Computing desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

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 19

Reinstall OS X

I have here a 20" iMac (A1076). When I turn it on, I get a flashing question mark on a folder. I guess that is because the OS is not installed? So I inserted Panther Install Disc 1, then booted from the disc by holding the "C" key on startup. It boots to a white screen with a grey Apple logo. After a few seconds, the apple logo shifts a centimeter or so to the right, then the computer hangs. What should I do? 118.92.210.37 (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the install disk that shipped with that iMac, or just a generic OS X 10.3 (Panther) installer? If I'm parsing my google results right, that's an iMac G5 20" 1.8GHz (original version, not the rev with the ambient light sensor) aka "PowerMac8,1", which means that it needs OS X 10.3.5 or later. An older version (i.e. what you'd find on a generic 10.3.0 installer disk) is likely to try to work, but fail. A lot like what you describe.

If I'm right about the problem, you need to find either the disks that came with that model, or a newer generic install disk.

If I'm wrong, other likely possibilities include:

a damaged disk: solution is the same as above
a bad optical drive: if you can find an external FireWire CD/DVD drive (including another Mac in Target Disk Mode), you could use that... I think that model also supports booting from USB, so a USB drive should also work
Not enough RAM (128MB, I believe) in the computer to fully boot: add more
An internal hard drive so thoroughly hosed that the OS hangs just looking at it: try disconnecting the HD; if the install disk boots then, you could just replace it, or try to find a way to erase it without ever trying to mount it (maybe one of the Linux Live CDs would help here)

That's what comes to mind off the top of my head, anyway. Good luck. Speaker to Lampposts (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

movie graphics standards

If you're doing digital effects for Battlestar Galactica, say, or rendering the next Pixar feature, how many pixels do you generate for a frame? Is it the usual 3×8 bit color model, or something more tuned to film? —Tamfang (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the colour depth, please have a look at this previous Reference Desk question. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki article on digital cinematography has some information on the subject. A few years ago, I've read that some film preservation projects scanned each frame at 4000 pixels of horizontal resolution. A quick web search found this article on film preservation. --173.49.15.243 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they'll be using HDR (High Dynamic Range) images - which means they'll be using either 3x32 bit floating point or 3x16 bit - or possibly an 'SRGB' mess where S is the intensity and RGB are normal 8 bit colors - different color depths for different stages of the pipeline is also highly likely. The resolution may also vary - but for a feature movie, I'd expect at least 7000 pixels horizontally - for a 'made-for-TV' or 'direct-to-DVD' then they probably go much lower. But it's not a straightforward question because in all likelyhood they'll use different resolutions in different places in their workflow. SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to add that information to the digital cinematography article, which sadly lacks any mention of any format with more resolution than 12 bit 4096×2304 pixels. Also, I would like to put that information into the high dynamic range imaging article, which currently implies HDRI is only used for still photos. Alas, I can't just cram that information into articles without any references. Does anyone have any references that support HDRI being used for video? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solution Configurations in Visual Studio

I have started using Visual Studio Express 2008 to develop some Windows programs in C#. When I first installed it, I'm pretty sure I was able to build my programs in either "debug mode" or "release mode". However, I've recently noticed that the solution configuration options have disappeared and the Configuration Manager option is permanently greyed-out. I am now only able to produce a release version. Any ideas how to fix this, or should I reinstall Visual Studio from scratch? Astronaut (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use VS Express too. It only produces a Debug build when you run/debug the program from inside Visual Studio. When you build using F6, it produces a Release build. --wj32 ^t/c 04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tools | Options | Show all settings (enable) | Projects and Solutions | Show advanced build options (enable). Bendono (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTH. I didn't see that! Thanks a lot! --wj32 ^t/c 06:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reinstall VS, but that's fixed it. Thank you Bendono. Astronaut (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Keys suddenly producing wrong symbols

Help! Some of the keys on my keyboard have started producing the wrong symbols - the hash key now produces \ and shift + hash now makes | instead of a tilde. shift + ' now makes " instead of the at sign, shift + 2 now makes @, I get a hash when I should get a pound sign, help! DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems to be doing this in Chrome, but not in Outlook, and now I shut Chrome and reopened it, it seems back to normal. Any ideas what happened? DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your keyboard somehow switched to standard American layout. I don't know what it was before, but all of the things you mentioned are normal on the keyboard I use. flaming lawye r^c 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a British English layout. So, for example, shift+the top row produces ¬!"£$%^&*()_+ and shift+# produces a tilde. DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well on my American keyboard, the top row is ~!@#$%^&*()_+ which isn't extremely different. But I'm surprised that you have a button for #. I have to shift for it. flaming lawye r^c 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

