Computing desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

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.

July 31

The Amazon Kindle's web browser

Can the current Kindle support a web browser interface for entering URLs and seeing web page content? - Bevo (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at our our article. Chevy monte carlo - alt 07:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did and it does not say specifically if the Kindle's "experimental" web browser is limited to what webpages it can access. - Bevo (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic's discussion resumed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amazon_Kindle#Kindle_as_web_browser - Bevo (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-assisted networking

Hi, I am struggling to understand in very basic terms the section "What are peer-assisted networking settings?" here:

http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager.html#117802

Does this mean, if this feature is utilised, that my PC could be serving video content to somebody else's computer? Could anyone explain in very basic language what this is all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.136.165 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly correct. If you enable "peer-assisted network settings", your computer will host, serve, and send video and other content to other internet users. This is a form of peer to peer networking. It could also be described as "crowd-sourcing" - outsourcing the costs of providing network content to the general public. The Adobe.com article doesn't explain the specific technology involved, but I interpret their description to mean that your computer will always be running the Adobe Flash environment in the background. That software will regularly log in to an Adobe command server, who will tell your computer what content it should host, and who it should share that content with. Your computer will then start delivering video or other Flash content to random other people on the internet (presumably prioritizing this behavior according to whatever scheme is most efficient for Adobe and its partners - and not what is most efficient for you and your computer). This decreases costs for content-providers like Youtube, (because they're "borrowing" your network connection, your CPU, and your hard-disks). I would be very suspicious of enabling this feature - it has absolutely no benefit to your own browsing experience, and may seriously hog your computer's resources (memory, disk, network, and CPU). Serving video is resource-intensive. Nimur (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on further reading, the Adobe website says that any application that wants to function as a server must ask your permission. So, this feature is a bit less insidious than my alarmist response above - it will only do that if you permit it to. However, I would still be wary - this still seems like a no-gain scenario for the end-user. Nimur (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nimur, thanks for your very informative response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.171.144 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have cognitive scientists explained why it's tedious to not use pronouns?

Please see thread at

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Have_cognitive_scientists_explained_why_it.27s_tedious_to_not_use_pronouns.3F

thanks

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-Ray video files?

I have Sony PMB software, and average graphics card which my Cyberlink video software tells me needs upgrading on a dual core computer running Windows XP. The Cyberlink software is needed to write to my new Blu-Ray drive, because unless there is some sort of upgrade for XP(?) it only "knows" about DVD/CD. This means I cannot use the Sony PMB to convert mts to MPEG because it tries to write to the blu-ray, but windows xp cannot recognise it. It could write to a DVD, but the limited capacity would be a problem, which is why I got the blu-ray drive. My question is, using AVS software to play the mts files with the stand alone player results in a perfectly good HD movie but it hangs every couple of seconds, weather it is on the hard drive or playing from a Blu-Ray or DVD disk. However, when I use the AVS software to convert to an HD mpeg file (AVS shows a special blue icon for mts and a red one for mpeg) the HD picture and sound not only plays perfectly, but is even smoother than the PMB software. The mpeg definitely is still HD, the detail is far greater than normal video. My question is, if I were to put the disk into a Blu-Ray player, which files would it play? mts, mpeg or both? And if I copied the AVS player and a short HD mpeg file on to DVD or Blu-Ray disk, would it play on a different computer without any HD software installed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.80.10 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from RD/Science by CS Miller (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum privacy in Facebook

I don't really use Facebook, but I find it useful to have an account to send people messages (it's basically email...but...inferior. But no-one checks their actual emails any more...) Anyway, it seems that Facebook becomes involved in some kind of newsworthy privacy-related scandal on a yearly basis. Now, I've done everything I can find to cripple my Facebook account; as far as I'm aware, no-one can post anything on my page, and I've made all of my details as private as possible to my knowledge. But, I don't know Facebook well. Could anyone tell me what to do in order to, for all intents and purposes, disable everything that can be disabled, except for messages? Perhaps there's a website somewhere that already has this covered... Vimescarrot (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaim privacy has a good solution. Chris M. (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Thanks. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

portable app that corrupts/erases the drive after password entry failure?

