Computing desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

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 15

Running x86 Binaries on PPC

I have an old, old x86 binary that I would like to run on my (relatively) new PPC machine. The binary is CLI, and the machine DOES NOT have X. I made the binary a few years ago, and I have lost the source code. It was compiled for linux, and that is what my current machine is running. Any help is appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.184.49 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need some kind of x86 emulator. Some good ones are Bochs and QEMU; these emulate the whole machine, so you might have to install an OS on the emulated machine and all that. I do not know of any free programs that would emulate a single program of Linux x86 on Linux PPC. If you can get a login account on some remote Linux x86 machine (x86 machines are ubiquitous these days) somewhere, that would probably be faster and easier than emulating. --Spoon! (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, but on my Mac I can run PPC apps in x86. Why can't I do it on linux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.184.49 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask about running PPC apps on x86, you asked about running an x86 app on PPC.
Apple put a huge amount of work into making sure PPC binaries would run on Intel-based Macintoshes (just as it earlier assured that Motorola 68k binaries would run on the PPC). That kind of hard work doesn't always get done for free software like Linux. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista 32-Bit or 64-Bit

From what I understand, 32-Bit OS's can only recognize "up to" 4 GB's of RAM, which really means only 3-3.5 GB's of RAM can be used. Now, I'm not sure if 64-bit OS's actually allow you to use all 4 GB's of RAM because it seems to me that the OS would need some of that RAM for its processes. So, one of my questions is if I had four GB's of RAM in a 64-bit, would I get the benefit of all 4 GB's, and what if I had 8 GB's?

My second question has to do with the current software limitations of Vista 64x in respect to computer games. It seems to me that most new games offer support for 64x, but would I even be able to run older games such as Age of Empires II (1999), Rise of Nations (2003), or Company of Heroes (2006)? Could Vista even run the older ones in general? I've also read something about emulators, but how reliable are these? Basically, what are these software limitations specifically?

Ultimately, what I want to know is it worth getting 64x over 32x because of better RAM recognization despite software limitations.

Thanks for any help. Nkot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "32-Bit OS's", do you mean operating systems in general, or 32-bit versions of Windows in particular?

There are certainly computers and operating systems that can address more physical (and virtual) memory than a naive calculation based on their preferred "word size" would suggest. When we say that a processor is "32 bit", we usually mean that the size of the integers it most naturally manipulates is 32 bits. We may also mean that the size of a memory address (or "pointer") in a user-space process is also 32 bits. However, the physical processor and the operating system may have more addressing information available to them than does any single user process. In this way, a "32-bit" machine might be able to access more than 4Gb of memory, even though any one process can access only 4Gb (i.e., its own virtual address space).

As to the specific capabilities or limitations of various versions of Windows, I couldn't say. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

x64 Vista can run most 32-bit Windows programs, which would include the ones you listed. I don't know what you mean by "would I get the benefit of all 4 GB's" exactly. Windows would be able to utilize the full 4 GB, sure. I think 32-bit Windows can do up to 4 GB as well, but it's iffy and motherboard-dependent. Only x64 versions of Windows can go past that.

The bulk of the 'software limitations' people experience are driver issues. Not all devices and peripherals have 64-bit Vista drivers, and drivers for 32-bit Windows editions won't work. I am, for some stupid reason, using 64-bit Vista on my desktop, and haven't had a single driver issue. Your mileage may vary. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit OS can only use 4gig of ram. But people tend to forget an OS is just another software so it's really 32-bit software can only use 4gig of ram. If you run 32-bit apps in 64-bit Vista, your app still can only address up to 4 gig so the program will not run faster because you have 32gig of ram. The only advantage with 32gig of ram is you can have more apps open at the same time. Also due to Windows/Hardware limitations, the max usable ram in a 32-bit OS is much less then 4gig. If you had 4gig of ram, up to 1 gig is wasted. NYCDA (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"32-bit OS can only use 4gig of ram." Not true. See my response above. (In particular, an OS is not "just another software".) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as your software is 32bit there is a 99.99% chance that it will work absolutly fine under Vista x64. Certainly the games you listed will (the only one I am SLIGHTLY unsure about is Age of Empires II but this is because it might use DirectSound exclusivly, which isn't included in Windows Vista x86 or x64). If however you wish to run any DOS programs or any Windows 16bit programs (if any exist?) they will not run naitivly. You can get emulators such as Dosbox which will allow you to run old dos apps under a modern OS however. About memory allocation. Windows x86 (32 bit windows) can only allow 4gb of TOTAL memory space to be addressed. This includes your ram, any motherboard ram, soundcard or graphics card ram, and also possibly Virtual Memory (I am not sure about the last part). This basically means that you'll actually only be able to utilise about 3.5gb of system ram on a 32bit Windows OS, because the rest will be taken up by other hardware. By the way do not let anyone persuade you to go with Windows XP x64 as it is a horribly buggy OS that is barely supported by Microsoft and has rather poor driver support. Vista initially didn't have very good driver support but now that is not the case, and as long as your hardware is modern there is a very high chance of there being 64 bit drivers. TheGreatZorko (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