# is at the far right of the row that starts asdf, and just by the carriage return. You can see the British and American keyboard layouts at British keyboard. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably not that, but in Windows the Alt+Shift key combination changes the keyboard layout. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that some Windows installations are prone to apparently spontaneously switching keyboard layouts. My laptop has a british keyboard layout but I prefer to use a US layout external keyboard that I find it easier to use when coding (a hangover to the days way back when my university only had US keyboards). Anyway I had the same problem, presumably due to me accidentally lingering on a certain key combination while typing, until I changed the auto-switching settings and I haven't had the problem re-occur since.

Find the Regional and Language options in the control panel. On that form, there is a tab for changing the keyboard and language settings. In my Vista installation, that tab has a Change Keyboards button which leads to another form listing the default input language/keyboard and a list of installed languages and keyboards. Either delete the unnecessary keyboards and languages combinations or change the key combinations that will switch keyboard layout. Note: in XP I believe the form with the list of keyboards and languages might be only accessible from Control Panel -> Keyboards.

Astronaut (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! I'm in XP, control panel->regional and language options->languages->details->key settings, then switched off the keys to switch! Many thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Resoution /Video Card - Re: Pixels are rendered as little squares

Good Day!

I have a question in regards to the images on the computer screen. There are images which are not clear ie: pixels are rendered as little squares. The interesting part is that NOT all images are distorted. One of the websites that I have this issue with is MSN home page, but not necessarily all the images. This is a mystery to me and I have attempted to resolve it to no avail. Is it possible that the video card is not working properly? Is so what are some recommendations? But, why would it affect some images and not others?

Many thanks for your assistance.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

M.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.246.8 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post a screenshot of the problem you're experiencing? -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some Web accelerator software installed? This type of software was promoted a few years ago as offering near broadband speeds over dialup connections. One of the ways it achieved this was to compress images in a very lossy way resulting in pixellated images. Astronaut (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defragmentation

My computer will let me defragment on a schedule. The problem is that it says it did it but I never see any evidence it is happening while it is happening.

I don't like to do it manually because I have to just sit there for who knows how long to wait for it to be finished.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- OS Name Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium Version 6.0.6001 Service Pack 1 Build 6001 Other OS Description Not Available OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation System Name System Manufacturer HP-Pavilion System Model KT369AA-ABA a6512p System Type x64-based PC Processor Intel(R) + - Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.0.6001.18000" <Social Security Number removed> User Name Time Zone Eastern Standard Time Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB Total Physical Memory 3.99 GB Available Physical Memory 2.15 GB Total Virtual Memory 8.18 GB Available Virtual Memory 6.13 GB Page File Space 4.28 GB Page File C:\pagefile.sysVchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful next time. You posted your SSN in there... But as for your problem, it might be that Vista is doing it so smoothly that you don't even notice. But we're talking about Vista, so that's not likely... flaming lawye r^c 19:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you see no evidence of it not happening either, right? The benefits of defragmentation have been for the most part vastly overrated anyway, and this is definitely one of the things the operating system should be able to handle on its own. If you must have "proof" that defragmentation occurred, you might try running "defrag c: -s" at a command prompt; if you want to "catch it in the act" you can monitor "Task Manager" for the defrag process. Otherwise, relax and let the operating system do the defragmentation in the background. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't see my social security number anywhere. I would surely have removed it if it had been in that information. But I looked at what I copied from and don't see it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "Just kidding" right after that, but commented it out. I expected you to see it (but you didn't). flaming lawye r^c 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion moved to talk page. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla Firefox 3 navigator bar's default search engine?

