Computing desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

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 16

Adobe Fonts - Mac to PC

Hello Wikipedia,

I'm currently doing a Graphic design course, which uses Mac and I want to work from home so dutifully acquired Adobe CS3 for my PC. All is well, apart from the fact that the fonts my school use don't seem to work on my PC =-i have them on USB stick at the moment. Is there a way of getting these to work, ideally without spending money? (Adobe used to have a thing called ATM but that seems to have been discontinued...)

Many thanks, 86.6.101.208 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try installing the fonts? Morenoodles (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I first opened them up, windows then asked me if i wanted to install them, so i said yes.. it then came up with error message for certain kinds of fonts (the good ones -helvetica etc), which are the ones i can't use.. I tihnk there might be an issue with Font formatting -my Indesign software only seems to recognise True Type and open type but i'm sure there' another mac one isn't there? 86.6.101.208 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that some of them are Mac font suitcases, and won't work with Windows. You'll have to either buy or "find" TTF or OTF versions of them to use them on Windows. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find you said? ;-) Killiondude (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, who is really going to pay for a private copy of Helvetica these days? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or convert. There are tools out there that will take a Mac-only font and make it Windows-compatible. --Carnildo (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally use such tools with suspicion. My guess is that they end out tossing out some of the proprietary data which can effect how fonts print, are displayed. Better to find a real OTF or TTF version that can be used on both without fear, if you are doing graphic design. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting two PCs at home.

I possess computers, one running Windows XP and the other Redhat Linux. According to me, Windows is a far more advanced OS as equated to Linux. I find it quite difficult to work properly in Linux. Recently, I have decided to keep both of my PCs connected to one another. But can I connect the two PCs just by using ethernet cables, DSL USB modems and Phone cables? If so, how can I do so? And after connecting, how can I set up the remote desktop connection between the two? Can anyone please help me out? Any help is heartily welcome. 117.201.98.161 (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't answer your question, but if Red Hat is what I think then it's pretty ancient. You might try Ubuntu or something else that's new. Morenoodles (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can connect two computers using a special ethernet cable from one computer's network card to the other computer's network card. This requires a crossover cable and manually configuring the two computers on the same subnet. Another solution would be to purchase a router (~$50) then connect both computers to the router. The router will supply DHCP addresses to the computers, automatically configuring them on the same subnet. The linux box does not support "Remote Desktop" (the Microsoft program), though there are alternatives that accomplish similar connectivity. You cannot bridge two DSL modems to create a network (the modems are asymmetric). -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the two machines aren't remotely ancient, you don't need a crossover cable. Ethernet cards made since around 2000 have auto MDI/MDI-X sense detect, so they'll automatically handle a computer to computer connection with a regular (non-crossover) ethernet cable. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you have a cross-over cable, although you'll be able to connect the two together, you won't necessarily be able to do anything with them. To do normal internet applications you will need to give both machines IP addresses, and also proper routing information. A router (which can easily be found for less than $50) will assign IP addresses and routing information automatically. Otherwise you will have to assign addresses to both computers manually, and that will probably be difficult to do. What exactly do you want to do with them together? If you want to transfer files it would be helpful to know what versions of Redhat you have, and what software (software to do the task you want to do) you're comfortable with on your Windows computer. If you can give each computer an IP address, then you can use them for many internet applications, although this too will require some basic understanding of internet addressing, protocols, etc. It would be helpful if you were more specific in what exactly you are trying to accomplish. LH (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing everyone seemd to have missed, it's not entirely clear if both comps have ethernet. The OP only mentioned ethernet cables and DSL USB modems Nil Einne (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I killed my USB Flash Drive ?

I have got a Maxell 512 MB USB 2.0 USB flash drive that I had for a year or two (I think)that has worked perfectly until one day I plugged it in and I couldn't access it. It didn't come up in the My Computer or the Windows Explorer screens. Also the little LED light that should light up when the flash drive is plugged stopped lighting up.

But the day before it worked properly, it came up in both the My Computer and the Windows Explorer screens and when I double clicked the little green arrow for the Safley Remove Hardware it was in that screen also.

Have I done something to it ?

Do they only last for certain amount of time ?

Is it possible to recover the date that's on it ? Scotius (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you plug a different USB device into that port and see if it is detected correctly? If so, the USB drive is at fault. If not, Windows may have disabled the USB port due to an overcurrent (most likely if you have several devices connected). Rebooting the computer (if you haven't already) should reinitialize the hardware and might cause it to start working again. You might also try plugging the USB drive into a different computer. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, USB pen drives do have a limited life. The number of read/write cycles would normally make it last for years, unless it's being used for some very intensive purposes, like as paging space (an extremely poor idea for many reasons). A half gig drive is so cheap that it's hardly an issue, though, just pick up another one. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can use any other USB device on any of my computers or any other computer that I can use. If I use that USB device regardless of which computer I am using than I can’t access it. Scotius (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your USB drive has indeed failed catastrophically, although the failure mode doesn't necessarily fit with overuse. Was the drive exposed to large variations in temperature, or any handling that could have damaged it? Anyway, as StuRat said the drives are very cheap these days; the only concern would be trying to retrieve any valuable data from the failed drive. If it's really valuable, you can contact a data-recovery service to salvage the contents. If it's not _that_ valuable, you might try opening the USB drive to see if there is any obvious damage to the circuit board inside. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No the wasn't anything of value, thanks anyway :( Scotius (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had one do the same thing. Worked fine one day, stopped working the next. Alas. I went out and bought a new one. I always get the $20 model for this reason—every year or two they fail, but you get more space for $20 each year (was 2GB last time I did this). --140.247.248.76 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 60mb flash drive from 2003 still going good. I use it less these days now I have a 500Gb portable hard drive, but occasionally I boot up a linux from it to hack admin passwords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When that Flash drive died on me I started using a laptop hard drive that I got a case for , not sure what the proper name for it is , caddie is it, so that I can use it as a portable hard drive. I think it's only 12GB though.Scotius (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's called a disk enclosure

High-resolution Windows 9x on Modern Laptops?

