Computing desk
< November 27	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 29 >

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.

November 28

Possible to add WiFi "n" to PS3 via USB dongle?

Is it possible to add 802.11n WiFi to the Playstation 3 with one of those USB WiFi .11n dongles? I'm noticing streaming Netflix is having a hard time keeping up with HD shows over PS3's built-in "g" WiFi. --68.103.143.23 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot install the driver for the wifi adapter in the PS3 OS. If you simply run Linux on your PS3 for some reason, you could install the driver there. The common method to get 802.11n is to get a bridge configured to talk "n" instead of "g" to your router. Then, connect the bridge via the wired ethernet into the back of the PS3. So, the PS3 will have 1GB speed to the bridge and the bridge will be limited to "n". -- kainaw ™ 03:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How fast is your Internet connection? It's just that 802.11g is 54Mb/s (although realistically you probably don't get more than 30Mb/s), but even the 30Mb/s is still likely to be faster than your Internet connection which is probably the limiting factor here. If it is then adding 802.11n (which I don't see is actually an option anyway) just wouldn't do any difference. The only other thing I can think of is that perhaps the HD video is encoded with more bandwidth than the PS3 can handle, but I don't know what it can/can't handle with regards to that, so it's just another possibility. ZX81 ^talk 03:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PS3 handles the HD codec just fine. I've watched 1080p movies on the PS3 and it doesn't glitch. -- kainaw ™ 04:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting the codec won't work (original poster already verified that it does), but rather how high a bitrate for the video the PS3 can cope with. The higher the bitrate the more data it would have to process at once until the point it can't process anymore, but I honestly believe the problem is more to do with the Internet connectivity than the bitrate. ZX81 ^talk 04:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a new website

how to create a new website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshsivam (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learn HTML and create a website or use a WYSIWYG editor and create a website. -- kainaw ™ 03:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and after that get some hosting for the site, so people can actually visit it, see web host —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, use Google Sites or one of the other free services, which don't give you as much flexibility, but are probably a better (and certainly cheaper) way for you to get started and see how much you want to take on. Tempshill (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to register a domain name for your site SKYFUDREAMCLOUDS - TALK // CONTRIBUTIONS 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-configure Ubuntu Server

My desktop computer's video card died today, and it has no onboard video. I'd like to convert it to a headless Ubuntu Server with SSH. I plan to buy a USB external dock for the hard drive and connect it to my laptop for the conversion. Is an installer available that will let me do this? If not, where can I learn how to install it manually? The desktop's CPU is a Pentium 4 (i386 architecture), and the laptop's is a Core 2 Duo (amd64 architecture), so if I use chroot with apt-get, I may need to use architecture emulation as well. Neon Merlin 03:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best way would be to install the os through the laptop on the HD from the enclosure(make sure you get the 32bit, it should run on both computers). Then, when you are finished installing and you have ssh ready and you're sure it can boot up properly, you can move it to your headless comp. (tip, take the native(the one inside) hd out of the laptop, so the only hd the os knows about is the one in the enclosure). Though, i strongly suggest you get a crappy video card from somewhere, they're throwing them away these days(go to a local school, and ask the admin for some); it should help you diagnose problems like in BIOS, network problems(which you can't diagnose otherwise because the ssh won't work) and so on. 129.97.226.160 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

files and their shortcuts

How can we keep the shortcut to files pointing to the same file even if it is moved to another place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.159.177 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say what operating system you are using. Here's a couple of methods under Unix/Linux:

1) Add a new link pointing from the old location to the new one. Now you have a link pointing to a link pointing to the file, but it still works the same. I'm not sure if there's a limit on how many levels of links you can have.

2) Use relative directories containing logical file names. So, if the file is in $HOME/bin, and $HOME = /usr/adams, and you then change it to /usr/baker, then, as long as the link points to $HOME/bin (as opposed to /use/adams/bin), then it will follow the file to the new location automatically. StuRat (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am using windows xp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.174.230 (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on a shortcut where the target has moved, Windows will automatically look for the target. 121.72.215.173 (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or right-click the shortcut, select "properties", and change the target in the dialog that appears. --NorwegianBlue^talk 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I play these Games with This computer?

Dell Studio 1555:

Intel Core 2 Duo P7450 2.13GHz, 1066Mhz, 3M L2 Cache
RAM 4GB, DDR2, 800MHz
512MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570
500G 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive

Call of Duty World at War 1 and 2, Medieval: Total War 2, Battlefield: Modern Combat (newest one)and Grand Theft Auto 4? Thanks 99.240.194.178 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: World at War#Development Medieval II: Total War Grand Theft Auto IV#Windows version Learn to search please kthx.121.72.215.173 (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know the OS (Operating System) running on your PC. A version of Windows perhaps? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a website that figures it out for you (with a java app). Can You Run It?. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes, but on low details, except for GTA4 (that thing is even worse than Crysis). --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google mail SMS account verification

