Computing desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

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 13

MS Outlook

I seem to have lost the toolbar which gave me (amongst other things) "Send/receive all". Help please. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to "View" the menu, then "Toolbars", and make sure "Standard" is checked. If not, click it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiY (talk • contribs) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Webproxy for Dumb Applications?

I live at a university where we have to use a web proxy for port 80 traffic, however there are various applications that don't support web proxys. Is there a small application for Windows that will transparently proxy these requests to the universities main proxies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.139.34 (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Mailserver Help

Can someone give me a tutorial on how to set up a mailserver on ubuntu (CLI only)? I have 2 users and a domain name, I would like user@domain.com.

Thank you!

MediaWiki semi protection

Hi. As you know a semi protected page here on Wikipedia can only be edited by users accounts which are more than 3 days old. I would like to implement this on another wiki operating on MediaWiki software. Can I ask if its possible through editing various pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Thanks in advance. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be set up by default on MediaWiki 1.10 - just click the protect tab and select "block unregistered users". LocalSettings.php can fine-tune the settings: for example, set $wgAutoConfirmAge to select how long it takes for a "user" account (new user) to become an "autoconfirmed" account (can edit semi-protected). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USB HDD Tower?

I have a number of IDE HDDs from my old computers that I would like to make accessible to my new computer. There is no room for internal installation in the new computer. Is there such a thing as a tower racking system for mounting IDE drives that provides USB outputs to go into my new computer so I can access these drives?--TreeSmiler (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my office has a USB CD/DVD tower. It's used for stand along CD/DVD duplication and I think when hooked up to a PC, only the top unit is visible. I don't really see any point in having multiple drives off 1 USB connection since it would require a special driver for the OS. I think a better solution for you is to buy stackable external drive enclosures. For HDs, there are internal enclosures that allows fast swaping. Some even allows hot IDE swapping. NYCDA (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Can you point me to external drive enclosures?--TreeSmiler (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIY computer

I am interested building my first computer... What kind of problems can I expect in terms of different pieces of hardware not being compatable with each other; is there any advice anyone can offer...? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 19:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can offer a few suggestions, but keep in mind that I have just ordered the parts I want to build my first computer myself.

The first thing to keep in mind is to make sure you haven't left out any component. A computer should include: Case, PSU, motherboard, CPU, memory, graphics card, HDD, optical drive. Obviously there are also many optional components. A PSU can be included in the case, especially if it is low-end; if it doesn't say specifically that it is, then it probably isn't. Same goes for a graphics card which may be integrated into the motherboard.

The next thing to note is that the motherboard supports the technology and connections of each of the components, without making any assumptions the specifications don't state explicitly. This means correct architecture & FSB for the CPU, correct type and FSB for the memory, correct slot for the graphics card (this is usually PCIe) and connections for the HDD and optical drive.

If you want the computer to be quiet, you need to look for components that specifically identify themselves as such. If you are into high-end components and overclocking, you need to mind the cooling solution and the power providable by the PSU.

I suggest you don't use too expensive parts for the first computer you build, this way you can minimize your risk in case anything goes wrong. If you intend to upgrade this computer in the future, you may want a motherboard which supports the newer components (while making sure it still supports the current ones).

I hope I haven't left out anything important. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you've decided on a motherboard, you might try going to the Internet forums of that manufacturer and confirming compatibilities there. ----Seans Potato Business 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that your Power Supply Unit is up to the task. If you're putting hi-spec graphics cards in your machine then the PSUs that come bundled with cases probably won't be enough. - X201 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I check 3 things when I build new systems. MB, memory and video card.

If you go ATI, you should get a Crossfire MB.

If you go with Nvidia, you should get a SLI MB.

I said should because if you only use 1 video card, then XF/SLI aren't important but getting the right combo now will leave the upgrade path open.

You need to check the memory voltage and make sure they are compitable. You do not want to buy a 1.7V RAM to find out your MB only supports 1.4-1.6V. If you are doing a budget build, definitly double check this.

I'm assuming you are already famaliar with the basics of computers like PS/MB/power specifications, power connectors requirements etc. If this is not the case, it's better you list what you are getting and ask if there are any potential issues. NYCDA (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDs always hot but supposed to be powered down

