Computing desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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 17

Free mac program for converting PAL to NTSC?

Well the headline says it all. I'd like a recommendation for a free mac program to do this. Thanks in advance.--108.46.98.134 (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could use FFmpeg*, but… I can’t stress enough how much of a waste of time it is to convert to/from PAL/NTSC/etc. or author optical media in this day and age. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can stress it all you want but you're wrong. The reason you're wrong is because you are not in my shoes. I'm sure you're right as to yourself. I like using my 6 carousel DVD player which cannot play PAL. I do not want to stretch a cord from my computer to my gigantic older TV. I hate watching videos on my computer. The software I use to burn DVDs will re-encode to NTSC but it takes forever and I can only convert one disk at a time so with separate software I can convert the files I am planning on burning first and do so all at once and then when actually burning it will be ever so much faster. It is not a waste of time for me.--108.46.98.134 (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you spent maybe $25-50 you could get a small computer to use as a media center and connect it more or less directly to your TV. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't want to do any such thing. You obviously have a lot of knowledge about computers and software and related matters, and it's nice you answer questions but it would be better if you simply answered the question asked and didn't package it with prescriptive and unsolicited pronouncements. By the way, the next time you get a question like this one, if ever, recommend HandBrake instead, which I'm now using for this purpose. Far more targeted and user friendly if a person is not a computer expert which you should assume people asking here are not.--108.46.98.134 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different browsers render same web page differently

One critical issue I have encountered when surfing the web is that different web browsers (specifically, different layout engines with exactly same web page rendering functionality (including fonts, HTML, CSS, SVG, and other standards, fallback when a browser cannot render correctly, and font size, image size, and similar things) render one same web page differently. What is the cause of this phenomenon? 123.24.124.142 (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"…different web browsers…render…differently… What is the cause of this phenomenon?" They’re different. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several (somewhat related) reasons:

there are several standards for web content, and some browsers support different ones
browser makers don't wait until they've got all the support for a given standard working before they release a product with that support - which means different browsers support different subsets of the standards that they do support
the web browsers have bugs
the standards are ambiguous; eventually browser manufacturers figure out where these ambiguities lie, and often converge on the same resolution - but not immediately, and not always
quite a bit of stuff is left up to the browser to decide (font choices, colour specifics) or varies between systems (screen sizes, installed fonts); good web developers understand this and don't make assumptions, but instead test on a range of browsers on a range of systems to make sure things work as they expect. But, as in most fields, a depressingly large number of people aren't very good, or very thorough, at their job.
web browsers support new features (pre-standardisation) features; when web developers use these they're knowingly inducing a difference between how the site will work on one browsers to another
users have settings which alter how the page renders (user stylesheets, zoom levels, text zoom settings)
users install addons which mutate the page as it loads (e.g. ad-blockers, greasemonkey scripts)

People sometimes say that making a site that works and looks good on the huge range of installed browsers, from IE5 to Chrome to lynx to screen readers to iPads and Android phones, is like nailing jelly to a tree. It is, but it's a jelly tree, and the nails are jelly too. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also just want want to note that if the pages themselves aren't fully standards compliant (often the case), much less rely on hacks and workarounds, then you've added another unknown into the mix. Some browsers interpret such sites via quirks mode, which is unreliable. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the essential fact is that HTML was never designed to be rendered in a single specific way -- unlike formats such as PDF that specify every detail of rendering. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Google Instant acquire search suggestions?

Google Search offers a function named Google Instant that shows search predictions as you type into the search box. My question is, where did Google acquire the words, names and phrases used in search suggestions? And their frequency of use, as more frequent searches are shown at the upper? 123.24.124.142 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous searches for the same things. Dismas|^(talk) 09:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two computers-- One user

I have two computers one faster than the other, connected via a LAN and thence to the internet. What is the best way to use these two computers with one user? Can I make one into a server? Which one? Can I use one to back the other up? Im lost for ideas. Please help--78.148.133.146 (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're lost for ideas, why waste your time looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Just use the good one. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use the facilities and storage of both computers and some programs are difficult to port across to the other computer.--78.148.133.146 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to control the slower computer via the faster computer, Remote Desktop Services is good. The slower computer wouldn't even need a screen or keyboard anymore, and you can access pretty much all of its functions over the ethernet connection except graphic intensive things like as watching videos or playing video games. AvrillirvA (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things to do with old computers. Projects could be as varied as turning it into a file server, a media computer, or scrapping it for parts (putting its hard drive into your better computer). Lots of possibilities. Seems to me the question is, what do you want to do with it? Shadowjams (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to use one as your internet computer, and the other as a standalone, where you can do taxes and record private info like bank account numbers and such that would be bad if they got out on the web. The older one is probably the best choice for the standalone. If you do this you will need to disconnect the standalone computer both from the Internet and the LAN, to make it secure. You should also avoid transferring files from/to that standalone computer using flash drives and such. StuRat (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power management in Fedora Linux