xfce theme

Does anyone recognize what theme this is? It's an official screenshot. --f f r o t h 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murrine!!! I love that theme. --wj32 ^t/c 08:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weeee thanks! I've been using Human with the Superhuman compiz theme, and this look much better --f f r o t h 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grr, which Murrine theme? That's a gtk theme engine, not a theme! --f f r o t h 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I never seem to make the distinction between "GTK engine" and "theme". I guess it looks pretty similar to some Graphite Murrine-based theme I found... Otherwise I don't actually know :( --wj32 ^t/c 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acquiring and using a digital signature

I recently purchased a number of software products from a Fry's outlet, all of which featured rebates. On three of the products, it turns out that one has to register online first in order to get a registration number which is then written on the rebate form.

Fine. Except that in all three cases, they are demanding that I enter a "digital signature" in order to complete the online registration. I have no problem with this, except that I know next to nothing about digital signatures and have limited time in which to find out now. I know about PGP, RSI, etc., from way back when, but have simply not had a need for encription or electronic verification. I use public computers with high speed connections for blogging, eBaying, etc., and I don't have access to the web where I work as the in-house corporate web designer (paranoid Chinese company). Generally, I pay cash whenever possible.

Except that now I need to know how to quickly acquire something that will pass muster as my digital signature. I believe that WORD has something related to this, as well as Outlook, but I rarely use either of them and don't have them on my new laptop. I do have Open Office, BTW. Help?

Thanks for any assistance on this.

204.126.64.254 (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this myself, but perhaps it will help those who do if you specify which are the software in question, or more details about the prompt you get. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital signature often does not mean your signature digitized. There are many ways to digitally sign a document. Like we do when we sign our posts with 4 tildas. NYCDA (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be as something as simple as just typing your name underneath the T&C box. I've seen some applications refer to that as a 'digital signature' which clearly is an abuse of the terminology, but who are we to argue? Aaronw (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small question about music software

As of recent, I have been a little intent about creating an orchestral, film-like music score. Is there any software, free or otherwise, that can help me along? (I've tried asking this on Y! Answers, but with no luck so far.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scorewriters seems well-populated --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 06:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Rosegarden is alright for basic sequencing and scorewriting... I don't really know of any more advanced free software musical apps for GNU/Linux. --wj32 ^t/c 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux question

Linex provide us a login, passward facility but this facility does not provide by DOS. Why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.157.77.10 (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

header added

Linux is based on Unix, which is a multi-user operating system. MS-DOS is/was a single-user system, so there was no perceived need for security. --LarryMac | Talk 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing song tags

How do I edit the tags on music files that say what year the song came out? I have a Walkman mp3 player with Time Machine Shuffle and some of my 80's songs have 1998 on them because thats when the compilation came out. How do I change this? --Candy-Panda (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it by right clicking the file, Properties, Summary, and then editing here or clicking the advanced tag for more options. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, except you will need to click the "Advanced" button in order to get to the "Year" setting. After you change the setting for the MP3 on your computer, transfer the song again to your walkman, and it should be fixed.

PS, You can also change the year setting from the program you're using to transfer your music -- if this is a Sony player, you're probably using SonicStage, and in that program you can right-click on any song, click properties, and then edit the tag information, including the "year released". With this method you will again need to transfer the song(s) again to your player in order for the change to take effect. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:50, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Graphical User Interface

I want to know something about GUI and its components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm sharma (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GUI is a good start. --LarryMac | Talk 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eee pc in budapest

where can i find an Asus EEE PC (the $300 laptop) in budapest or from an online dealer that will ship to budapest. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]