Computing desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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 22

Multiplication by a fraction avoiding temporary overflow

Suppose, in 5-bit unsigned integer arithmetic, I wish to compute 13*17/19 (that is, 11). Is there a standard trick for performing such calculations efficiently (in terms both of execution time and code complexity) when no higher primitive word size is available? In particular, I mean a*b/c where the numerator is not representable but the overall result is. (Obviously changing it to a/c*b or a*(b/c) doesn't work for integer arithmetic and yields 0 here.) --Tardis (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "standard trick" is to use a larger word for the results of multiply instructions. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that an n-bit number times an m-bit number will yield a result that requires an (n+m)-bit representation. This is a fact of binary representation: log₂(NN*MM) = log₂(NN) + log₂(MM). You may choose to always discard the least significant bits; or you may choose to conditionally overflow and throw an error iff the inputs are too large. Your problem is actually a special case of the general problem - that your intermediate representation requires higher precision than your inputs or your outputs - but there is no way around this problem for the general case. (If you knew, for example, that your inputs were only going to be in a certain range, you could use any fixed point math representation to input only the significant bits). For example, if you always divide by 19, you could approximate that as a "left-shift by 4 bits" (divide by 16), thus always discard the lowest four bits. Alternately, you can implement a simplified floating-point (i.e. use one or more bits to specify dynamic range). With a five-bit word, this isn't much of a gain. Nimur (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use multiple locations to store a double (or treble or quad) sized number. Your basic 5-bits will handle 0..31. A double length will handle 0..1023. You would need to write some subroutines to do (single * single -> double) and (double / single -> double quotient & single remainder) You can do both by mimicing standard hand calculated long multiplication and long division. If your computer instructions can't manage localised overflows well, you may need to divide the 5-bit numbers into (say) 2.5 lots of 2-bit numbers so that even a local multiplication doesn't overflow 5bits. Exactly which is a good choice depends on the limitations of your system. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that those mixed-type subroutines are exactly the answer, but I don't know immediately any efficient way to write them. (The assembly I've seen for doing multiplication into two words is not trivial, and I imagine that division would be worse.) The number 5 is of course irrelevant; I just wanted to give a concrete example and one that was all primes so that no reductions were possible. --Tardis (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really desperate and two of those numbers are constant you can work out what you are multiplying the other one with as a binary fraction and then do shifts adds and subtracts on the number to get that fraction. Seems over the top with even the simplest microprocessor nowadays. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider writing my own double precision functions. So multiply5(a, b, result, overflow) would take in two 5-bit values, a and b and return a double precision result in the 5-bit result and a 5-bit overflow. Similarly, divide5(a1, a2, b1, b2, result) would take in 2 double precision values, a and b (each made from 2 5-bit components) and return a single 5-bit result. Alternatively, you could write a class 5bit, define single and double precision values, and overload the multiply and divide operators. Astronaut (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(As in my other simultaneous reply,) That sounds great! How does one write such functions, given no access to operators that can use larger types for you? (I know that, for example, the x86 MUL* instructions are

n\times n\rightarrow 2n

even for the largest machine integers, but not many higher-level languages give you access to that.) If it's easier, we can use an even number of bits since that's the standard and then you can divide the numbers into two subwords that are small enough that even all their squares can be represented. But of course signed numbers matter too in practice. --Tardis (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... so I think you mean how would you write multiply and divide functionality for a hypothetical 5-bit microprocessor using basic instructions like add, subtract, and bit operations such as complement, shift, etc. And are there any shortcuts that could be used to simplify the process.

Well, I can't think of any shortcuts. I can imagine how I would write a multiply function using something like long multiplication on binary values. That would involve shift and add instructions and keeping careful track of the carry flag. As for how to write a divide function, I would really have to think how it could be done, but it would probably use repeated subtraction. Astronaut (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Q

I have Windows Vista Home Basic and I'd like to place my computer on a setting that provides an audible/visible warning alarm that the battery is low. Please advise. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a Vista laptop handy, but click the Start Button and just type "Power". The power options menu should come up in the results. All those settings are in there. Let us know if you can't find it; I'm sure we can scare up someone who uses Vista. --mboverload @ 08:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Power Option in the Control Panel has a whole bunch of settings for what to do when the battery is low. However, for an audible alert to accompany the System Tray popup, you need to go to the Sound Control panel and assign a sound to the Low Battery Alarm and Critical Battery Alarm. Astronaut (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Protocol Addresses of Network Interface Controller Ports

In a Network Interface Card with multiple ports, does each of the ports have its own IP address, or do all of the ports share the same IP address? In addition, do Network Interface Controllers have permanent IP addresses, or are IP addresses assigned (whether statically or dynamically) to Network Interface Controller? Rocketshiporion (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rocketshiporion. I'm in IT and trust me - if you're taking a class on networking you're going to want to read the books cover to cover. You can start your research on Network interface controller and DHCP. If you're covering multiport cards you're probably covering servers. Networking is not something you want to skimp on in this case. If you need help deconstructing this problem and finding the answer please reply back. --mboverload @ 08:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. The answer to pretty much all those questions is: it depends. I imagine it's up to you to work out how, when and why. Vespine (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make your own Anime

Can you make your own Kirby: Right back at Ya episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prgreeneyes (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on your question. --mboverload @ 08:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make your own character in Kirby anime like your own story your own monster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prgreeneyes (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a commercial venture to make a profit by selling it to a TV company... almost certainly not. However, as a piece of fan fiction or fan art, maybe you can depending on the legal situation in your country and the copyright holders' attitude to fan made work. Astronaut (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Linux distro is right for me?

I have used Suse Linux for many years now and want to look around a bit more. I just tried Ubuntu, but that had too many issues. But the amount of distros is just staggering. So can anyone suggest one for me that is to my liking? So what is my liking? Here's a list:

not mouse- but keyboard-oriented (loads of keyboard shortcuts)
very configurable (I want to define those keyboard shortcuts myself)
not terminal- but gui-based (see below)
functionality over looks
no fancy stuff that is supposed to make life easier, because that tends to confuse me. For example no msWindows-like 'interpretations' of what I want. If I don't know what I want I want to learn that the hard way (not too hard, though, please. :) ) .
slim, hard-edged look-and-feel. This is hard to define, but for example I hate smooth scrolling and I prefer German cars over French cars, if you know what I mean.

I say I want it to be both keyboard- and gui-oriented. That is a bit of a contradiction, so let me explain. I want it to be gui-based so I get a complete overview of all options without having to know them by heart. And if I have an overview, it makes most sense that I can activate those options in that overview, without having to switch elsewhere (the command line) and then type that in. Alas this is hard to do with a keyboard, so I'll have to compromise there and use the mouse.
Note I said a complete overview. So not loads of sub-sections that show just a few options, where you have to click 'advanced' to get just a few more. I have a big screen and want to use it to the full. And big tables don't scare me, I love them (if they are logically ordered). If I don't understand something that doesn't matter. I'll leave it alone but will have learned that that option exists and in which context. I don't want to be shielded from details I am supposed not to understand (says who?). I may be ignorant but I'm not stupid. :)
Some examples to illustrate what I like:

Photoshop: very keyboard-oriented and loads of (well ordered) possibilities. May take some time to learn how to use it, but once you know that you get a lot of power.
KDE rather than Gnome, and not KDE4.4 but 3.5, although I realise that is going to be difficult.
I don't like the Kickoff menu style, where I have to scroll. Also, no recently used programs at the top of the start menu. I want to completely arrange the menus myself and have them stay that way, so I can start an application with my keyboard with my eyes closed, so to say.

Does anyone understand what I want and know of such a distro? DirkvdM (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only you can: [1]. Appreciate the irony of the above answers. You also might like Ubuntu... which translated means "can't install debian"... but those re mostly rumors. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which above answers? Bloody deletionistst at work again? If so, they've been very thorough and even removed those answers from the history.

Anyway, like I said, I already tried Ubuntu, but I encountered too many problems with that - it even crashed on me just now, the first time that has happened to me with Linux (even Ctrl-Alt-Del didn't work). Also, it feels too much like msWindows for my liking.

You link to building my own system, but I'm not enough of an expert for that. That's what distros are for, right? But then I'd have to know beforehand what they are like and I can't find any good info on that. And downloading them all would be madness. So can you give a hint as to which ones I might try that are a bit like what I described above? DirkvdM (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the way linuxfromscratch is organised is a good example of what I don't want: see this help page, that links to loads of tiny bits of text. I want the whole text in one go, so I can quickly browse through it. DirkvdM (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gnome do could be your friend. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic backup of files?

I'm looking for a freeware program that can automatically do either one of the following things:

1. Sync files from a specific folder on a network drive to a local drive.
2. Backup/upload files from a specific folder on network drive to cloud storage.

Background: I am constantly updating the files on the network drive, but the program I'm using bugs out on occasion and may delete the file I'm working on. I can't work off the local drive because the files need to be available to my coworkers. I would like a automatic backup option that takes the files from a specific folder (the network drive is huge) and puts them somewhere else.

I'm hoping there's a freeware program out there that can do this, or fairly cheap program.

I've already tried SyncToy (not automatic) and DropBox (doesn't work off network drives).

My System: Windows 7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xvkarbear (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synctoy can be run from the Windows Task Scheduler, with instructions about what to synchronise given on the command line - see here -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand the whole megabit/mebibit confusion

Here's how I understand it. Please correct me where needed. So, the metric kilo, mega, giga prefixes are multiples of 10. But for the longest time, those prefixes were used to describe base2 memory sizes -- even though they were not the same. A "true" megabyte is really 1,024KB, not 1,000KB. As the numbers got larger, there was more of a discrepancy between base10 and base2 numbers (A "true" computer gigabyte is 1,073,742KB, not 1,000,000KB... a difference of over 73MB.)

Computer storage manufacturers measure drive space in kibibytes, but marketing them as kilobytes.. So when a user plugged in a "1 Terabyte" drive, their computer actually reported 976 GB. So the term kibi, mebi, gibi are used to correctly and precisely describe the actual memory a computer sees. So while the metric prefixes are wrong, it's common usage. Man, that's confusing. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info in Binary prefix and Kibibyte. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph isn't quite right; it's more confusing than that. "Kibibyte" is a newer term, and it is definitely 1024 bytes. Traditionally, "kilobyte" has meant 1024 bytes, but if the bending of the metric units bothers you, or you make hard drives for a living, you'll say that a kilobyte is 1000 bytes.

This whole mess only applies to fixed storage. If you're talking about RAM, "kilobyte" almost always refers to 1024 bytes because, for technical reasons, it's important for memory to be evenly divisible into largish powers of two, so 1000-byte units are kind of silly. Paul (Stansifer) 16:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've more or less got it. Traditionally power of two units were used for computer storage. Some people thought this was a misappriation of the SI prefixes.

This was 'fixed' by redefining the words to match the base 10 numbers, and creating new, sillier, prefixes for people who still want to use the traditional power of two units.

Nowadays some people still use the old units because they need base-2 units, but can't bring themselves to use the silly names.

Personally, I think it's too bad that Knuth's idea of calling them "Standard Kilobytes" and "Large Kilobytes" didn't catch on. It'd be a lot less silly. APL (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For archived discussions about whether to use the precise words in Wikipedia articles, you can visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (shortcut: WT:MOSNUM), find the archive box at the right-hand side of the page, and follow the links under "Binary prefixes".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sane reason to report hard disk sizes in gibibytes. It is a completely stupid thing to do. Somehow people have gotten it into their heads that the hard drive manufacturers are in the wrong here. I imagine it's because gigabytes are smaller and people are sensitive to the idea that they're being cheated. Whatever the reason, it's irrational. The problem is Explorer. People blame Microsoft for everything else, whether or not it's Microsoft's fault; why can't they blame Microsoft for this when it really is their fault?

