Ubuntu Studio. There is a Debian flavor as well 64 Studio. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Build problem

I downloaded Cinelerra, uncompressed it and ran configure, but when I try to build it using make, I get the following error message:

make -f build/Makefile.cinelerra
sh: -c: line 1: syntax error: unexpected end of file
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/joona/cinelerra-2.1'
gcc -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -falign-loops=2 -falign-jumps=2 -falign-functions=2 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -I../../freetype-2.1.4/include -I../../ -DHAVE_OSS -DHAVE_FIREWIRE  soundtest.c -o x86_64/soundtest.o
Assembler messages:
Fatal error: can't create x86_64/soundtest.o: No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [x86_64/soundtest.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/joona/cinelerra-2.1'
make: *** [all] Error 2

This happens with all packages on the Cinelerra download page. I tried another, unrelated Sourceforge.net package, and it built all well with make. Does anyone have any clue about what is going on? JIP | Talk 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, it looks like it expects there to be a 'x86_64' directory somewhere, but neglected to mkdir it. Try figuring out which directory it is in when it executes that gcc command and add the directory yourself. Hopefully that will help. I have Cinelerra installed automatically from a distro package myself (Fedora Core 5, 64bit); I've never tried to build it. --Prestidigitator (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried creating "x86_64" directories everywhere I could think of, but Cinelerra still won't build. I'll have to try creating an "x86_64" directory and copying the entire directory structure there. If that doesn't work, I'll have to create intermediate and final "x86_64" subdirectories in every directory. Sheesh, this is too damn difficult. All I want to be able to do is make a .WMV file smaller in screen size so that my Zen Vision W can play it under its native resolution. But for that, not only do I have to spend hours downloading Cinelerra, I have to spend days configuring my system so that it will actually build. One would be forgiven for thinking there were an easier way. JIP | Talk 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any alternatives to RealPlayer besides RealAlternative/Media Player Classic?

I run WinXP. I used to use Real Alternative with Media Player Classic to play .ram/.rm files. A few months ago, these completely bugged out on me and quit playing any files, including ones that had previously worked. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling, and I've downloaded and installed more codecs than I ever wanted (including those for DirectShow, my sound card, my video card, etc.). I made the mistake of installing RealPlayer on another machine about ten years ago and don't ever want to repeat that mistake (I STILL get spam from them a decade later). So, is there anything else on the market that can play Real format media? I'd really prefer an all-in-one than something that requires a bunch more codecs, but I'm open to anything at this point. I don't even care about bloat anymore, just as long as it isn't Real's bloat. Thanks greatly in advance! Heather (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about your problems with Real. Please give VLC media player a try. VLC is a free software that is cross-platform and works with many filetypes. Kushal 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; that worked! All this time installing unnecessary codecs and the program I use as my default media player was able to handle Real files the whole time. Thanks so much! Heather (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad to be of any use. Good day! Kushal 12:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics card

I just bought a compaq presario v3700 which proudly displays the Nvidia graphics logo on it but when I checked the system info the display adapter is named "NVIDIA MCP67M". Now I've never heard of an Nvidia graphics card with that name and on googling couldn't find anything concrete that establishes it as one. So 1) is the nvidia thing on my laptop a real graphics card? 2) Is it some integrated/non-upgradable shit and 3) is it any good (for gaming). Will appreciate some help. Thanks Nvidiauser (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an integrated one. If so, it will probably not be any good for gaming. But Nvidia's web site doesn't have any results for this card. Moo Chat 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've already done this, but, if you haven't, (and assuming that you're running XP) go to C:/WINDOWS/system32 and run the file called dxdiag.exe then tab over to Display. It should tell you how much video memory you've got. That will answer your question about whether your machine would be good for gaming. You might also learn more about the card. If you're running Vista, disregard this, as I believe dxdiag was removed. HTH. Heather (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, unfortunately, if he just bought the laptop, it's likely running Vista. Useight (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like I was wrong--according to our article at DxDiag, you can still access it in Vista after all. Weird, because I really thought I read that it had been removed. But apparently that's still where he can find out what's under the hood. Heather (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting character encodings

If a browser downloads an HTML page, the HTTP header specifies one character encoding and a META tag in the document specifies another, do standards indicate which one the browser should use? Neon Merlin 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a W3C page that discusses declaring the character encoding for HTML and XHTML files: Character sets & encodings - Basic scenarios for HTML and XHTML. It mentions that HTTP header information has the highest priority in case of conflict. --Bavi H (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]