I've tried several times to create a google email account, and each time it has asked me for a phone number to "activate" the account via sms (see Gmail#Requirement_for_mobile_phone_number). I do not have a mobile phone, nor do I have any access whatsoever to mobile phones, and I cannot borrow someone elses phone because I live alone, don't work and have no friends. Is there a workaround or alternative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had genuinely considered offering to help earlier in the day when I first read this post (although don't live in the same country so don't know if that would work) but considering what I realised on WT:RD I've decided I definitely won't and in fact am quite glad I didn't. A word of advice, you may find in that when you make yourself a social outcast by your actions, this isn't an uncommon reaction. And I'm not surprised by your personal description. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You're saying you know the answer to my question but won't help because you have a personal grudge against me? That's circling very close to a personal attack. What exactly have I done to offend you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMS memory premature ejaculation

I love my SMS memory stick because there couldn't be an easier way to carry gigabytes in my pocket and to download them to anyone's computer. BUT recently I mangled all the files on the stick by pulling it out of the PC without clicking through the "Safely Remove Hardware" steps (in Vista). Can anyone tell me what is so difficult about making the OS write file(s) to the USB device properly which would eliminate the danger of premature ejaculation? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be entirely possibly to make a USB pen drive which preserves all of the files, except for the one it's currently writing, when you yank it out. For that file, there's no solution to only having part of it copied, but the drive should at least be able to identify it as such by setting a "copy in progress" flag, which is not cleared until it is fully copied.

Now, for some applications you may want to have multiply files open at once, but I still think only one can be written to at a time, even in that case. Perhaps the other files could have a "file open" flag set, which is less serious than the "copy in progress" flag. In many cases such a file would still be usable.

Database operations are especially complex, as many tables need to be kept in sink and pulling the storage device out mid-update might mess that up. However, there are already software solutions in place for that, such as "transactions" which can be rolled back if incomplete.

The other solution is to make USB flash drives like CDs and DVDs, which can only be ejected when everything is OK. That features is a major source of annoyance for many, though, as they often say "file in use" even when nothing seems like it should be in use. So, I prefer the way they work now over that. StuRat (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USB is slow. Users will get pissed if they have to wait for writes to the USB stick. So, it goes to a buffer. To ensure the buffer is cleared before you pull the stick, you must safely remove the stick. So, the way to fix it is to remove the buffer. I know how to do it in Linux, but not in Windows. -- kainaw ™ 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try right-click; Properties; Hardware; Properties; Policies; and turn off Write-Caching. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite trivial to ensure consistency even without caching. The problem is not the one file being written, the problem is that the structure of the file system itself is being modified, and may be in an inconsistent state. To ensure that this is consistent requires journaling or something similar, but that comes with an overhead in memory and performance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switching from Windows (Microsoft) to Mac (Apple)

Is it worth it doing (see the subject line for more info)?

Basically, my previous questions on here have got me thinking about this. At the same time my dad made the switch a yr ago (February, 2010) and he loves it. Plus, he had his troubles with Windows as well. Somehow he gets the new one since he uses it for his business as well and not for me. Unfortunately its hard for him and other/s to justified getting any additional/s ones since from what I gather that Macs can be expensive then Windows. At the same my mom and me each have accounts on his computer. At least have some familiarity with them as well. Also, my mom and twin sister have iPhones and do love them. Will be getting my 1st iPhone in a wk to a mo from now and can't wait for it. Before we always relied on Windows then Macs. Expect our 1st computer was mac, but it wasn't great experience. Have used mac in some of my schooling yrs as well and don't really remember it.

Believes thats it for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC) --Jessica A Bruno 18:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, without knowing much more about what you use your computer for, it's impossible for the Reference Desk to answer the common question of which is better. It is a very individual decision that has to do with your personal preference for the Windows interface vs. the Mac interface, your budget, and what applications you use on your computer, and which platform has a better version of these applications. Note that most iPhone users have PCs; you don't need a Mac for that. Tempshill (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your answer to my question here. Basically, I really just use it for emailing and internet then anything else.--Jessica A Bruno 22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs)

Why would you need a new thousand-dollar computer to send e-mails and surf the Internet? E-mail was invented in the 1960s and the Internet in the 1970s. Any computer can do those things. Most of the issues with Windows mentioned in those simplistic Apple ads have been fixed with Windows 7, by the way. Maybe you could just upgrade to Windows 7, instead? If your hardware isn't up to the task, then put some new parts in. You are correct that Macs are expensive. But it's not just the initial purchase price. Every few years, Apple changes their products, forcing you to buy a brand-new system. In 2005, they switched from the PowerPC CPU to Intel. In 2001, they switched from the classic Mac OS to a new one (Mac OS X). The same happened in the early 1990s with the PowerPC transition. You better have deep pockets.--Drknkn (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP should read the above as a troll. Anybody using any type of computer will want to buy a "brand-new system" a couple of times a decade or so to keep up with the latest and greatest. (Hopefully this won't be true in the future, but is certainly is true now.) Apple (or anybody else) doesn't make you upgrade to the latest systems when they come out. You just won't be able to run the fastest/fanciest stuff on an older computer, no matter what type it is. If you really just need to do email and web browsing, a 5 year old Mac or 5 year old Windows machine will probably work equally well. Staecker (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Actually, anyone who is a sucker and a noob would want to buy a new computer every five years. I have parts in my computer from the 1990s. I only upgrade what I need. I can run MS-DOS programs on my Windows installation, by the way. Have fun booting into your classic mode to run your old apps. Was that worth the $1000 Apple tax?--Drknkn (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the above is just trolling. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtful comment. But where did I insult anyone? You and "Staecker" seem to be the ones who are calling names. So, you're obviously both ignorant immature trolls. You'd rather make your parents pay $1000-plus dollars for a new computer than answer their basic questions? What kind of son are you?--Drknkn (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's uncalled for. The OP has had her question answered, let's just leave it here. Thanks, 99.241.68.194 (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your answer to my question here. Have to say your answer is interesting as well. At the same time I'm always looking for more answers to my question as well.--Jessica A Bruno 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs)