I believe it's true that hard drive sizes are always a multiple of 512×63×16 bytes = 504 KiB exactly, for a mixture of historical reasons. My laptop drive is exactly 310101 = 7×11×9397 times that size, for a total of 160,041,885,696 bytes. What this has to do with human-readable sizes displayed in GUI windows I can't imagine. Why not report the numeric part of the size in binary, if you're going to use the binary metric units? After all, computers work in binary. Wouldn't it be logical and natural? -- BenRG (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Timeline of binary prefixes Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read the Wiki website

Can anyone please help? I've always read Wiki at work and on my home computer the print is all illegible, small and I cannot read it w/o really squinting hard. It's nealry impossible...totally unclear.

I've reset my display for larger type (I prefer small, crystal clean fonts) but that makes little difference.Is it my system and is there any way I can make your program legible? I've read Wiki for a long time and miss it.

This does seem new. I can't recall it being this way here at home before recently.

Thank you for any help here. I've tried resetting my type sizes/fonts and it makes little difference. Wiki is the only site where this occurs.

Sorry to send it here but I can't read the site well enough to find another place on the Wiki site.

Thanks,

Jeremy Gubbins I'm at this email....(e-mail redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.187.1 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've removed your e-mail; answers will be posted here. 2. Normally WP:HELP is a better place to post questions about help with Wikipedia; this is a reference desk. 3. We may be able to help you here on the Computing desk anyway, if you could take a screenshot of your screen and upload it to a site like Flickr so we can see what you're seeing. To take a screenshot, if you're using Windows, press the "Print Scr" key (or "Prnt Scrn" ... keyboards vary); then run a graphics program like MS Paint, then hit CTRL-V to paste the screenshot into Paint; then save the picture as a PNG or JPG file; then upload to Flickr and point us to the file. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried hitting ctrl++ - this often makes the text size larger in browsers? Also, Internet Explorer 8 (and maybe other browsers too) have a little zoom control in the bottom right of the status bar - 50% make the text so tiny it is unreadable.

One other thing, when I played around with the DPI for the default font on Windows Vista, it created all kinds of havoc when I went to change it back to what it was before I started (IIRC, the font size of every screen element remained tiny, until I reset each one in the Advanced Appearance settings). It was such a major hassle that I have never changed the font size since and instead rely on the methods I mentioned above to zoom in and out. Astronaut (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

operation behind deleting a file

hay, i wand to know the operation behind deletion. usually i delete unwanted files in my system and always keep recycle bin empty.once i noted that a particular software in my system (installed by my brother) help me to retain the deleted files.how it is possible.then Wat is actually happening during deletion. is the same operation take place during cut-past,copy-past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.85.120 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your computer's file system, but in general file deletion leaves data remanence which can sometimes be recovered by means of undeletion, which in turn can be prevented using data erasure. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can i prevent coping a file

i wand to prevent a file to be copied from my disc by others (but it should work from disc), is it possible then how?is it possible to copy it later by me,how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.85.120 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are various digital rights management schemes which try to limit this kind of thing, but they don't work very well and really aren't available to a normal user. Perhaps (depending on your circumstance) the best idea is either file encryption (in which case someone can copy the file, but can't make any sense of it) or disk encryption. Both require a degree of skill and judgement on your part, and add some complexity to your normal doings of things. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I would recommend installing TrueCrypt on each PC that you work with, and use TrueCrypt to create an "encrypted file container" on the disc. You can use TrueCrypt to "mount" the file container as though it were a hard disk, so Windows treats it as your S: drive, or whatever; and you can put whatever files you want into the S: drive. When your enemies get hold of your disc, they will be able to copy the encrypted file container to their hard disk, but it will just appear to be a random string of 1's and 0's to them, because TrueCrypt uses strong encryption. As Finlay McWalter says, this adds some complexity to your day — for example, in order to use the disc at all on another computer, you'll need to first install TrueCrypt on it, which won't be possible in many school or Internet-cafe situations. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: As you can see the only solution is an encryption product. File system permissions and such are worthless if someone has physical access to the machine. Just wanted to make that super clear. Also, don't think you're outsmarting the government or a technical user unless you've read and understood all of TrueCrypts limitations outside of its control. --mboverload @ 02:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rank amateur wants to install Windows and Linux OS’s on two +15 year old computers, and later install OpenOffice and Ogg Vorbis, for 50 bucks or less

I have two old computers sitting in my basement locker—they have been for a few years. One’s on a pre-Windows XP, whereas another doesn’t seem to have an OS at all. I want to give them to someone who knows even less about computers than I, and both of us are poor (though I have my own computer (Windows XP with Office 2003)); and I feel free to experiment with these two computers.

First, can I and how do I create “partitions” for MS OS’s and Linux?

Second. Presuming that older is generally cheaper, how much would it cost to get, say a Windows XP, 2000, 98, 97, even 95?

Third, as I’ve never done this, are these discs re-usable? Could I take, say a Windows XP and upload it on +10 computers? If so, could I do the same with, say Office 2003 Professional?

Fourth, let’s say even a used Windows XP and/or Office 2003 Pro was too rich for my blood, and I decided on, say, Windows 95, what are the latest versions of WORD, EXCEL, and POWERPOINT, and PAINT could I use?

Fifth, how do I get such computers to take an OpenOffice? Could I get them on the earlier Windows, and/or I would be better to have them on the latest Linux versions?

Sixth, what good free painting/pics and player software would you recommend? Could Ogg Vorbis be installed in earlier Windows, or should I have it on Linux?

Seventh, as I’m too poor for even internet connections (I’m using an employment centre computer to post this) how would I download this on another computer (say internet café one) onto a USB, CD-ROM, or DVD-Rom, and then install it on these computers.

Thanks for the help and time.
:-)
70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot buy new Windows XP or any older consumer version of windows (I don't know about arrangements for Vista or server-Windows). You can find XP on sites like ebay, but these tend not to be cheap, and I would be highly suspicious that these were either downright illegal or that they had been activated on other machines making it illegal, or difficult, to use on your machine. You are at best going to be scrabbling together odd bits and bobs, second hand. Depending on the windows version, the disks may be reusable, but doing so will generally not be legal, unless you can get multiple licences too. For XP there is also product activation, which enforces the licences, preventing multiple use of a single-use licence. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly the only reasons I would recommend anyone try what you're doing (getting XP or 98se or whatever) to run on an old machine like that is either for nostalgic purposes or if they have some piece of software that absolutely will not run on anything else. If you're looking to just resurrect these computers and get some basic use out of them (some internet, some basic word processing) then I'd very strongly recommend you download one of the many Mini Linux distributions and install that. You don't have the issues about licences and ancient install media, you don't have nearly the trouble of getting device drivers for ancient hardware (and once we're talking pre-XP, installing device drivers is a pretty darn technical activity), and you can still get software that will run on them. All those mini linux distributions will give you an ISO image which you can burn onto a DVD and install from there. Modern full linux installs like Ubuntu are probably going to be much too heavyweight for your antique machines (frankly you should check the computers' features against those supported even by the mini linuxes, as you're really going back a long way). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your specific questions:

1. You'd install windows, then linux (but really, please don't do this) and the linux installer will take care of partitioning.

2. Whatever someone on ebay can get away with charging you. XP will be surprisingly expensive. Linux is, for your purposes, free.