Occasionally, I install old Windows operating systems (Windows 9x) on old (ca. 1997) or "quite old" (ca. 2004) computers. (This is not a simple procedure. Because Win 9x installation CDs are not bootable and have no partition manager, I first need to boot the PC from a bootable partition manager, and then I need to boot the system from a bootable DOS CD. Only then can I execute install.exe on the Windows 9x CD.) This usually works fine, but if I try to install Windows 9x on a "quite old" laptop, there is a big risk that I will only be able to use the horrible 640×480 16 colour video mode. Is there any simple way of making the OS run in a "normal" high-resolution mode? I do not need the hardware's all 3D acceleration capabilities; running Windows in perhaps 1280×768 24 bit colour mode would suffice very well. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the graphics hardware of he pc more than anything else. The old pc may have a graphics board that only supports 256kB for instance in which case you can't expect anything more than 800x600 in 16 colours. For 1024x768 by 24 bit colour you need 4Mb. I guess most of them could do that if they aren't totally awful. You can download drivers for most display boards off the net. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. use a good modern computer with firewalls anti virus etc when getting the drivers! Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that the computer is too new for the OS - or, that the OS is too old for the computer. The computer I am working on now is from 2006 and was designed for Windows XP... However, Windows 9x does not know how to use the hardware, it appears. So, my question is: how to make an old OS (Win 9x) use the hardware of a modern PC. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to find drivers for new hardware for Windows 9x... --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet! Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a solution to your problem: hardware manufacturers simply don't support the older versions of Windows anymore. (Which is pretty understandable, as it's very rare for users to install decade-old software on new computers.) Unless you can locate a third-party driver for the hardware, you're pretty much out of luck. Alternatively, you could install an older graphics card in the computer... with a laptop, of course, that may not be an option at all. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Windows 9x" are you installing? There are three of them (95, 98, and 98SE), and the ease of getting drivers varies greatly. For any computer more than a few years old, 98SE drivers shouldn't be a problem, while 98 drivers are harder to find, and drivers for Win95 are almost impossible to find. --Carnildo (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(When I speak of "Win 9x", I include Windows ME.) Well, I have CDs for all three of them (95, 98SE, Me), and have tried them all, but have never succeeded in making the screen high-res. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Updates

How do I know when (or even if) Vista is installing an update or security patch? On XP it was simple. You had a little yellow shield in the bottom right, then you got told to restart when it finished. This has not happened with my new machine so far. I am concerned because of a recent article on the BBC website saying that a critical update (MS08-067) was needed. I don't know if I have it or not. How would I find out? Ok, two questions there, sorry.--KageTora (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vista is updating software using Windows Update. If you open your start menu (press the Windows button), type "Windows Update" and press Enter, you will open Windows Update. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can choose "Search for Updates", "Show Update History", "Change Settings" and so on (I have translated the strings from Swedish - they may be slightly different on your computer). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Windows Update downloads updates from the internet, there is a little blue rectangular icon in the system tray (bottom right of your screen). If memory serves correctly, it is animated a little bit as well. Killiondude (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question 2 (do I have it?): My best guess would be to go Control Panel > Programs and Features > "View installed updates" (on the left hand side). That certainly lists the KB index numbers of all installed updates. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done all that now. However, this thing begins with 'MS', not 'KB' and it is not listed.--KageTora (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to cross-reference Microsoft's MS number with a Microsoft KB number. Perhaps the easiest way to do so is to Google 'MS08-067' which leads to this bulletin. On that page, the associated KB number is given as 958644. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Vista installation is set up to notify me when there are updates. To get that option, I went to Control Panel -> Windows Update and chose Change Settings in the left hand panel. In the settings page I moved the selected option to Download updates but let me choose whether to install them (it is not the recommended option and IIRC I got a couple of warnings at first). I now get notified about updates every couple of days, usually with a definition update for Windows Defender, but sometimes a security patch or something bigger. I find it's nice to know the update process is ongoing and I get the opportunity to defer a big update like Office SP1 to a more convenient time. Astronaut (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XP Screen resolution

Is there a way to link the screen resolution to the user? Another person also uses my computer and changing the resolution screws up the order of my desktop icons. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not simply use another user profile? I'm pretty sure screen resolution settings are user-specific. (I mean, desktop images and icons and whatnot certainly are.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two users set up. I just don't see anywhere in user accounts to set it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft doesn't appear to allow you to have individual display settings. There is an unofficial workaround involving setting the resolution in a bat file executed on each login, but that would potentially still cause your desktop icons to be rearranged before the new resolution was applied. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Desktop Icon Positions After Windows Rearranges Layout has a utility to save and restore the desktop icon layout. --Bavi H (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helped a bit, though some of the icons still moved around. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird Error

I am getting this message: 'An error occurred while sending mail. The mail server responded: 5.7.0. Must issue a STARTTLS command first. 1sm2080490ewy.49. Please verify that your email address is correct in your Mail preferences and try again.' Why this all of a sudden? I sent mail easily about five minutes ago. Anyway, can anyone give me any idea of what to do here?--KageTora (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Addendum - it seems to have happened since I added a new Gmail account to it. I have been using a different Gmail account up until now, and am trying to have both of them work on Thunderbird, which has never been a problem before. I can use the new one with no problem, but the old one is my main one. How do I sort this out? --KageTora (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I sorted it out. --KageTora (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved