Computing desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 27

Firefox Flash sound works only when running as root

I'm using Kubuntu. In Firefox, sound doesn't play in Flash videos/applets, although the video works fine. If I sudo Firefox, the sound works fine, so I suspect I need to chown or chmod a file or folder. Which one?

On a related note, is there any way to log what files a sudo application has accessed that it wouldn't be able to without sudo? Neon Merlin 00:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you install Flash? If you just installed flashplugin-nonfree from the repo it should work out of the box. --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Merlin: you should not use sudo for graphical apps: http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/graphicalsudo SF007 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More of an FYI for Japanese character help

Help:Installing Japanese character sets has been split from Help:Japanese in order to allow for more focus in each of them. For anyone knowledgeable on installation of Japanese fonts on various operating systems, please review the information there and make any necessary corrections, additions, or clarifications. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista color mod?

Is there such a thing out there as a modification or program for windows vista so that in the properties dialog of files and folders you can set color tags, so that when viewing the items in explorer or whatever application, they are surrounded by that color?

Thanks!

209.240.240.192 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive looked around and found a few programs that seem to do what i want, like this one: Xyplorer, but it has way too much stuff. All i want is a little program that just has the added color functionality, or something that i can use to add a color tab to the properties dialog. Any ideas?

209.240.240.192 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add joliet extension to ISO: good idea?

Resolved

OK, I am working on a project that uses ISO (ISO9660) files, and I use the rock ridge extension, however, I have the option to also use joliet. My question is: adding the joliet extension to the ISO (in addition to rock ridge) will increase or decrease compatibility? My ultimate goal is to create an ISO as much future-proof as possible and also make it maximum compatible with other software and various OSes. My guess is that adding joliet will increase compatibility and features, but I am not sure. __ Hacktolive (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a little like a homework question, but I doubt the question would be given as homework, so I'll bite. All common OS's of today can read Joliet discs, and there are an awful lot of these discs around, so I would expect the OS's of the future to be able to read them. That said, adding joliet doesn't increase compatibility; it adds a risk that some corner-case OS won't be able to ~~read your disc.~~ Obviously it adds features, as the article explains. Tempshill (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - if memory serves, Joliet discs can be read fine by anything that can read ISO 9660 discs; the extra information will just be lost, so it wasn't accurate to say that the corner-case OS wouldn't be able to read the disc at all. Though without understanding Joliet filenames, the executable trying to read files off the disc might not work, for example. Tempshill (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you this is not homework, it is for my RUNZ software. Anyway, I added the joliet extension and it caused problems in at least one file... so i'll just stick to rock ridge, that should be enough. Thanks __ Hacktolive (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name that diagram

What are these types of diagrams called? And where can I read more about them? --69.113.82.135 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax diagram. Algebraist 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New PC Seems to Turn On...Screen in Black...

Hola! Yesterday I went out and bought all the ingredients to build my brand new PC! (Yay!) I got (IIRC) an Asus P6T Motherboard, and Intel Core i7 CPU, and 6GB (3x2GB) or Tri-Channel DDR3 RAM. (Yay Again!) So, I've put it all together (to the best of my ability), but here's my problem: When I hit the power button, the PC seems to turn on. The case fan works, the CPU fan works, the graphics card fan works. The only thing is, my monitor is getting "no input signal." This is frustrating because it's delaying my getting to use my new super-computer (Yay for a third time), but I can't help thinking there's, like, one simple thing that I forgot to do. Please help me diagnose this problem. Here's some (maybe) useful information:

The motherboard has 6 RAM slots. I have 3 sticks in the A1, B1, and C1 slots. I had 2 SATA hard-drives installed in the PC. One of them seemed to be working (I'm basing that assumption on the fact that it got hot after a while) and the other didn't (because it didn't get hot after a while.) Yes, my monitor is plugged in. At first I had my Nvidia Geforce 8800GTS installed in the PC, which gave no signal to the monitor. Then I tried putting in my old Geforce 7600GS, with the same result. Both are PCI Express cards, installed in the PCI Express x16 1 slot.