3. As with 2, you're back to whatever junk you can scrape up from jumble sales and ebay

4. You can't get any of those programs from their creators. There are some (perhaps questionable) sites on the internet that will let you download old versions of things, and again you might be able to find old disks around. Linux will come with a compatible, lightweight office and graphics program (or will have an easy option to install one)

5. I don't think Openoffice will run on anything older than XP, and may be too heavyweight for your computers. Retro sites, ebay, jumble sales again. Linux will have a (more basic) office suite.

6. Much the same as 5.

7. Linux: yes, CDs (not DVDs like I said above, your computer is surely too old for that). Windows: probably not legally.

-- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and explainations. Mind you, I'm pretty confident that the ghost of Gary Kildall wouldn't mind me ripping off the company that ripped him off (CP/M, 86-DOS, and all that). As for this Product activation, a cursory check on the article sez it's applies to post-2000 MS software, and when I bought my Dell computer--the one with the XP and Office 2003, not once did I have it connected to the internet. The other two were internet capable and active on it. I'll at the very least check out the Mini Linux article and links, and print this for later perusal (the centre will soon close for the day); and again, thanks.
:-)
70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OEM version of XP on your Dell was (essentially) pre-activated at the factory. The retail install you'd have to get would not be so forgiving. If I were you, I'd spend a fraction of that $50 putting up little cards in a newsagent's window (or whereever classifieds are posted in Canada) saying "poor but virtuous person needs a half-decent computer for self betterment, can't pay but will collect" and you'll find people will give you old computers (but much nicer than the ones you're talking about fixing up). I have frequently had to take perfectly functional, and much newer than 15 year old, computers to the recycling centre, as no one will buy them, no child wants them, and no charity will take them. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another good idea. Thanks.
:-)
(same person--different IP (library))205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, stuff older than about 10 years is usually too old to be recoverable, largely due to a lack of Windows drivers for older hardware and OS combinations. Even with small Linux distributions there is a lower limit to what will still work with a GUI. It can work though - I sometimes run Puppy Linux and Windows Me (and Microsoft Office 97) in a dual-boot setup on a Pentium-III dating from about 2000, though the original 128MB memory was not enough and I had to buy some more. I could install Windows XP, but then I would have to buy a license or find a way to avoid the attention of Windows Genuine Advantage telling me it needs to be activated.

An alternative might be to get slightly newer stuff and refurbish it. Very cheap or even free stuff is easily available, often with an Operating System and other softwere still installed. Ask your friends and relatives, search the small ads in the paper, supermarket or perhaps online in places like eBay and Craigslist, and ask friends who work with computers if their company is throwing out some old PCs. Only a couple of months ago I was given 3 old laptops, all with Windows XP and Office 2003 - two I have successfully refurbished, but the other is probably beyond repair with its trashed disk and broken keyboard. Astronaut (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Astronaut for your input.
Hmmmm. As I remember, one of the computers had WORDPAD, and I wanted WORD--or even WRITE. A few years earlier I created a few WRITE files on yet another computer, stored them on a floppy disk, and when they changed the programming of that computer, found that their newly installed WORD program would open it. I figured that if the one of these two computers had even that, my friend could use it, for writing resumes and the like, and WORD programs on other computers would open it. However, again, it only had WORDPAD--which according to the WP article indicates that it's more advanced than Write. Hmmmmmm (I'm not so sure). The weird thing is that the computer opened jpeg files and had a media player--yes it played CR-ROMs, so I figure it can handle a latter OS and OFFICE prorams--cost being the main factor here. As for the OpenOffice, again, I figure that if I can't get a latter WORD program in, or any WORD program, due to cost, then have both an old MS writing program (early WORD, WRITE, or even the WORDPAD) and a new OpenOffice program. That way, I figure, the former, while primative, might be supported by a latter MS program--if he wanted to alter it on a latter better computer; while the other, though not supported by WORD (I think), would nonetheless enable more features that an earlier MS program wouldn't (he could type, tailor, print, and save on his computer).