Resolved

When you enter a string in the navigator bar of Mozilla Firefox 3 it either redirects you to a similar website or automatically redirects you google search results. However, after I downloaded a Ask.com toolbar, which I later uninstalled, FF is now still trying to search through the ask.com [1]. Now any string I enter Firefox tries to search the string through the uninstalled toolbar, thus giving no results!! I hate ask.com! Please advise me how to fix this so that FF navigator bar works the way it used work earlier! --Sanguine learner ^talk 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much a quick fix as a diagnostic: Bring up Windows' "run"; type "firefox -P" (minus quotes); create a new profile; load that. If the problem persists, well, it's quite serious, but if there isn't a problem with the new, clean profile, then post here and we'll see what we can do. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one isnt too destructive: [2] outlines how to change it to either google, yahoo, or google's I'm feeling lucky, which is the one I think you want back. --omnipotence407 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Omnipontence the link info is for FF 2.0 and does not work for FF 3.0! --Sanguine learner ^talk 18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the same instructions, but use this http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q= as the string, it should work, at least it does on mine. It looks like google has replaced the link. Oh, ignore the whole voiding your warranty. You might also try right clicking on the row and selecting "reset," that might work. --omnipotence407 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I type about:config it displays

XML Parsing Error: no element found
Location: about:config
Line Number 1, Column 1:

-Sanguine learner ^talk 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are out of my league. The best I can suggest is as follows. First, just try reinstalling firefox overtop of the current version, like a manual update. Then, if that doesnt work, uninstall and reinstall firefox. Just backup your bookmarks and passwords (using the password exporter addon). If you dont want to do that, I would recommend opening a ticket with Mozilla as this seems to be a known bug. --omnipotence407 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it worked! The about:config feature did exist but due to a sidebar addon i didn't realize that it was showing me the filter bar in the sidebar! THANKS!! YES!! --Sanguine learner ^talk 18:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why would i only be able to connect to wikipedia.org and not other sites

i know this is the wrong place to ask this but it is the weirdest thing. I am only able to connect to wikipedia.org and i can search it completely, but i cannot access any other sites and this goes for my computer as well as my wifes any help would be great adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.174.175 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get any error messages trying to connect to the other sites? What sort of problems do you encounter? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like some "child protection"-type software might be set to block all sites except those in the whitelist, and Wikipedia was added to that whitelist. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that DNS name resolution is, for some reason, not working. That you're still able to connect to wikipedia.org might be the result of cached name resolution result prior to the failure. --173.49.15.243 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What he said. Try: http://64.170.98.42/html/rfc920 . -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HuffingtonPost.com login

Resolved

I have an account at HuffPost.com. The login at that website works a bit differently from everything I've encountered so far: A field appears (within the tab/window), hovering over the background of the page where I clicked on Log In. The huge drawback is that Firefox cannot seem to remember the login data, and I have to enter them manually each time. Is there any workaround? I only ever access that account from home and don't really need any additional security (which, I suppose that login mechanism is designed to provide). 78.34.154.49 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More likely it's only designed to "look cool". Anyway, with javascript disabled the login link redirects to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/login/ . Presumably you can bookmark that page and Firefox will remember your login details. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Wonderful, thanks a bunch! Now I can just swiftly drive by and unload my anti-liberal rants to the target audience... :D 78.34.154.49 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube issues

I'm trying to create an account there, and I keep getting this message: The verification code was invalid or has timed out, please try again . This message appears every time I try again. I type the CAPTCHA and my password properly, so what's the issue? I figured it out. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Displays on Dual Monitors

Is it possible to have two different backgrounds on my dual monitor setup? --omnipotence407 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The easiest way may be to open the two backgrounds in a photo editor and paste them together into one double-sized background which can then span both monitors (recommended by Microsoft, even!). It's probably also possible to use some "Active Desktop" magic to cause a different image to appear on each monitor. Finally, you can plug the second monitor into a second computer, and use that computer to set a different background image on that monitor. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you can set the displays to have different backgrounds on two different computers ? And here I was spray-painting the monitors to change the color. Thanks for the hint, those fumes were killing me. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also look into if your video card has any special software. Nvidia cards have "nview" for instance, which is the little icon in your tray. It has options (under "Desktop" if I remember right) to have two different desktop wallpapers. It's easier than installing other software or cutting and pasting together a photo everytime you want to change a desktop. LH (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have dual monitors I'd highly recommend taking a look at a bit of software called Ultramon which does this and a bunch of other stupidly useful things. 212.219.8.231 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]