I use (and love) Portable Apps, and a few weeks ago saw mention in an article of a security app that gave you X tries to enter your password to access the USB, and at X+1 would hose the entire disk, thereby neutralizing the risk from loss or theft of the USB drive. I thought I had saved the link but it seems I did not. I've searched around and have found password organizers and secure file deleters, but nothing quite matching that app's description. Can anyone help? 61.189.63.171 (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how you can do that through an application alone because there's no way of guarenteeing that it'll execute on the client machine, it will need some sort of hardware awareness. A U3 device sort of does what you're asking (When accessing my U3 Titanium drive if I get the password wrong twice it warns me that I only have 3 tries left before it'll be locked out with format being the only option), however the U3 drives aren't hardware encrypted so I suspect that simply formatting them would allow for data to be recovered using normal disk recovery methods. The other way that I know of is the much more secure IronKey drives which are hardware encrypted and upon sufficient password failures will erase the encryption keys, effectively destroying all the data (it'll technically still be there, but encrypted with no way to recover it). Sadly the IronKey's aren't cheap though. ZX81 ^talk 16:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a software option. If you are willing to invest a little bit of money you could get an Iron key flash drive. They do a similar task to what you are asking for, and from what I have gathered are cross platform. My other suggestion is to use Truecrypt to encrypt a partition on your flash drive. It won't keep people from repetitively trying to guess your password, but at least it will keep people out of your stuff. Zell Faze (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compress

I save 10,000 html files (with images, css, etc) a week, usually totaling around 12GB for a months worth. I compress them to save space, and with solid compression I can get 12GB down to 900mb. However, I was wondering if there a more efficient way to do this? Should I compress the files weekly instead? 82.43.88.151 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably have it occupy zero space on your PC by just leaving it all on the internet. I know that's not really the kind of answer you were looking for, but I'm puzzled why you need to save 10,000 html files a week. Astronaut (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter why? The question is about the most efficient way to compress them. 82.43.88.151 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12:1 ratio is really pretty good, particularly considering that images are involved (is that lossless or lossy compression for the pics?) The efficiency of compression should not vary much with frequency; if anything, compressing larger units of data should produce better compression ratios (you lose edge effects, and depending on the complexity of the algorithm, more data should produce more regularities, for deeper compression). You're more likely to suffer from redundancy waste than compression waste in this situation (where you compress slightly different versions of the same website separately). --Ludwigs2 07:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what I was suggesting is, if you reconsidered the need to save such a huge amount of data on such a rapid frequency, you wouldn't need to try to find even better compression. But Ludwigs is right, a 12:1 ratio is already pretty good considering you include images. We have extensive information on data compression, with links to articles about many different algorithms. In particular, you might find Lossless data compression#Lossless compression benchmarks and Lossy compression interesting. Another thing to consider if this is your own website and you have access to the uncompressed images in (perhaps RAW format), you could choose a greater compression when converting to a lossy format like JPEG, before uploading them to your site. Of course that would produce more compression artifacts which users of your site might not appreciate. Astronaut (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the pages essentially the same with minor changes or no changes from week to week? For example, you're mirroring the CNN website. (This is the sort of reason, by the way, that Astronaut was not out of line to ask you why. It helps volunteers come up with answers.) If so you could use a solution that only saves compressed versions of the changes, and otherwise assumes no changes from the previous version. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the output of Google Translate copyrighted?