As I think of it (I haven't got to them yet--the locker is jam pack with stuff) when the second computer was given to me, I was given a disk, and while I can't say I remember it requesting anything about activation (in the prompts--DOS prompt, command prompt, whatever you call it--it's white print in a black background that you might see when a computer boots up) but it might have been rejecting the disk for that reason--I don't know. I'm certain it was originally capable of Internet, media players, and yes, even WORD.

The reason why I initially posted this is when I was talking to someone at the soup kitchen who had a bit more knowledge about computers than I, he sounded like I could get all these things for free--from the MS site even. When I checked MS--I admit, I'll have to peruse the site more--it seemed to say that upgrades were free. As for Googling "free Office 2003", well, I might as well asked for "free Beatles MP3's".

The idea is to got to an internet cafe, burn whatever OS's and programs, go to the locker, pull out the computers (and a bunch of other stuff), see if I can fix them in the laundry room, if and when, then wrap them in some heavy torn up blankets (i.e. disposeable but useful for this purpose), put them in a shopping cart (there are a few in my housing project), wheel them to my friends (he lives about 1 km), drop them off, and my promise-of-sorts will be fulfilled.

As for the idea of getting free computers, such has merit and I'll likely try that, but again, I'm also thinking of practicing with fixing them, as as Astronaut indicated with the laptops, they needed fixing, so again, I might profit from some practicing. Mind you, again, thanks for the above.70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Wordpad is indeed an improvement on Microsoft Write, enough such that I set WordPad up as the word processor of choice for my parents 10 years ago. The price is unbeatable. OpenOffice.org Writer is far more full-featured, if you can get it to run on an old computer. As Finlay McWalter wrote above, this seems unlikely. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, maybe it's my memory. It could be other things. For instance, the WRITE program I used had a spell-check, whereas a computer with a WORDPAD program a neighbour of mine had, didn't. Have you ever seen a 10 page document, copies of which were plastered all over the buildings' bulletin boards, where the writer couldn't spell and there was no spell check? Fortunately for her, some of the content was conciliatory. :-D . Very well, if OpenOffice is likely too big and modern-like, what other free or (very) low cost word processing programs are there that would fit in such ye olde computers? Thanks.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Linux, AbiWord is much more lightweight, and is the wordprocessor in some small linux installations I have tried. An older version is still available (though well hidden, [2]) which supports older versions of Windows such as 95, 98, & Me. Astronaut (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. :-) 70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you I would forget about XP and just install Linux instead. If your computers are too old to take XP or Linux Ubuntu, they should be able to take one of the Mini Linuxs, which are all free and include word processors etc. There is lots of free Linux software. You could burn one of the Live CDs and see if it works in your computers without having to install it. You could also try Freecycle to ask for old computers. 92.15.30.151 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

twitter

i wanna create a new twitter but i dont want to manually have to re-follow all those people. is there a program i can use or can i save the people im following? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsmith44 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon's dictionary of Wikipedia

In the Babylon translation-software, the user can add Wikipedia as one of the online dictionaries. It is possible to download Wikipedia for offline use, through this link: http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20100130/enwiki-20100130-pages-articles.xml.bz2 But is it possible to do one of the following: (1) Get an offline version of Wikipedia for Babylon? (2) Convert the above XML-file to a BGL file?

Thanks in advance. 77.127.184.216 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wget

I'm trying to mirror a specific part of a website, not the whole website. Through searching, trial and error and hours of wasted time I've come up with the following:

wget -mk -X */images/ -np http://example.com/pages

However, this only downloads the html files in the directory "/pages/", and not any of the other resources that are displayed on the pages. I want it to download the css files (located at http://example.com/css/) and the thumbnails (located at http://example.com/thumbs/). What do I need to do to make wget do that? Thanks for your help 82.43.90.93 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the the -p (--page-requisites) option. --Bavi H (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that and is don't seem to work. Only the index page gets thumbnails and css downloaded, all the other pages are still missing thumbnails and other embedded images. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the link Bavi H put up there. It describes exactly your problem. You'll also need the "-l <number>" option, to specify the depth of recursion you want. Indeterminate (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]