Yesterday I changed the Power management preferences on my Fedora 14 Linux system, changing "Put computer to sleep when inactive for" from "Never" to "10 minutes", and checking "Spin down hard disks when possible". Sure enough, after 10 minutes of not using the computer, it went to sleep. Then I wanted to use it again. I moved the mouse. Nothing happened. I pressed a few keys. Nothing happened. I pushed the power button briefly. Nothing happened. I held the power button down for a few seconds. The computer shut down, and when I pressed the power button again, it rebooted. I changed the settings back to "never put the computer to sleep" and "don't spin down hard disks". The computer doesn't go to sleep now, but the hard disks still spin down when left unused. This "putting to sleep" isn't exactly helping if I can't wake it up again without rebooting it. Am I doing something wrong here? JIP | Talk 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to talk to Fedora users, but a number of things have to work together for this, including: the BIOS, the hardware itself, the power management software, the Linux configuration (or probably in Fedora: what modules are loaded). ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernation has historically been flaky for Linux. You could try upgrading to Fedora 17; no guarantees of course. What sort of computer is it? Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without the proper configuration and drivers for the hardware, any OS will fail at this. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is HTML5 YouTube so slow?

So around a month ago I opted into the YouTube HTML5 trial. I figured, this is where the Internet is heading so I might as well get a jump-start on it. It massively slowed down video playback, though. To the point that I thought my computer was failing, because I couldn't even load 720p videos without seconds of lag at a time. There were actually various issues - my stream had to completely re-buffer when I went into full-screen mode, it wouldn't load more than a few seconds of advance footage, and when I jumped backward in the video timeline it lost any existing buffer. Not to mention the right-click features for copying video URLs and the like didn't work. This had nothing to do with my Internet connection.

When I turned off the trial and went back to Flash everything was speedy and normal again. Videos play smoothly and quickly. This seems incomprehensible to me, especially given how much Apple Inc. rails against Flash and how resource-consuming it can be. I tend to agree that it's a dying platform. So why is still the best option for Web video? Is this a matter of Google not making the most efficient code? The standard still being developed? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm: the performance is inferior (Same video needs significantly more CPU on HTML5 trial at present). As you guess the probable cause is that adobe/flash has been being tweaked for ~decades with a genuine (commercial) need to improve performance, whilst HTML5 video codecs are likely still in grad school (or whatever analogy you want). Actually verifying that isn't easy - but I guess most people would have the same conclusion based on similar experiences over the years. As for what Apple says - they have there reasons no doubt - (but see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs ) but also see Comparison of HTML5 and Flash#Performance, see also Adobe_Flash#Performance -I think if you have a window machine you will be getting a different performance experience from flash,

Oh. and depending on what codec the HTML video is using it might actually need more decoding - ie be intrinsically be slower - but I think the real answer is above.

I didn't appear to get the buffer problem .Oranjblud (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that what Apple is talking about may be flash performance on flash built websites (which is often a 'dog') - that's a different kettle of fish to just an embedded flash video.Oranjblud (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a matter of those involved not being very thorough (or that the technology is young, if you like). You'd probably find a plugin system made by people who know what they're doing (like VideoLAN has no issue buffering video properly. Do not delude yourself into thinking Apple blocked a video format being included in HTML5 for any reasons other than their own interests, every claim they have used has been debunked (they had to think up a new one each time). ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"blocking" or "redirecting" access to an aplication.

Is there anyway to redirect the files a program want to edit/view/create/delete I have tried sandboxie but I found that sandboxie would leave hidden registers in my compuer (when you uninstall and install the program, the program know it has been installed before and opens a window to buy their license), for example If I wanted to make a portable application of any program redirecting registry settings to a folder and keeping the whole program scoped. What should I use, or do? --190.158.212.204 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Ps: I know a virtual machine is a great solution when you want full protection against an application, but I just need control of the files the application use.[reply]

For what it's worth, Sandboxie's license allows you to use it indefinitely without paying. (See the licensing FAQ, first question.) I don't know of any other way to do this that's as easy as Sandboxie. With any other approach you would waste more time getting it to work than you'd waste waiting for Sandboxie's nag screens. -- BenRG (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like the application they have installed in Sandboxie remembered it was installed, and they are trying to use Sandboxie to run a program for longer than its trial period to avoid licensing it. I'm not sure if we're supposed to answer these sorts of questions. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could attempt to create a portable version by using something akin to ThinApp on a VM. Alternatively, you could create a limited user and run the application under that user. These days, however, virtualization is preferred.Smallman12q (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]