I know that professional translations of public domain texts tend to be copyrighted (i.e. new translations of Shakespeare by academics). Does this extend to the output of a Google Translate translation? I want to pass a public domain text through GT, correct it for fluency, and ideally post it on Wikisource. I'm not looking for legal advice, the interpretation of an educated layman or Wikipedia copyright ninja would be fine (assume US or UK for jurisdiction). Thanks, Skomorokh 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the point about the translations of PD stuff is that the translator has added creative effort. For example the English translation of the Rubiyat is a distinct work from the original. I kind of doubt the courts are ready to declare that Google Translate is a creative entity. But of course this is all guesswork on my part and I offer no warranty. --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(Trovatore) kind of doubt(s) the courts are ready to declare that Google Translate is a creative entity." But how could they say otherwise? If asked specifically, "did creative effort go into the creation of the translation", it would be appropriate to answer directly, "absolutely yes - the algorithm designs, the statistical translation database, and the creation of the translation user-interface all constituted original creative design by Google and its researchers." This is exactly why it is so hard to apply conventional legal norms to IP and technology issues; and it's why any information we offer here shouldn't be construed as legal advice. Courts can decide what they like. But your baseline should be the Terms of Service for Google Translate: among other things, "By submitting your content through the Service, you grant Google the permission to use your content permanently to promote, improve or offer the Service." At all times, they refer to the content (including the outputted translated data) as your content. They also specifically state that by submitting, that you have granted Google permission to use your content for technical, business, promotional, or other purposes. Compare, if you want, Microsoft's Bing Translator legal information and service agreement. Microsoft covers this issue with a very specific agreement: "You may be able to submit content for use in connection with the service. You understand that Microsoft does not control or endorse the content that you and others post or provide on the service. Except for material that we license to you, we do not claim ownership of the content you post or provide on the service."

As always, we can link you to relevant articles and information about the legal implications of these terms of service, but information about the applicability of these Terms of Service agreements, and the legal enforceability of them in a copyright dispute, would constitute "legal advice" that we can not provide. However, in my opinion, Microsoft has gone farther in guaranteeing your ownership by specifically stating that they make no claim of ownership to your data. At the same time, they leave some leeway by not explicitly telling you whether your translated output is "your content" or "content that Microsoft is licensing to you."

The moral of this is that copyright status of machine-processed versions of your data is still a legal gray area. The specifics could be debated in a court battle. What we know, though, is that:

Google (and Microsoft, and other translater services) expressly state that they will store copies of your translation input and output, and use it for their own purposes
Google (and Microsoft, and other translater services) will share your input and output with 3rd parties, so if you have proprietary, confidential, or classified information, do not submit it for machine translation to such services.
Because the details of machine translation, (specifically, statistics-based translations), your document's content might "percolate" through the translation algorithm, in the form of machine-representations of natural-language mappings. This will make it technically impossible to "remove" your content from a state-of-the-art system - so even if a copyright dispute is legally ruled in your favor, it will be practically impossible to "un-do" the leaking of your content. (This doesn't even take into the account the issue that, once publicized, n-number of copies of your data may be held by 3rd-party viewers).
Finally, it's worth stating that Google (and Microsoft) provide you with a Terms of Service agreement, that does go to some effort to assure you that your data remains yours; but that these agreements don't really seal every possible interpretation. Seek legal advice from a qualified attorney if you need a more concrete answer.