If you need more information, please ask. And thank you for answering my question (in the future). Digger3000 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get any beeps from the motherboard when turning it on? The number of them would help diagnose where the problem lies. If you get none at all there's probably something wrong with the CPU. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no beeps at all... Digger3000 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That means it's not actually booting. Try disconnecting one thing at a time and starting it to see if you get any beeps. If you're down to the CPU and still no beeps you should check all the jumper settings before finally reseating the CPU. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course: doublecheck the motherboard-speaker is properly installed if it's external! --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There are many, many things that could have gone wrong. Fans running is no indication that any of the rest is working at all - it simply indicates that power is finding its way to the fans. I'm assuming that all the other components you've bought (ie. CPU, hard drives, Graphics cards, etc.) are all fully compatible with the motherboard and you took preautions against static when handling anything.

First of all read through the manual from cover to cover (download it from here if you don't have it), then double check every connection, re-seat all the cards and other peripherals, and check all the jumpers on the motherboard. Start it up and listen for any beep codes. After that, the worst-case scenario is that you damaged the motherboard, or one or more components during installation. Astronaut (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say check the jumper settings...well, I really don't know much about jumpers, and I didn't change them from the configuration they were in when I got the motherboard...should I have? Digger3000 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume not, but they can be the problem if they're not set properly (the manual mentions there will be boot problems if the CLRTC-jumper is missing for instance). You should look at the manual and check everything is where it should, and also double check everything is placed properly (again, especially the speaker. It might be on the wrong way) on that white asus q-connector thing which is placed over the bottom-right pins. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said the speaker might be on the wrong way. Well I flipped it around, and still no beeping. Here's some additional information...don't know how useful it'll be: Once the PC is on, I can turn it off by holding down the power switch on the front panel, but only sometimes. Sometimes that doesn't work, and I have to turn off the power supply. Also, the hard drive, I guess, sounds like it's booting. Again, I don't know if that helps, but there you go. Oh, and also, if the CPU were damaged, is there any way I could tell by looking at it? Digger3000 (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried both graphics cards in your old PC (to make sure the new 8800GTS works and you haven't broken the old 7600GS)?

Should you have checked the jumpers? Absolutely YES. I know it is boring as hell, but please do read the manual and make sure you understand everything that needs to be done.

How can you tell if the CPU is dead? It is unlikely you could tell just by looking (unless there was a small fire :-). The best way to test it is try it in another (working) Core i7 based system. Astronaut (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once you establish in another machine that a card is working, try it in every slot into which it fits. The black slot, closes to the CPU, is supposed to be the special graphics slot. but it MAY need enabling in the BIOS to work. Of course you can't get to the BIOS until you get it working. Remove the hard drive that does not seem to be working. If there's anything wrong with it that could be inhibiting the whole startup process. There is no reason at this stage to assume something wrong with the CPU, as long as you made sure to buy DDR of the right voltage, as per the label near the RAM slots on the board. Remove and reseat all the memory, too. - KoolerStill (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I tried putting the graphics card in all 3 slots and still no signal. Someone told me its possible that if part of the motherboard is touching the case, it could short everything out. One corned of my MB was screwed a little tight to the case (touching it) so I unscrewed that, but it seemed to make it worse. Instead of the fans coming on and staying on (like they used to) they only come on for a second or two and then stop, then come on again and stop again. (Hope that makes sense.) Any ideas from this? Digger3000 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's only earthing to the case intermittently.There should be some kind of nylon spacer between the board and the case. I'd strongly suggest you stop turning it on until you've re-read the manual that should have come with the board. There is a download link just above, if you didn't get one. Step by step check that you've done everything as it tells you to.Don't just nod and say "I did that" but actually check. This is too good a machine to blow up from carelessness at this stage. Take out one hard drive and all but one memory stick. - KoolerStill (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first PC I've built. I built another one about 5 years ago, and m dad claims he remembers there being some tpe of rubber washer or spacer between the case and the motherboard, but I don't remember anything like that, nor did my current motherboard come with anything like that. So...as it stands right now my motherboard is in contact with the case. Is that not how it's supposed to be? If not, should my motherboard have come with something like that, and could my motherboard (or any of my other components) now be damaged as a result of the MB being in direct contact with the case? Digger3000 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to know (not actually having the thing) - but - if the motherboard is supposed to make earth contact to the case through the screw holes then you should expect to see a ring of metal (copper or tin coloured) around the screw hole.

