Computing desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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.

August 8

Guitar Controller USB Utility

I recently purchased a used copy of Rock Band 2 for the Wii as well as the matching guitar controller (I know it's the correct one because of the diagram in the instructions). However, not included was the wireless USB "dongle", the function of which the instruction manual was unclear but the purpose seems essential. What does this thing do, how does it work, and where could I find one sold individually, even used? 75.73.226.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to insert a Wiimote into the guitar. It has a Wiimote sized hole in it and a connector like on the nunchuck attachment. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of what the standard controller should look like - you can see the wiimote installed in it. If yours looks different, you may have a third-party one or one made for a different system. [[1]] 209.131.76.183 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to post again, but I just realized I was describing the Guitar Hero hardware. It does look like Rock Band uses a dongle, probably because the controllers don't work like normal Wii controllers. You'll need it for the guitar controller to be able to talk to the Wii. Used game stores may have them available, but they probably bundle them with the guitars. eBay may be your best bet. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the dongle has the software license. This makes it harder to make illegal copies. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The small box that plugs into the USB port appears to just be the wireless receiver. It appears Rock Band uses the same* guitar controller and USB wireless receiver for multiple systems, instead of having to create a specific Wii version that connects to a Wii Remote or uses the Wii Remote's wireless protocol. (The Rock Band 2 wireless guitar setup instructions seem to show the same "USB dongle" for the Wii and PlayStation 2/3, and no USB dongle for the Xbox 360.) --Bavi H (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Well, maybe not exactly the same. The official Compatibility page says "Instrument controllers and wireless microphones are specially designed for each game console and are not interchangeable between platforms (Xbox 360, Wii, etc.)". But perhaps they re-used some of the wireless equipment instead of designing a Wii-specific version.--Bavi H (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up and down arrows at bottom of scroll bar in Word

I've just had my mac upgraded to Mountain Lion and along with that, my Word was somehow downgraded to Word for mac 2008, version 12.1.0, from 12.1.1. I don't know if it's a function of to OS install or the word downgrade, but the scroll bar on the side no longer has the regular up and down arrows that you can click on to move a page up and down in a Word document. Instead, it has double up and down arrows at the bottom of the scroll bar, and when you click on those, it jumps you to the next page of your document, rather than moving the page down smoothly to where you want it. I can, of course, grab the side bar and move the page up and down, but I am used to and have relied on the up and down arrows for years. Any help?--108.27.100.125 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, but I will just chime in that Word on new Mac OSes has gotten progressively buggy and weird. I had to stop using it altogether (I switched to Pages, which works well enough for me and can export to Word docs). The bug you are describing sounds like an incompatibility with Mountain Lion's GUI controls, but I don't really know. As for the "downgrade", did you already have 2008 installed on your system? It could just be an incompatibility or a change of defaults with 2011 or whatever your "upgraded" version is. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet reply

So, I know that servers listen to an specific port and reply to any queries directed to them, but the users act like servers too? Do they listen for the reply on a specific port? How do servers know where to reply? (If we are on a NAT network or something like that, how does the router know which computer has to receive a reply?) 190.60.93.218 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol both require their packets to include return port information in the header, so that the receiver knows which port the sender is listening on. TCP and UDP packets are wrapped up as Internet Protocol packets (i.e., a TCP or UDP packet is formed then inserted into an IP header to form an IP packet), and the IP header includes the return IP address. BigNate37_(T) 18:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to NAT, the clue is in the name: the gateway translates network addresses. Say you're behind a NAT gateway with the IP address 80.4.4.4, but your computer believes its IP address is 192.168.0.17. When you make a connection to a server at, say, 91.198.174.225, the gateway transparently turns your attempted connection between 192.168.0.17 and 91.198.174.225 into a connection between 80.4.4.4 and 91.198.174.225. The server at 91.198.174.225 doesn't know about 192.168.0.17; it believes it's talking to 80.4.4.4. Your NAT gateway is clever enough to remember the combination of source port, target address, and target port, and to use this as a key to know where to send the packets back to. Does that make sense? Marnanel (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something else I should have mentioned: you are probably thinking of TCP connections here. Although they consist in fact of separate datagrams, they are designed to provide the illusion of a connection (the sort of thing you get when you make a phone call). Every TCP connection is from a particular IP address and port to a particular IP address and port; with web traffic, the "from" port is generally random and the "to" port is generally 80 (or 443 for encrypted connections). Marnanel (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space in file names

