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

How do I get rid of Win7 update KB2952664?

I am running Win7 and most definitely do NOT want to install Windows 10. I also don't want those annoying reminders and persuaders for Windows 10 that Microsoft likes to install on my PC. For that reason, I now check all Windows updates before I install them and tell Windows to 'hide' any that are to do with upgrading to Windows 10.

I somehow seem to have installed update KB2952664 which is related to Windows 10. I have used the update uninstall facility to get rid of it and what happens is both interesting and very annoying: First, I uninstall it and it does, indeed, disappear from my list of installed updates. But, second, when I restart my PC, the update reappears on the list with today's date as its installation date. This is despite the fact that my update settings say that Windows should leave updates for me to install - and I have not reinstalled that update.

Can anyone tell me how I can get rid up KB1952664 and how I can stop it reinstalling automatically? Gurumaister (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but make sure you uninstall KB3035583 too and watch vigilantly for it, because MS likes to slip that one past you too. It's the one that places the update icon in your icon tray. Akld guy (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Akld, yes I caught that one and have it 'hidden'. Now I just need some Windows genius to help me get rid of KB2952664. Gurumaister (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try this.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks really useful Phil - thank you! Gurumaister (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

System Restore Manager v2

~~Guy Macon, The Quixotic Potato~~

I have recently retrieved the entitled software for the PC I have; a guidance is sought with the "Create Point" button. I would be happy if someone can give me an upperhand understanding of what the enquoted button will do step by step… My computer is a bit weird; I can’t really take any steps without knowing… -- Apostle (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have two pieces of advice for you.

First, do not download and run software unless you are absolutely sure what it does and how it works. and run virustotal (google it) on the file before you run it. System Restore Manager v2 is a good program, but some programs that claim to do good things actually harm your computer.

Second, learn how Microsoft's System Restore works before trying to learn a program that supposedly makes it easier. We have an article on it at System Restore --Guy Macon (talk)

Okay thanks.

-- Apostle (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windows folder view setting changes for no apparent reason

I've noticed that on my Windows 7 machine sometimes the "view" setting of a folder would change for no apparent reason. For example, I may have set the view of a folder in Windows Explorer to "list". The next day, when I open the same folder again on Windows Explorer, the folder may display in "Details" or "Large icons" view. What mechanism in Windows may cause that kind of seemingly spontaneous changes in folder view setting? Thanks. --134.242.92.97 (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but I confirm that this behavior happens on my Win7 machine too. Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have found an explanation of the problem and the fix. I've found two articles that seem to talk about the same issue. This one [1] describes a fix (workaround?); this one [2] explains how the problem happens. --134.242.92.97 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That fix is a Microsoft page that offers a utility to solve this and other problems. I downloaded the utility and ran it. It reported that it had fixed 3 problems including the one under discussion. It's too early to tell whether it was successful, but it's highly likely. I recommend the utility to those who think they might have folder problems. Akld guy (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell why my facebook page is not appearing on google search?

Can you please tell why my facebook page https://www.facebook.com/malwarebytescouponcode/ is not appearing on google search? But the backlinks I have created for this page using keywords "Malwarebytes anti-malware coupon code" "Malwarebytes anti-malware coupon code 2016" have already started appearing on 3/4 page on google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malwarebytescoupon (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a black art called SEO, some people charge a lot of money for answering questions precisely like this. I don't think there is a "simple" answer you'll be able to use to improve your results. Vespine (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a bit more info, one of the most basic ways goolge chooses if a search result should be "high" in the results is how many OTHER websites link to it. If you have dozens of different websites linking to your site, it will appear higher in the results. If you just made a stand alone site and no one else links to it, there very little you can do to your website to "force" google to make your result higher, using things like keywords. Except pay them of course, that's partly how they make their money. Vespine (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is called PageRank by the way. Vespine (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

shift scheduling system

Hi there,
I am looking for a shift scheduling system.
It should contain some features that I need including:
1.Automatically assigning shifts, according the workers' limitations.
2.Creating exportable calendar files.
3.It will be helpful if it can take by mails or a web form, the workers' preferences.(optional)
Of course, an opensource software is most requested, though we do want those features that I mentioned earlier.
Thanks!Exx8 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENIAC and an earlier computer

Milestones in Computer Science and Information Technology by Edwin O'Reilly says of ENIAC: "... a more accurate claim would be 'worlds first automatic, general-purpose, electronic, decimal, digital computer." It goes on to say "Omitting ~~and~~ any of the italicized adjectives grants priority to some other computer." So what if "decimal" is omitted - what is an earlier automatic, general-purpose, electronic, non-decimal, digital computer? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were many such earlier computers, the various mechanical computers designed by Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace predate the ENIAC by over a century, for example. History of computing hardware is a good place to look for some more examples. --Jayron 32 23:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but which one was automatic, general-purpose, electronic, and digital but not decimal? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept electromechanical, the Z3 was automatic, general purpose and digital computer. However, it is also decimal, so isn't what you are looking for. The ABC wasn't programmable, so fails the general-purpose requirement. Which leaves us with Colossus as the only pre-ENIAC electronic computer left. It was electronic, digital, automatic and programmable. However, it used biquinary values to represent decimal numbers, so perhaps that is why it is precluded by O'Reilly. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Colossus was not a general-purpose computer. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first automatic, general-purpose, electronic, digital, binary computer was the Manchester Baby, which post-dates ENIAC. See List of vacuum tube computers for the list in chronological order. Tevildo (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think (although this is just personal speculation), the "automatic" exclusion might play a part as well. ENIAC (despite the name) wasn't fully-automatic until September 1948 - before then, it was programmed with a plugboard, like Colossus. The Baby was automatic from the word go (June 1948), although ENIAC had run with manual programs before that date. Tevildo (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that automatic referred to its operation. Once the plugboards were set, it would run on its own, unlike a calculator. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colossus wasn't designed as general purpose, but it was arguably Turing complete, based on Wells. - Bilby (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Z3 used binary, not decimal. It had a 22-bit word length and represented floating-point numbers using 7 bits of exponent, 14 bits of mantissa, and a sign. (Thus, assuming the exponent was signed, it could represent values from approximately 10¹⁹ to 10⁻¹⁹), or their negatives, with approximately 4 decimal digits of significance.) --69.159.9.187 (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it was electromechanical, not electronic. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was presuming by decimal that they used binary, but accepted decimal I/O. Z3 apparently had decimal input and output, but not operation. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there was no was automatic, general-purpose, electronic, digital non-decimal computer before ENIAC. It looks like Edwin O'Reilly was wrong. Of course the article needs to follow the sources, not my original research... --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he misstated it. He says that if you leave out any of the adjectives, then there were predecessors. But:

Leave out "automatic" and you have calculators
leave out "general-purpose" and you have differential analyzers and code-breaking machines
leave out "electronic" and you have mechanical and electomechanical devices (e.g. Z3, Harvard Mark I)
leave out "digital" and you have analog computers

But leave out "decimal" but include the others, and I don't know of any. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask now - what do we get if we exclude "automatic"? The first electronic calculator was the ANITA of 1961, decades (well, the best part of 20 years, at least) younger than the machines discussed above. For that matter, how is "automatic computer" defined? Tevildo (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that automatic means that no human intervention is required for the calculations (except perhaps for input ot output). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]