There's no reason why, or why not a particular motherboard shouldn't do this - however I don't know which is the case here..

I would expect a spacer - the entire bottom of the motherboard should not be touching the case - there should be a gap - even if the screw contacts connect to ground - in otherwords there should be spacers - not necessarily separate - could be built into the case, or prefixed to the board - can you describe what/how the bottom of the motherboard keeps off the case?

If the motherboard was in direct contact with the case and if the case electrically conducts the I would expect a short circuit (are there circuits on the base of the motherboard?) - so yes something could have been damaged - in the case of a short I'd expect sparks though - and the powersupply would (hopefully) detect that and put on a warning light etc..83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The motherboard says it supports PCI Express 2.0 Is it possible that my card (Nvidia Geforce 8800GTS 640MB) is not PCI-E 2.0, and therefore wouldn't work with this motherboard? Digger3000 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PCI Express is backwards compatable - so that shouldn't be a problem.

There's a lot of sockets on that board - have you doubled checked for obvious mistakes like plugging the VGA linker into the right hole, and setting the dipswitches or whatever for that setup.?83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious mistakes really aren't all that obvious to me...Could yo tell me what a VGA linker is? Digger3000 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops - looks like this one doesn't have one - what about - have you put the graphics card in the default pci slot (assuming there is a default for single card?) - have you actually got a green power light on yet - basically nothings blown up - but there's not picture right?83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have what I think is a green power light on my front panel. (A green light under what appears to be a picture of the sun.) But also a red light under what appears to be a picture of a cylinder. And you're right, no picture, but nothing blows up. Digger3000 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

green light is good - this probably means you got everything powered up. red light might be a sign - cylinder usually means hard disk - you'll have to check the manual to see what it signifies exactly - but I'd start finding out if that red light means error.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Question

Hey I was wondering if anyone knew how to hide images/music/videos from other profiles on a PS3, as in making them private so that only I can use see them and no other profile can. Rgood erm ote 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rundll32.exe

For some reason I always have two of them running on my computer. I can't remeber when it started, but I can't remember not seeing them. Just wondering why I have two copies (which take out diff. amounts of memory) always running on my computer. I've used Panda scan and have Avira anti-vir, running on Windows Vista if that helps. I don't visit any websites that I think should give me a virus (mostly ESPN, SI, gmail, some random blogs). Thanks in advance 24.171.145.63 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal. It's a system program that is used to run other things, so you just have two things being run via it. I have two versions of it running on my computer at the moment. See Dynamic-link library for more information, although that article doesn't seem to mention rundll32 itself. Google found me this page explaining it - I've only glanced at it, but it seems pretty good. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rundll32.exe runs functions from DLLs. Check out Process Explorer; it gives you a lot more information than Windows' Task Manager. Just mouse over the process in question, and the tooltip should tell you what it's running. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of info on it here. BigDunc^Talk 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More at [1]. As it says, it'll run anything you tell it to run (assuming it's possible), so simply that you see rundll32.exe in the task manager means nothing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows: Shortcut to shortcut?

On WinXP, it appears to be "a nontrivial exercise" to create a shortcut which links to another shortcut, i.e. A.lnk points to B.lnk which points to C1, a file.