I have found that people with less experience with computers do better with Macs. They are much more user-friendly than Windows systems—they "just work" 90% of the time. (That other 10% is mind-boggling difficult to resolve, though.) They can do almost all of the "business" functions you might want them to. There are a few programs that are Windows-only but most are cross-compatible. The hardware is more expensive, though, to be sure. On the other hand, if you consider your time valuable, I consider them to be a lot cheaper than Windows machines (to say the least of Linux machines), as you won't be worrying about viruses, spyware, or other things that plague Windows. My father switched to a Mac about two years ago and the number of "tech support" calls to me dropped to basically zero. I can't wait for my mother to switch. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, people with little Windows experience do better with Macs. Macs are fine for many beginners, but they are also very popular among computer scientists and UNIX diehards like me. There is a real UNIX under the hood, and many highly useful if not necessary pointy-clicky-friendly open source applications are either pre-installed or easy to install. I'd also take some issue with claims about the price. If you buy comparable hardware, the Mac is not that expensive - as I found out 2002, looking for a good Laptop for Linux, but ending up with a TiBook, as it was cheaper than comparable models from Toshiba, IBM, and even Gateway. Apple does not cater for the low-end market, and you can get sufficiently powerful computers much below the price of Apple's entry level models. But if you compare like with like, there is no significant premium. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't considering the high-end of the experience scale, just because it didn't seem relevant here.

OS X isn't real Unix, it's Mach with a Posix subsystem on top. Debian/Ubuntu could be ported to Cygwin too. Possibly this has been held up by issues of case sensitivity and the like, which are finally fixed in Cygwin 1.7. -- BenRG (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really just use a computer for email and the web, then the advice some way above that any computer will do is pretty much right (although wrong in other ways). However, you might have trouble getting a decade-old computer to run the latest versions of Flash and so forth if these are necessary for you.

If you're concerned about malevolent software (what are often miscalled "viruses", etc), then some alternative to Windows is likely to be a bit of a relief, because writers of this software concentrate on Windows (thanks to its huge market share). That's not to say that you can't have a safe Windows setup or a vulnerable Mac (or other) setup.

If you prefer Mac OS X then it is no longer necessary to buy a Mac for the job; you (or a friend) can install it on various other computers (but certainly not any), resulting in what's called a "hackintosh". Apple will not be happy and will not give you any help.

Another option is Linux. According to legend, this is tremendously difficult to install, get used to, and run; if I said that it came installed ("preinstalled") on the dirt-cheap computer I'm contentedly running now, I might be accused of trolling, so I shall refrain from saying it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Re)Installing Linux is a lot easier than installing Windows IMO (although most people are shielded from the pain by buying prebuilt computers). Windows 7 removed many driver burdens but it's still nowhere near as easy to reinstate your old settings (mount my old home partition as /home in Linux and I'm done!). --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Nobody is going to accuse you of trolling for just stating how you feel about things in a reasonable way. We'll accuse you of trolling if you pepper your posts with insults and obvious non-sequiturs meant to provoke a response.) I know that a lot of people who already know how to use Linux find it pretty straightforward, but I think they on the whole underestimate the amount of skill it takes to use when something does not go right. I personally find Linux far too opaque for the casual computer user. Even my own forays into trying to install free software on the Unix aspects of my OS X machine have been overwhelmingly frustrating, and I am pretty savvy with computers. (Oh, to install this, you must first install these other programs, all of which require hours-long compilations from the source, which requires having the right version of the compiler, and nobody feels it necessary to spell out the specific steps necessary. And then, after all that, it still won't really work correctly, but if you want it to be different, then just become a computer programmer and fix it yourself, duh.) I really wouldn't recommend it to someone who just wants to have an "easy" computing experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that on an average linux desktop you never need to install anything from source. The package manager makes it possible to install and keep up-to-date the program you want and all its depencies without wandering to a project's homesite to download an installer. Eg ubuntu repositories have ~30,000 packages, all are digitally signed so you don't need to worry whether it's the real thing or something malicious. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and neither is it needed on the Mac. Install Fink, opt for apt-get, and nearly all of Debian is yours for a command line. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for all the latest responses to my question. All of them are interesting as well.--Jessica A Bruno 19:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs)