Computing desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

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 17

Communication software

I'm planning to setup a 802.11n network. What's the best communication software (like Skype) or the easiest to setup that could work in the 802.11n network? The software should support video telephony. Thanks for the answers. roscoe_x (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Research survey software

As a small charity we need to conduct some MR on why people visit our town. Recommendations on low cost or free software to download to Mac will be appreciated.86.216.250.162 (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

We need more info here. Do you intend for people to fill out this survey on this Mac ? Do you intend for them to fill it out on other computers via the Internet ? Do you have paper surveys and just want to enter the results on the Mac ? Does this survey include text answers or only multiple choice ? How many surveys do you expect to have ? StuRat (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. We plan to have paper surveys, and so need to be able to set out the questionnaire, and then to process the responses. I can set up an Excel spreadsheet easily enough to crunch the data, but would like professional style questionnaires. Also, of course, if a processing package is up and running I'll use that. There will be multiple choice, ranking, and brief text answers. Expect to issue about 1,500 and get a 10-15% response.86.216.250.162 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Why not just write the questionaires yourself in a word processor? I would expect in Word for example you could probably even include little square boxes for tick marks. No special software needed. Similarly with the number crunching - use Excel as you sugggested. 78.146.209.79 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using Word. The most difficult part might be getting useful info out of the text responses. For example, if you have an OTHER category for a Q, and they can write in answers, you need to decide how to lump similar comments together. Perhaps if you put all the text comments for one Q together in a Word Doc and then manually sort and arrange them, that might work best. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32 -> 16

is there ways to convert 32bit modern windows programs to 16bit so that might work on older windows 3.1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: only if you have the source code for the program.

Longer answer: yes, but if you don't have the source it will require so much work to be not worth it unless it's absolutely critical. --Aseld ^talk 12:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do have the source - there would STILL be many problems - not least that 16 bit Windows had a horrible memory model and doing things like having arrays bigger than 64kbytes or programs bigger than 640kbytes was insanely difficult. Basically - even if you had the sources, you'd need some pretty serious programming skills to stand any chance of pulling this off. SteveBaker (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed difficult, unless if you try to port a 32-bit version of Solitaire back to 16-bit. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Win32s for Windows 3.11. But maybe you already knew that? 84.239.160.166 (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conveting numbers into telephone letters

I know that companies often choose a telephone number along the lines of 555-PILAGE or whatever. I have a telephone number and I would like to know what possible words would yield the same number when dialed. Is there an application online for this? ----Seans Potato Business 12:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try either PhoneSpell or PhoNETic. There are also a few more in there references of the Phoneword article. Hope this helps! ZX81 ^talk 12:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't all that hard to do it manually, just write down the possible letters for each digit and try the various combinations. Yes, if you tried every combination that would be a huge list, but most possibilities can be quickly eliminated due to a lack of vowels. You might want to start with the vowels and see which adjacent consonants you can use to make words. Unfortunately, most of the words you can form will have missing or extra letters, which makes it not all that useful as a mnemonic device. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I once had the number JEDI KNT; my sister apparently had trouble counting to seven, and kept trying to dial JEDI KNIT. —Tamfang (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knitting Jedi? --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dexterity exercise. —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail, do you get stuck in the butt with a knitting needle ? StuRat (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Yesterday I saw a white Chevy pickup with the plate JDI KNIT. —Tamfang (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

word 07 amd figure numbering

in word 07 (may be possible in other versions i dont know) when i insert a picture i can add a figure caption, with a anumber that auto-updates if i say add another picture before it,which is good but is there a way to then reference that figure in the main body of my text so it updates as well, ie i insert a figure 1 then talk about figure 1 in my text,i then insert another picture before it,and the caption updates plus the number in my text updates as well?--137.205.21.59 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can highlit the text "Figure 1" beside the image, and then save it as a bookmark (use a meaningful name, not Fig1 since it may become Fig2 etc). I suggest something like "Fig2008SalesGraph". Else where you can then insert a field of type "Ref" with the option of the named bookmark. If it seems to be old data, refresh the field with Ctrl-A then F9. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-References. This is what you are looking for. You can find the button for this either on the Insert or the References Tab of the Ribbon. They dont update automatically, just highlight everything and rightclick, and chose "Update Field." I just used these for a 40 page document and they worked very well.--omnipotence407 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HTML Help

I use Visual Web Developer 2005 Express to make my web pages. I use a tag called <BGSOUND> to have a sound play in the background. VWD 2005 insists that <BGSOUND> must be placed within a parent tag, but complains when <BGSOUND> is within the <HTML>, <HEAD>, or <BODY> tags. What tag do i use to enclose <BGSOUND> to stop the complaining? Also, <BGSOUND> seems to not work in Firefox; how do i do the same thing in Firefox? Thanks. Buffered Input Output 14:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this tutorial. Also, seriously reconsider whether your web-page really needs background sounds. They are very distracting to a lot of web users. Nimur (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, i would agree with you, but this web page is for entertainment purposes only, so distractions are not a worry. Thanks for the help :) Buffered Input Output 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to learn these kind of things is by looking at other websites. If you use firefox, you can click view page source and see the contents of a page that plays sound and see how they did it. Also I would highly recommend the firefox addon firebug for web developers. If you have that installed, you can't make a mistake and you will find your developing experience to be a lot easier. -- penubag (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GIF Question

I am trying to make animated gifs of movie clips. But, the delays i set in the program (Advanced GIF Animator 3.0) do not seem to work in the browser (IE6 and Firefox 3.0). The animation is 173 frames with a delay of .2 seconds per frame. The browser animation speed is .6-.7 seconds per frame with many, many graphical errors. But, an animation of 20 or less frames plays properly. I have seen animations on the web with 200+ frames and quick delay times that play perfectly. What am i doing wrong? Buffered Input Output 14:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct is to say that it's not you, it's the browsers. Specifically, I bet they are still viewing an animated GIF as a series of pics. That is, they wait until the time interval has elapsed, then they start loading the next frame, and they just don't have the time to do a decent job of it. What they should do, instead, is read ahead and properly load the next frame so it's ready to go when needed.

This seems to be part of a greater failing in browsers, they don't appear to have much intelligence in how they load things. When loading a web page, for example, they seem to randomly load parts of different pics on the page, causing the text to jump all over the place as the pics appear. What they should do is first load the size of all pics, allocate the sizes on the page as empty boxes, render the page with all text and boxes for the pics, then load the pages from the top to the bottom (unless you are returning to a previously viewed page, where they should put you at the same part of the page you viewed last and load those pics first). StuRat (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very wrong of a browser to pre-load the entire GIF before starting to 'play' it. Remember that GIF files were specifically designed to load up line-by-line in an interleaved fashion in order to allow people to see a crude/fuzzy version of the picture rapidly and then gradually fill in the missing lines to make the image progressively sharper. That mechanism was subverted to make animated GIFs (which were never really 'designed' into the file format per-se). This was a valuable thing back in the days when everyone had slow modems - but (as you are discovering) it's a bit of a liability in the modern world. GIF's should be reserved for tiny animated buttons and logos and stuff. For movie clip replay you need Flash or something similar. Aside from anything else, the 256 color palette GIF uses is highly inappropriate for photographic material - ESPECIALLY when it's animating at low resolutions. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... No. According to the GIF89a spec, GIF supports interlacing and multiple image streams (simple animation) through two different mechanisms, and interlacing is quite optional. Not that GIF is optimal, but it's about the only game in town (yes, you can use flash on your own site; no you can't post flash in forums, send it in email, or add it to Wikipedia). – 74 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the browser should "pre-load the entire GIF before starting to 'play' it". What I said is that it should start loading the next frame immediately upon completion of the current frame, not wait for the delay interval to elapse before starting to load the next frame. StuRat (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office Live Workplace for Linux users