What was the problem with spaces in file names a while ago? Why weren't they allowed? Comploose (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the "allowable characters in directory entries" column in comparison of file systems#Limits. All the main desktop/server filesystems listed there allows spaces; even FAT added support for spaces in LFN, which NT and Windows 95 supported by 1995. All the restrictions there, old and new, are just "by definition" - that's what the specifiers chose for their own convenience. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, weren't they using the spaces for something else? Hence disallowing them for file names? Comploose (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what environment? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows. I remember that it was part of their marketing that their files "now" could have longer file names with spaces, if I remember correctly. Comploose (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most environments which discourage spaces do so because it causes problems with naming files on the commandline. Consider the command "del alpha beta": should it delete two files, "alpha" and "beta", or a single file named "alpha beta"? Marnanel (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you mean Windows NT and its successors (2000, XP, Vista, 7 and Server equivalents) they've always supported long filenames, including spaces. If you mean the non-NT "flavour" of Windows (Windows 1.0 - 3.11 and 95, 98 and ME), then they gained long filename capability in Windows 95

In terms of using spaces for "other" things, many (almost all) command shells including cmd.exe use spaces to separate command from argument, and separate one argument from the next. So using spaces in a filename often means you have to put quotes around it, or an escape character in front of each space. But this is not a limitation of the filesystem itself. Cheers, davidprior ^t/_c 19:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were (and still are) using spaces as separators on the command line. As parsers became more sophisticated, spaces as separators were distinguished from spaces as part of a name by using escape characters or quotation marks. BigNate37_(T) 20:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drivers in linux

How high are the chances of not finding linux drivers for some device, which can be quite old or quite new? Comploose (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just depends on many things. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many things beyond quite old/new or quite unknown? Comploose (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toasters, refrigerators, automobiles, battleships -- all of these are devices that lack linux drivers. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we're on that level of intellectual integrity, I believe SaskTel has a fridge that runs on Linux. Not that it's in mass production or anything, but I imagine at some level of design they're using a kernel module to interface it. If memory serves they take it to tradeshows to show off the LCD TV built into the door that has Digital TV connectivity. BigNate37_(T) 19:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not right on this one Looie. Something interesting is definitely developing on the embedded systems front. Linux with its support for a wide range of hardware is increasingly showing up (or hiding) in places that may surprise you. A growing number of electronic devices used in cars, at home, in the field and many other places are being developed and deployed, with Linux being the operating system. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And when it comes to automobiles, I'm pretty sure there is OBD software for linux

OP, when you get a chance to add more specifics in terms of what types of devices/etc, it'd also be useful to know whether by "linux drivers" you include binary-only drivers - which regardless of the philosophical arguments, typically are only available for versions of linux which run on intel-compatible processors. Cheers, davidprior ^t/_c 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try a layman's answer. The chance of not finding a driver for any given device such as a video card (especially) or sound card is higher on Linux than Windows. Manufacturers usually concentrate on making things work under Windows first, then look at Linux (if they bother at all). However, there are a number of third-party drivers available - http://www.linux-drivers.org/ is a good place to look - and there's normally a good chance that you can find a way to make a particular device work in some way with whichever Linux flavour you like. Sometimes you don't get all the bells and whistles that come with the Windows version, but the basic functions should be ok. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics cards are a poor example, as they are one of the most common examples of proprietary drivers being released for linux.[2] You may not get updates as quickly as Windows users, though. It seems as though nVidia even has open source Unix drivers.[3] BigNate37_(T) 20:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. You are more likely to find a modern Linux driver for an old piece of hardware than you are to find a modern Windows driver for that piece of hardware, because once Linux gets a driver for something, it tends to keep it, where Windows drivers often aren't updated for newer versions of Windows. You are less likely to find a modern Linux driver for a modern piece of hardware than you are to find a Windows driver for it, because almost every time someone develops a piece of hardware, they also develop a driver that lets it be used with the then-current version of Windows. --Carnildo (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How high are the chances of not finding a driver for Linux? Lower than with any other OS. You should still check online to see if what you're interested in obtaining is in fact supported. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV "brightness"