Hopefully this helps you evaluate the status-quo for the copyright status of machine translation. Read the Terms of Use carefully. As with Trovatore, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I offer no warranty for my interpretation. Nimur (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nimur, no doubt creative effort went into the design of Google Translate. If that were the standard, you can just sign over the copyright to everything you write to Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds, assuming you're writing on a computer. The point is that Google Translate itself exercises no creativity. It's just a dumb algorithm. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US Copyright Office has the opinion that no mechanical process whereby the outputs follow invariably from the inputs can give rise to copyright, irregardless of how complicated the process might be. As Nimur highlights, there is undoubtedly creativity involved in the design of any piece of software, but the current US legal position is that this creativity protects only the software itself and has no impact on works that might flow through it. Hence mechanical translations have only the copyright status they inherit from the original work. So if the original is public domain, so is the output. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An eminently sensible opinion for them to hold. Of course strictly speaking it doesn't answer what happens if it doesn't follow invariably from the inputs; if, for example, some source of true randomness is used. My very strong guess is that the courts would hold that that doesn't matter, and that they would decline to find "creativity" in any process not performed by natural persons. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True randomness is not creative, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that was kind of my point. --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that irregardless is a perfectly cromulent word. ;-) -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SSRN-Rebuilding Babel: Copyright and the Future of Machine Translation Online by Erik Ketzan -- Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legal question is that this comes at the intersection of two different sets of regulations in US copyright law. One is on translation, which is defined as an inherently creative act which creates derivative works. The other is on "purely mechanical" manipulations of information, which do not create new copyrights. I am not sure we can really say how a court would rule on this, in the end. They could say that machine translation is "purely mechanical" and thus has no authorship. Or they could say that the mechanical process is sufficiently "creative" as to have some authorship within its output, though who would get the credit for that (e.g., Google Translate, not you), is not obvious. It's not clear whether you can claim copyright on algorithmic output at all, though. Wolfram Research claims copyright on all of the output of Wolfram Alpha, for example, but it's not clear that would hold up in court. Anyway, the bottom line is, I believe, that the likelihood is rather low that it would be interpreted as creating a new copyright, and in any case you the copy-paster probably wouldn't be the author in any case. But this ain't legal advice, to say the last... --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel rather confident that no court is going to find that any copyright belongs to Google Translate. Data is a toaster. Algorithms and machines have no personhood before the law. --Trovatore (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose Google Translate always produced a paragraph from Harry Potter when the output language was set to English, ignoring the input text. In that case the output would clearly be copyrighted material, despite being "produced by" a deterministic algorithm. Now suppose it chose several words and phrases from Harry Potter and strung them together—still copyrighted material? One could at least make a case that it would be. This is pretty much what machine translators do in reality: they string together words and phrases from a potentially copyrightable phrasebook, guided (one hopes) by the input text. Does the author of the input text have a copyright claim on the output? Probably. Does the author of the phrasebook? Maybe. Does the computer? No, but that was never the issue. -- BenRG (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the copyright inheres in the original authors of the bits of text that Google Translate is putting together to make a translation, then it follows that, in offering Translate, Google is engaged in mass copyright violation. But I don't believe that will be the conclusion. In general the shorter a piece of text, the harder it is to assert copyright on it, and I gather that Translate uses only rather short pieces. It's not like it's going to copy in the Gettysburg Address. --Trovatore (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you trouble to read the paper that Wavelength provided a link to? After skimming it, I think there's a danger that any court could disagree with your stance, because section 102 of the US Copyright Act says that "a translation" is a derivative work; and derivative works are copyrightable. (Page 5 and 20.) I can certainly see a court just taking the literal route and applying this law, not caring whether "a translation" was created by a human, by a human who uses a machine to help translate (as I understand all professional translators do, nowadays), or purely by a machine. I have to agree with Nimur, that we don't know how a court will rule, and that it's irresponsible to guess or advocate while pretending to be confident about the outcome. Page 20 notes that the copyright laws do not expressly require "human" authorship — there was a 1997 case "addressing the bizarre question of whether a book purportedly authored by celestial beings may be copyrighted; 'The copyright laws, of course, do not expressly require 'human' authorship.'" Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A translation is a derivative work, but AIUI the copyright goes to the translator (subordinate of course to any copyright on the original; I believe the upshot is that any publication must have the permission of both the copyright holder to the original and that to the translation). But machines, or programs, cannot hold copyright!!!! I didn't say they had to be human, but they do have to be persons. There is no way that any court is going to find that an algorithm is a person. --Trovatore (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note by the way that your reference to page 20 of the article is a question about whether this company doing machine translation might be liable to the original copyright holder. That's not at issue here, because the original poster was talking about translating stuff from the public domain. Yes, I agree that if the original material was subject to copyright, then the machine translation would also be encumbered by the original copyright. But I can't see any reasonable argument that Google Translate would have any copyright interest in the material. (Nor that the original poster would.) As far as I can tell (and I'll repeat here that I'm only an interested amateur) the machine translation of public domain input would remain public domain. --Trovatore (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think a lot less certainty would suit you, on this one. There is simply no precedent (that's been cited in this thread anyway, or that I know about) in any US court ruling or in US law that supports your assertions, even if you put four exclamation points after them, and a court could go either way and still be reasonable. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, an interesting and informative discussion. Skomorokh 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google gone weird - malware?