I'm moving this to the Computing Desk from the Science Desk... Nimur (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow Microsoft don't let Linux users use their Microsoft Office Live Workplace. Probably due to technical problems made on purpose. Is there any work-around this? What are the alternatives?--Mr.K. (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious reason is that they don't want Linux to take market share from them. There are Linux equivalents to each item in the Microsoft Office suite. Which items are you interested in ? MS Word, MS Excel, MS Access, MS PowerPoint ? StuRat (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question will get more responses at the Computing Desk. Nimur (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Principally, I need an online Office version. When a group can upload and share their (Open) Office documents. It is not only the tool in itself.--Mr.K. (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried out Google Docs? And it works on windows too :) Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to get the Windows version of Microsoft Office Live Workplace via Wine. (I'm pretty sure you can). -- penubag (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating DVD menus

You know those fancy menus you get on DVDs?

Is there any free software which will allow me to create my own?

(I have access to both XP and Vista). Thanks! Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Mac OSX, you can use iDVD to do it. I have no idea about Windows, though... flaming lawyer 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not free but I've found Ulead VideoStudio to be the best (most flexible and powerful). ConvertXtoDVD is 'free' (for a period at least) but limited in what you can do to create DVD menu's. Sandman30s (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it appears that Windows DVD Maker can do it. (I've not tried, mind, so it might not be very good, and I would love other suggestions). Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done it before but I know Windows Movie Maker can do it. WMM comes bundled with every XP/Vista. You can probably find a tutorial by searching on Google (since our wikibooks entry sucks). -- penubag (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pixels on computer screens

Hi..

Just a really dumb question about pixels if you don't mind...

I thought that a pixel was, in effect, a relative measurement. I.e. an element on a webpage (if inputted in pixels) will take up the same proportion of the screen whether the screen is 13" or 19 (i know that you can change your screen setting manually, but assuming most people don't do this...) SO i guess question 1 is.. is that true?

Ok, so now, when i open up IE, it opens in 'small screen' format so the website i'm building looks a bit messed up until you swtich it to full screen. I'd like to know whether a similar thing will happen on a small screen (say an 8" screen or even a mobile phone) or whether its just doing this becuase it knows its in 'half-screen' mode and is doing weird and wonderful things? thanks!81.140.37.58 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "pixel" can be used in 2 different senses. Computer screens have pixels. They physically exist, and cannot be changed in size. Operating systems tell browsers and other software how big a pixel is so they can display properly. If you have a 42" HD TV set up in Windows as an 800x600px monitor, then Windows (and all the other software) will think that a pixel is reeealy big. So everything will take up more space on your screen, because the software is using the wrong measurement for a pixel.

When your IE opens in the small-screen mode (not maximized), everything isn't displayed right. It's like setting your screen to a small setting (like 800x600). Mobile phones and/or small-screened comps might do this, depending on how they're set up. Some mobile phones (like the iPhone) open a web browser with a large screen setting, then make you double-tap an area to zoom in. Other phones just use a really small (like 100x200) screen setting. Most small-screened comps have a small screen setting (like 800x600) as the default, because the OS knows that it's using a small screen. If you set it to a larger dimension, everything on the screen would be really small and hard to see. flaming lawyer 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC)It sounds like you are assuming that a 13" and a 19" display will have the same horizontal pixel setting. This is possible, but seems unlikely. For example, an Asus EEE netbook with an 8.9" screen has a native resolution of 1024x600 pixels, while the HP notebook sitting next to me has a 15.4" screen with a 1280x800 resolution. Thus, an image that is declared in a page's HTML as being 500x500 pixels would take up roughly half the width and nearly all the height of the browser window on the Asus, but not nearly as much on the HP (41.6% of the width, 62.5% of the height). You can, of course, use CSS to set proportional sizes for the elements, based on the size of the viewport. One way to control how a site looks on a mobile device is to have a "handheld" stylesheet which is specifically designed for mobile devices. However, there's no guarantee that the browser on the device will actually use that stylesheet. More info here. --LarryMac | Talk 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recover ICQ6 password

Hi all,

where exactly does ICQ6 store the user's password? Network sniffing and hours of googling brought to me that the password hash is quite difficult, if not impossible, to reverse-md5 (http://code.google.com/p/joscar/wiki/LoginPasswordHash). Registry search for "ICQ" or "Mirabilis" didn't give out anything useful.