One problem I often have on my current TV is that I can't make out any detail in dark scenes, particularly those recorded digitally. I turned the brightness and contrast up to max, turned off all the room lights, and put blackout curtains on all the windows, but it's still not good. When buying a new TV, what stats will tell me if it will show detail on dark scenes ? It's not just brightness, as that would just make an almost uniformly black scene look almost uniformly white. Contrast ratio is closer, but I get the impression that is designed to replicate the contrast in the original, while I need to expand the contrast well beyond the original. Also, would I do better if I used a computer monitor (either with or without a computer) ? StuRat (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the answer to part 1 of the question... But as for using a computer & monitor - this would probably give you the ability to make gamma adjustments which may help. Maybe try current TV with a PC before spending any money though :-) Cheers, davidprior ^t/_c 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turning the contrast up is exactly the wrong thing to do -- it increases contrast for mid-tones at the cost of reducing it for the extremes. Also many TVs nowadays have various modes available that handle brightness ranges differently -- you might investigate your model. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's supposed to work is that brightness adjusts the black level and contrast is a multiplier with black held fixed. In other words, the displayed intensity is (raw intensity × contrast) + brightness. So increasing the contrast is what StuRat wants to do. However I don't know how many TV makers actually use the terms that way. I've seen a lot of devices on which the "brightness" setting is actually gamma, and the contrast adjustment holds grey fixed instead of black. In that case you might try reducing the contrast (the default setting is likely too high) and increasing the brightness-that's-really-gamma. -- BenRG (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help if describe what I would want it to do. Let's say just 3 dark colors appear on the screen, with RGB colors listed on a 0-255 scale:

AS BROADCAST   AS I WANT TO SEE IT
------------   -------------------
(0,0,0)        (0,0,0)
(1,2,4)        (31,63,127)
(2,4,8)        (63,127,255)

So, is this only possible using a gamma adjustment ? And does this mean I need to use a computer to watch TV ? StuRat (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listings of features like that are hard to come by and often are filled with marketing speak that doesn't really explain what it does in detail. Your best bet is probably to find a store that will let you play around with settings on the display TVs to see if they have settings that help. If I recall, you're from the Detroit area, so you probably have an ABC Warehouse with a Paul's TV nearby. I think their salesmen get commission, which means they might be motivated to help you try it out. Best Buy or Meijer staff may let you change things as long as you're changing them back, but it probably depends on the person working there. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the detail you want to see is actually there? Common video compressors tend to do a bad job on dark scenes because they tolerate a certain amount of local error in the brightness independent of the overall dynamic range of the scene. -- BenRG (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast control on a CRT will increase luminance proportional to intensity. Brightness will add luminance to the whole signal. In LCD's, brightness will more likely increase the backlight intensity, which has about the same effect as the contrast control on a CRT.

For a HDTV, PCWorld gives this advice:

"Brightness actually controls the black level of the TV; so when adjusting it, look for detail in blacks and shadows. To alter the setting, pause the movie during a dimly lit scene that includes background scenery or shadowy areas. Turn the setting up or down until you can distinguish shadowy details without washing out the foreground. The contrast control is sometimes called the white setting. Find a sky scene or one with many white objects in it, and adjust the control until the lighter objects' edges don't blur into their surroundings but you can still make out the details and textures in the white." http://www.pcworld.com/article/132928/finetune_your_highdefinition_tvs_settings.html

But a dark scene will contain less detail anyway, not only because you've got a limited range of possible values like 0,0,0 to 9,9,9 (1000 values) but also because dark scenes often contain little or no useful color info, so instead of 1000 different shades you may only have 10 shades of grey. Stretching this range (with level adjust in some video editing program) usually gives poor results because much of the detail you amplify is actually noise, and as mentioned by BenRG details may already be lost due to digital compression. You may want to try video editing first to see if you really are missing much in those dark scenes before you go look for a new tv. I suspect dark scenes are also a cheap alternative to detailed film set design; ever seen a chemistry lab as dark as what those CSIs are working in?... Ssscienccce (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more common method to cover a cheap set or cheap special effects is a constantly moving camera to hide detail. That way, the audience thinks there's something there, while, if it's black, they have no idea what, if anything, is there. StuRat (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing processor name

this page claims to know how to change processor name, what are the possible consecuences? also, does it change processor name or what the operative system thinks?`190.158.212.204 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not changing the processor name - you're just changing a text string in Windows displays when you ask it what the processor is. Doing this is probably harmless, but is entirely pointless. 91.125.245.1 (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it may feel faster, as claimed in The soft CPU upgrade --Unilynx (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]