Whenever I search for images on Google, I get this irritating and difficult to control scrolling page of hundreds of images. If this is not due to a malware infection, is there any way to fix it and return to normal non-scrolling pages? Thanks (There must be an internet programmer's motto: "If it ain't broke, then make it worse"). 92.15.12.218 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not malware, google changed the layout recently. You can revert back to the old style by scrolling to the very bottom of the page and click "Switch to basic version" 1230049-0012394-C (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the inconvenience of clicking "switch to basic version", the results page is still mangled. I would switch to bing.com except I think they use the same system. These internet dictators, they never ask the public what they want or do trials where things can be returned to normal if the public don't like it - another example being the BBC news site, which may have a hidden puropose of decreasing the amount of content. 92.28.249.190 (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Excel/Access for Neopets shop inventory

Here's the situation: I have an account on Neopets.com and currently have a virtual shop there. Usually, when I have a new item I want to sell, I would look it up in the Shop Wizard (item search engine) and just take the lowest price on the list (always the first result that comes back). That's what I would normally do for a few items.

Now the difficult part. I have a lot of items (over 1000) I'd like to sell. To save time, I was thinking of putting all of the item names into an Excel spreadsheet or Access database (which would work best in this situation?) where I would have the item name, its current Shop Wizard price, and the category it belongs to. That way, if I ever need to sell the same thing again, I don't have to go back to the Shop Wizard every time and can just refer to the sheet.

So let's say I have a list of items in a spreadsheet or database. Can I get Excel/Access to automatically import the SW prices, or would I have to do that manually? If the latter, I can't go over every single item, plug it into SW, search, and then copy and paste the price back into the spreadsheet; that would be too tedious and take too long.

Any Excel/Access geniuses out there that can help? 141.153.215.18 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who used ImportHtml() in Google Spreadsheets for something similar. You'd need to construct a URL that retrieves the information (which needs to be public), and then use the Index() function to retrieve the appropriate information. I don't know much about the specifics, though, and I think that desktop spreadsheet software tends not to have that feature. Paul (Stansifer) 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could definitely do this in Access, and probably Excel, but it would take some work. It's not too hard to get Access to retrieve web pages using VBScript, but it would not be the easiest "starter project." Excel would be a bit trickier, because everything regarding VBScript in Excel is a bit trickier (it is not quite as naturally integrated with the data as Access is). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using iPhone at a WiFi hotspot

If one selects the free WiFi network available there, does the following browsing and data transfer you do while there rack up against the quota of the standard data plan they offer? I wouldn't think so, since if you're using the WiFi of the establishment, you're not using AT&T's 3G network. Thanks. 71.161.56.247 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using a wifi network doesn't count toward your data plan as you are not using AT&T's network. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're connecting to the Internet through the WiFi of wherever you are, not through AT&T's network, so it doesn't count towards your data plan. Chevy monte carlo - alt —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Forcible Setting

Why does sometimes my default home page (Internet Explorer) automatically set to : http://searchdnet.googlepages.com/index.html ? -- Jon Ascton (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malware (again?). I suggest you sweep your PC for malware using a tool like Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware. Astronaut (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't some kind of nasty malicious software. Good luck! --Ouro (blah blah) 06:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that definitely sounds like something Malware would do. Chevy monte carlo - alt 17:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista ReadyBoost

Any idea why Vista recommends I use 870MB for readyboost when the max space on my drive is 960MB? Would it run slower if it were completely full or something? Thanks StatisticsMan (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I woudn't think so, but then you would have no space left to store extra documents if you used the entire capacity.Sir Stupidity (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the flash drive exclusively for ReadyBoost so I'm not worried about that. I have another flash drive I use to move files around. This one is hooked up in the back and I will probably not take it out for a long time. StatisticsMan (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a line from the Readyboost Article:

Microsoft recommends the amount of flash memory for ReadyBoost acceleration be one to three times the amount of random access memory (RAM) in your computer. This recommendation should not be confused with the message that is displayed in the “ReadyBoost” tab of drive properties dialog: for example, for a flash drive of 16 GB capacity formatted as FAT32 it will display a message that “Windows recommends reserving 4094 MB for optimal performance” even if RAM size is 10 GB, just because 4094 MB is the maximum file size on a FAT32 volume; after reformatting it as NTFS or exFAT, the message changes to “Windows recommends 15180 MB”.