Or is there still some legacy way one can send his password to the mail address attached to an account? Unfortunately, I don't have any clue in what way I spelled the answer in my security question, this is the problem.

thanks,HardDisk (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried this. I created a simple MD5 hash using Sneak and then reversed it with that program with success might be worth a try. BigDunc^Talk 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salted MD5, no way to RE. HardDisk (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend asking someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography. User:Davidgothberg might be a good person to ask. -- penubag (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that your ICQ program saves the password and displays them as asterisks, then programs like this or this will reveal the password behind the asterisks. --71.106.173.110 (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics card upgrade part 2

A couple of weeks ago, I had asked about upgrading a graphics card on a Dell Inspiron 531s running Windows Vista. I received some very helpful replies, and I've done some more research. I'd like to check what I've learned against what you knowledgeable folks know and see if it makes sense...

One of the issues that arose is that the Inspiron 531s is a "slimline case", meaning that any card I buy would need to be a low profile one. User:CaptainVindaloo recommended an XFX GeForce 9500 GT Standard card, saying that he had upgraded a 531s using that (and a low profile bracket kit). The link he provided was to the UK version of Amazon.com, but since I'm in the U.S., I did some research of my own to find the card in a place a little closer to home. I found it on Dell's website. However, the description didn't say anything about it being low profile.

Being the cautious and paranoid person that I am, I decided to chat with a Dell representative to make sure this would work for me. The rep indicated that this card was NOT low profile because "...it has 2 DVI ports. Slim towers have 1 DVI port only". As an alternative, she recommended the ATI Radeon HD 4550.

TL;DR version of the above: A) Is it true that low profile cards only have 1 DVI port instead of 2? B) How does the ATI Radeon HD 4550 compare to the XFX GeForce 9500 GT? Both seem to be 512 MB. Thanks again for your help! Dgcopter (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It always depends on the cooling solution what profile a card has. Try to walk to your local HW store and ask the dude there; if you're lucky he already has a sample card for you. HardDisk (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem I'm having is that there don't seem to be any computer hardware stores around where I live. There are chain stores like Best Buy and Circuit City, but I'm not convinced that the people who work there will necessarily know more than the rep at Dell I spoke with today ... Dgcopter (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps call www.tigerdirect.com. Well, call their number, obviously. They usually have some pretty good technical information, but they'll know quite a bit more about an item if it is one they actually sell. Useight (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, according to this site, the 9500 GT is better than the Radeon 4550. Useight (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't read the review and have no idea how the two cards compare, I would read several reviews and the entire review if I were choosing a card based on performance. It's often the case from my experience summaries given in reviews are incredibly misleading. For example, a card may perform better at lower resolutions or settings where you get playable frame rates but lose at higher resolutions where the frame rate is so low the game isn't playable at the resolution/settings anyway. Yet the reviewer will say the second card wins even though for most people the first card likely makes more sense. Or perhaps a card usually performs around 5% better but is a lot worse in certain games or settings (all playable). In this case, unless the poor performance is a driver bug, most people would probably prefer the second card since a 5% performance difference is virtually nothing but the reviewer may say the first card is better. It also helps to look at the specific settings and games you are likely to be using and make sure the settings of the card being reviewed are the same. It's not uncommon the GPU or memory clock varies, sometimes even the memory type or memory path size between cards with the same model number. Particularly at the low end Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the 9500 GT does seem to be 20% faster than the 4550. However it's a good point: what games are going to be played, and at what resolution?