(Scenario: C1 will change to C2 will change to C3 etc on a regular basis. B.lnk I can easily manipulate, to point to the current C. A.lnk is on a remote machine, and needs access to the current version of C, but is NOT so easily manipulated. Trivial on *nix, I know, but that's not one of the variables I can change.)

I thought that -- through the Properties dialog -- I might be able to edit A.lnk, but Windows wants to resolve the indirection right away, and A.lnk always ends up pointing to Cx. So, does anyone have any clever way to out-clever Microsoft here? I'm wondering, for instance, if renaming one of the links to a .txt extension, editing it, then changing something back might work, but haven't come up with a workable scenario on that path yet.

One website suggests making A into a .bat file which accesses the correct target, but I haven't seen through that yet, either.

Suggestions? Remember, "A" is on a remote machine, so the goal is to set up something there that does NOT require ongoing maintenance. Thanks! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bat file seems to work very simply. eg make a text file (notepad) that contains the descriptor of B (~~or C?~~). The indirection isn't resolved as with your original problem..

Issues are

Icon is not a shortcut, don't know if this can really be solved directly (except by putting the bat file somewhere safe, and creating a shortcut "D" to A.bat ie both D links to A, A is the bat file)

(Haven't checked for problems on a remote machine - but can't see an issue with it...)

83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that you only have to change the shortcut B on the local machine and no others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. I can easily update the pointer to the correct version of C, but no other references should need to also be changed. Thanks, I think I see how the .bat file works now. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Just to test this on my home system, I created an Excel file well down in the innards of the file system; I created a shortcut to it on the desktop; and I created a bat file to run the shortcut.

From a command prompt, I can see that the actual name of the shortcut on the file system ends with .xls.lnk. Thus, in Notepad I typed exactly one line, starting with C:\ and ending with .xls.lnk.
That was dumb; because this is WinXP, part of the pathname is "Documents and Settings", so I then put the whole thing in quotes:

"C:\Documents and Settings\Me\Desktop\Link.xls.lnk"

Excel launches, says it can't find the file, and HANGS! I can't terminate Excel, Windows enters "program is not responding" mode, which then tries to send an error report to Microsoft, and HANGS AGAIN doing that.

I seem to have zombie copy of Excel running, that Task Manager itself can't kill.

Should I have said "Run <filename>"?

Or, "Open <filename>"?

Or, "EXCEL.EXE <filename>"?

Or, should I have used DOCUME~1 in the pathname?

(I'll post this and then reboot, I guess...)

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edited - after many mistakes)

I tried a similar thing - with a shortcut to a .bat file to a shortcut to a spreadsheet file - which worked (all the links in different positions). Also worked when eventually just linking to the program. Any errors I made just caused a standard "file not found" error at the command line - no zombie programs. Also worked for different file/program types. One thing I couldn't try was excell - did work with .xlr spreadsheet for MS works though. No idea what went wrong for you.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean when you say just linking to the program? Do you mean linking to the executable, .exe file? To me, this means launching the associated application, excel.exe, which would have to be full-pathed since its containing directory is not in %PATH%. I've been approaching this only from the data file side, maybe that's my problem.

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, linking to the .exe file is what I meant - without specifying an extra file - it starts up and presents the "open file" dialog box.

(What I haven't tried is using "C:\ .... \program.exe filename.xls" - though in all the examples I've tried so far everything has functioned just as it would on the command line, so I'd expect it to work if the syntax is right). (all done in XP)

On the otherside I also tried linking via the .bat and .lnk files to the data file, and that worked too.

In all examples I used the full code path in the .bat file.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Surprisingly, the solution *may* have been changing the pathname to include DOCUME~1 and removing the quotes. I made that and one other change at the same time, and it worked -- the command prompt even goes away, and I was afraid that was going to stick around too after the previous negative experience. Thanks! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]