I use WinXP and despite my HDs being set to switch off after 20 minutes of disuse, they're always very hot to the touch. Could I find out if any programs are keeping any of them from being switched off? ----Seans Potato Business 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually if the harddrives are turned off, you can't hear any sound from them because the r/w heads are not moving to store data. Can you hear the scratching sound like, for instance, when you save a file? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are five of them, so it's hard to tell which are scratching (except by guessing where programs are probably accessing). Besides, if none are in use (which is never the case), that doesn't mean that they spin down, so absence of scratching doesn't really imply that they're switched off. Right now for example, I don't think that there is any program needing to access drive "Helga", yet if I put my finger on the HD case, she'll be hot! ----Seans Potato Business 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of hard drive set-up do you have? Do you use RAID or anything that would spread data across all the drives? Either way, I think the problem has to do with warm air rising. I have a completely unplugged drive right above my main drive, and it gets hot just from the heat of the drive below it. I recommend a fan or something if you are truly worried about it. For the record, the unplugged drive is that way because it failed - which may have to do with the heat, but I have no way of knowing for sure. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20 minutes of inactivity/disuse means there is nothing going on that uses the HD for 20 minutes. Any programs like virus scanner, automatic disk optimizer will cause activity in the back ground. Accessing the swap file/virtual memory also causes disc activity. When OS turns off HD, the HD will spin down so you should be able to tell if the hot HD was powered down or not. If you can feel the HD vibrating, it's hasn't gone to sleep yet. NYCDA (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a disk optimiser intalled and I only expect my virus scanner to access files when I try to open them myself. Since the paging file and file-sharing folder are both on the system drives, I expect the other three to be able to power down and become cooler to the touch. Is there no software-based method to determine which programs are accessing which drives in WinXP? --Seans Potato Business 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC Windows defrags the hard drive when not in use. Try disabling that? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows wont defrag these drives because they're formatted in ext3 (a special driver lets Windows read and write to them). --Seans Potato Business 07:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook profile picture

I am unable to see the profile pictures of my friends or the profile picture of myself. Nor can I see the thumbnail versions of those pictures on my wall or on the walls of my friends. I have uploaded profile pictures in the past without any problems. I can still access my profile picture album, but when I choose a picture to be my profile picture all I see is white space. I do have the Photos Application. I can see people's albums and create my own. I have the latest version of Firefox. When I check my Facebook account on IE, I am able to see the profile pictures just fine, so it must be something to do with Firefox. Any ideas as to how I should resolve this? 198.174.0.10 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I have similar issues with Firefox and Safari (on OS X) with Facebook specifically. For some reason photos of any sort have about a 50/50 chance of coming through correctly each time I view; if I hit refresh a few times sometimes they start working. I'm not sure what they are doing wrong but their site clearly has some issue with non-IE browsers when it comes to loading images correctly. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out, in my case, that Adblock Plus was preventing me from seeing those pictures. I disabled it for Facebook, and everything is back to normal. 198.174.0.10 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop specs advice

I'm looking to buy a ntoebook to replace my desktop for less than or around $1000. Which should I get? I'm currently satisfied with: Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.80 GHz; 2.79 GHz, 512 MB RAM and I would like to match or beat that within my price range. Weight and battery life aren't issues. So, what should I buy? HYENASTE 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an Operating System preference? --76.239.184.49 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any will do. HYENASTE 22:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...

The only 2 things I'm not sure about are the processor and the RAM. I usually run several programs simultaneously (Firefox, WMPlayer, Limewire, MS Word), but thats the most intensive thing I do on it. HYENASTE 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T get one with only 512MB RAM! It's going to bog down big time. Try to get 2GB. If it's a brand new laptop, it's going to come with Vista, and it will need 2GB to run decent at all. Useight (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a P4 processor, I hope it costs less than USD 500⁰⁰ or something. Personally, if I wanted a computer to last long enough, I would look at a CPU that is only two or three steps down the latest and greatest gazillion-core processors that Intel seems to be making these days. Kushal^t 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my current machine is 5 years old, so I'd expect its value to be less than that. :P HYENASTE 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Core duo or core 2 duo would be my choice, as long as budget allows. Kushal^t 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on using Ubuntu 7.10, 1 GB RAM is very good. If you are using Windows Vista, 2 GB RAM or 1 GB RAM with a separate (minimum 256 MB) video card is the bare minimum, as far as I can say. Kushal^t 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So 2GB RAM + separate video card is overkill? HYENASTE 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see an Intel GMA X3100 integrated graphics card with 2 GB memory (or if budget is tight, one stick of 1 GB RAM that leaves one slot free in case I _have to_ upgrade in the near future.) If you do not need ~~a lot of~~ eye candy and/or gaming, you can do without a separate graphics card. Kushal^t 08:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are choosing between XP and Vista my personal experience so far (we just up/down/sidegraded a Vista machine back to XP) would be to choose XP if you have the choice. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, getting a Windows XP pro machine with 1 GB RAM and Intel X3100 integrated graphics would be really good. However, if you absolutely must get if you have to get a computer with Windows Vista, don't despair. In most cases, you can ~~downgrade~~ upgrade it to Windows XP Professional for free. There was a question on the Reference Desk about it some weeks ago. Kushal^t 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]