Pursing low-profile: a larger picture on Newegg shows that the second DVI port is detachable. So it is the right height, you will probably need a low-profile bracket. I suppose you could buy the card from Dell and then buy this. - mako 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS Word Equation Editor

I am using MS Word 2007 in order to type up my math work. When I am working on it, I click Shift+Enter in order to go to the next line and start another equation. For some reason, after too many equations, I click Shift+Enter and word goes into draft view. It will not let the user get out of the draft view and some of the notation in the final lines is lost. In addition, one can no longer save the file as a *.docx, only as a *.doc. Are there any solutions out there? Please don't give me solutions such as "dont use MS Word," that is not helpful. Thanks!--omnipotence407 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Word 2000 extensively and I haven't had a problem with Shift+Enter. I think Word changed the whole way it operates so I wouldn't know. Microsoft just cannot fix it's formatting kinks. I've been so frustrated over Word I've switched over to OpenOffice (which is free and has a built-in equation editor). I still have no idea as to why it changes the view but I'd recommend selecting all the text (but not with select all) and open a new word document and do paste special and select only the text option. Now that I think about it, I believe I've had the same problem you've described before, I can't really remember the details though. -- penubag (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem intent on using Word, perhaps you might contact Microsoft Tech Support. Or you could just create multiple documents, each with only as many problems/equations as Word will allow. – 74 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, Microsoft Word 2007 has a built-in equation editor, unlike previous versions, where you had to use Microsoft Equation (3.0) or any other external editor. The new editor is great, except for some bugs. I also had a lot of problems with not being able to save documents after having edited some formulas, but it appears now as if these problems have disappeared (probably due to updates). Have you installed Service Pack 1? (The most annoying thing about the new editor, however, is that it is not possible to number equations, without automatically reducing the equation's text size.) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

74.137 - I would contact tech support, but its about 50 bucks, and I'm not willing to pay that. Andreas - I do have SP1 installed, but it still seems to do it. also, I have been able to number the equations no problem. If you just want to number it like in an outline, you just put the 1) in the equation. If you want it labeled like a figure, you just highlight it, go to references, and click add caption. But I agree, this editor is great, this just seems to ber a bug that I was hoping someone would have a fix to. The best I've come up with is a pain, but it involves copying the entire document (minus the last two lines) into a new document. --omnipotence407 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, who knew writing buggy software could be that lucrative? I guess I just expected too much from "professional" software. – 74 23:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

omnipotence407: Yes, of course it is possible to add the numbering inside the equation and to use field captions, but what I want to do is to have the equation alone centered on a line with the equation number in the margin. The natural way of doing this is to use a centered tab stop for the equation, and (if the margin is the right one) a right tab stop at the right margin for the equation number. But if you do this, the equation will automatically change to the small style, used if the equation is embedded in "normal" text. It would be possible to overcome this problem with "text boxes" (Swedish: textrutor), but since most of my documents are quite long and I really need a convenient way of numbering equations, it does not appear to be a solution. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a bookmarking site that can organize like Wikipedia

So I've been all over the Google indexed web on a quest for a bookmarking service that fulfills my apparently unusual needs; I feel like I've tried every major one out there, but I still haven't found what I'm looking for. So I'm entering this as a last resort before I give up completely…

All sort of web sites allow to to enter pieces of information and then categorize them in something like a file directory. Among the hipper such places are the major social bookmarking sites, for which the cool thing is tags. I started to like tags when I first got into them, but lately they're an unweildy drag, and I've gone back to preferring folders. But plenty of bookmarking sites also do folders, so what's the problem?

The problem comes from Google Docs and Wikipedia (or more specifically, MediaWiki). Thanks to having used both of these services extensively, I've come to see the ideal category system as one in which categories can themselves be part of multiple parent categories — SO AWESOME. Yet it seems that only these two sites actually do such a thing. I really really really want to do this with one-click bookmarking, but the only ways I know are awkward: making a new Google Doc (or page on my personal wiki at [wiki-sites.com], and pasting the link (plus any text or images I want to keep from the page). At this point, I'd be plenty jazzed if there was a one-click way to add the current URL to a new Google Doc, but even that seems out of the question.

I know this is a pathetic "peel me a grape" sort of question, but still… any ideas? Anyone know of a very well-hidden site (or downloadable program) that can do this? The only necessary ingredients are the whatever-you-call-this-kind-of-category-scheme and one-or-two-click action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.163.106 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you specify which browser on which OS, but if you use Firefox, you can check out here. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you may also want to check out here if you're not a Firefoxer. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]