However I have no real idea why... Can someone help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Stupidity (talk • contribs) 04:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says why in the paragraph. It recommends less than the max in this case because "4094 MB is the maximum file size on a FAT32 volume." This is not my problem as my recommendation is 870, not 4094. StatisticsMan (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fonts are weird

I lost power to my computer, probably due to a faulty PSU, and when I started it back up most fonts on my computer were stuck in italics. Now, I've started it up and everything is stuck in bold mode. Anyone have any information? 68.69.69.9 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fonts where are stuck in bold? The windows interface (the writing on the task bar buttons, title bars of windows, etc.) or the fonts in a particular program or programs? I can't see why a power loss would do anything to fonts. I would suggest running a virus scanner. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fonts within some websites (Wikipedia, CNN, MSNBC, likely many more) are in bold on Firefox. Everything in Winamp is stuck in italics. 68.69.69.9 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are extremely unusual symptoms. If you are describing them accurately, they probably are unrelated to the power-outage. Winamp has a font setting in the options; you might want to check it. You might also want to edit your operating-system-wide Appearance Settings.b This tutorial from Microsoft guides you through the process to configure OS-wide font settings. Check if the settings there are out of order. Nimur (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I put more effort into it and it turns out the font registry entries were corrupted. It's all good now, thanks Wikipedia! 68.69.69.9 (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime of a laser printer

I tend to run my cars and computers until they rust in place, so am familiar with their end-of-life symptoms; but I've not used a laser printer, so am not sure how they die.

The HP printer (2200 I think) assigned to me at work is now 6-8 years old, and over the past month just won't print really black copies any more. It's still even (not streaking), and taking the cartridge out and shaking it in every direction does not help. Is it nearing the end of its life, or is the symptom of somethine else? Might there be one easy thing to repair or replace, that would reinvigorate it?

Thanks, DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience if it is still printing light print even after shaking the cartridge, it is probably time to get a new cartridge. I doubt you would have difficulty getting a cartridge for that printer - I can still get cartridges for my 10+ years old HP laserjet 6L. In fact, a Google search reveals lots of places ready to sell you a cartridge for your printer (of course, in the workplace you probably have a purchasing dept that deals with that kind of thing). Astronaut (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have a purchasing dept... Yes, that would be me :-), and getting new carts is not yet an issue. Guess I'll do that.

I'm still skeptical, though, because I have NONE of the other standard symptoms of "empty cartridge": no streaking, no spotting, and this cart is only 2-3 months old when 6 is the typical minimum.

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that it only prints grey? Have you printed a test page from the printer's control panel? Those usually have color bars and bypass the operating system's printing programs. It could be an issue with the settings for the printer.

From what I've heard, a laser printer can last forever, so long as you clean it every few months. When you clean it, use toner cloth and a toner vacuum. Don't wipe off the drum or you might scratch it. Having said that, some models are better than others. Some break after a few years. Others last much longer.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most cartridges have an estimated number of pages worth of toner in them, usually expressed as a number assuming something like 5% coverage. Whether 2-3 months is a reasonable length of time for the number of pages that have been printed with that cartridge is something you need to consider, but maybe the cartridge is faulty. Astronaut (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is still toner left, the drum may be approaching its end, it has a long but finite lifetime. Check your printer's manual (or search the web) for replacement interval information. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a HP LaserJet 5 which was apparently made in 1995 and it works great. 82.43.88.151 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a printer from hell, you probably need to change the cartridge, clean the drum, or otherwise update the printer's firmware/software. Make sure you check the printer's control panel to see if something is amiss. Laser printers made by HP ussually tend to last a while...I have an HP LaserJet 4 that still works...(though I never use it). (On a side note, its interesting to see that the 2200 series supported Windows 3.1).Smallman12q (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that scared me -- started to think it might have been first introduced in the mid-1990s, for example, and could have been 12-15 years old! Our own WP says 2001, so that's not so bad :-). Thanks for that. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this happen on HP LaserJet 6L's - if everything is grey instead of black, and Text starts to get blurry/fuzzy along the edges, the laser scanner unit might be at fault. Good luck finding a replacement part... -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]