Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2006 August 12

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August 11 Computing desk archive August 13 >

FAT32 partitions in windows

I have one 200gb hard drive divided into two (equal) partitions. The whole lot is NTFS but I need a FAT32 partition so that both Linux and Windows can use the drive. The standard windows formatting tool doesn't give the option for FAT32 in the dropdown list, only NTFS. I assume that this is because the drive is too large for that (although I'm not sure). So anyway, my question is: Is it possible to turn drive D into a collection of Fat32 partitions (3 or 4) without erasing Drive C? (as I don't have 100gb of external storage at my fingertips :D) Thanks in advance. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

After some googling, I found this, so you may disregard the above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows artificially limits the size of FAT32 it formats to 32 GB (see File Allocation Table), but has no problems using larger partitions. You can format under Linux, for example, to get the result you wanted without any resizing. —da Pete (ばか) 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, rather than formatting that partition to FAT32, a possibility is to format it to ext2/ext3 and installing a program such as this to gain the ability to read and write those formats in Windows XP. Just a thought, it's what I decided to do when I had a dual-boot XP Media Center Edition and Ubuntu. --Cduffner 06:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cduffner, that one worked great. FAT32 is IMHO quite outdated, so I'm glad there's a way to use ext2/3 under windows. Thanks again! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PC system requirements.

I'd like to play Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on my PC. I meet all the system requirements except for video card -- it requires a 64MB (minimum) or 128MB (recommended) VRAM card. Mine is 32MB -- a GeForce 4 MX420. How would this affect my enjoyment of the game?

The video card is responsible for the rendering of the graphics and plays a vital part in gaming. With only 32MB, the game will slow down and stutter badly, even on minimal settings. Having played Vice City, I know the importance of a smooth playing experience. When on the run, one stutter can mean the difference between escaping or being busted. Upgrade that video card before anything else. Harryboyles 07:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

San Andreas isn't one of the most highly-demanding games in terms of graphics, but your card will definitely be at the lower end of playable. I think you might just be able to get away with it if you don't mind turning everything down and suffering with succotash stuttering. But I'd agree with Harryboyles: upgrading your graphics card will make a world of difference, and a card that's perfect for San Andreas won't cost much these days. Sum0 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Upgrade. --Proficient 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange problem with Java servlets

I am running a Java servlet in a Tomcat servlet container. The servlet creates a new thread in its init method with new Thread(runnable) and adds it into a statically defined list. Then I have added code to print out every Thread object in that list. I have reloaded the servlet several times without stopping the servlet container. However, the number of Thread objects in the list is always 1. Shouldn't it increase by 1 every time? new Thread always creates a new object, doesn't it? And as long as I don't stop the servlet container, and therefore the virtual machine, the statically defined list should remain there. What is happening here? Could it be that the servlet container uses some fancy custom classloader to load the servlet class, causing the statically defined list to be recreated every time? JIP | Talk 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have the "static Thread list[];" in the servlet class then that list gets set to null each time you reload the servlet. To prevent that, put the list in another class and have the system class loader load that class (== put it into a library jar). Usually it is best not to have fields in servlets (ei edes staattisia kenttiä); put "business code" in other classes for better reusability, testability, maintainability, ... I recommend http://forum.java.sun.com/ for Java questions; you'll probably find more people with knowledge in Java there. Weregerbil 13:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, servlet containers use fancy classloaders. Several of them. See [1] for an explanation on how it's done on Tomcat 5.0, for instance. --cesarb 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, however, that the classloaders help - as that article notes "Classes which are part of the JRE base classes cannot be overriden." I think that's either (or both?) a function of some special code in java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass() and JAR sealing of the core packages. But the fact remains that servlets which do instanciate threads infact get ones from the servlet container's threadpool (and not straight from the OS), as JIP observes. It's been a long time since I read that part of the code, but I don't remember a plugin interface (like awt's Toolkit or net's socketfactory) in the implementation of java.lang.Thread. They're doing something clever, but I don't think we've quite gotten to the bottom of how yet. I'll read the code tomorrow, if I have time. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Games Running Slowly On New Computer

I've been running an old (Resident Evil 2) game on my relatively new computer (3200 AMD 64-bit, 128Mb 6600GT Graphics) yet when I am moving through water or fog, the game slows down ridiculously. Also, when I'm moving from one room to another, the loading times are so slow. I think it takes up all my CPU cycles as well. How could it be that a game designed for a much inferior machine would run so slowly on a better machine? --130.161.135.32 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi.. what is your ram ??? if you got low ram that might be the reason why the game is slow.

nah, even with something low like 256 mb RAM it wouldn't matter with a dedicated 128 mb graphics card.Wjlkgnsfb 15:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure RE2 much cares about a 128 MB graphics card, have you seen the system requirements? 32 MB RAM recommended, 166 Mhz Pentium, 2x CD-ROM, etc. Here are some suggestions about running RE2 on a modern computer, including using the 1.04 patch and running it in Windows95 compatibility mode. digfarenough (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a safe assumption that a 3200 processor and 128 Mb graphics card are going to be paired up with more than 32 Mb RAM! I've got 2 Gb of RAM. Thanks for the link :) --130.161.182.112 12:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays people switch to higher quality RAM and 256 MB GPU for better gaming experiences. Perhaps setting the priority higher will allow you to achive optimal results. --Proficient 16:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Randomize seed, time

In the original BASIC there was a Randomize Timer command, what's the command to randomize the seed in visual basic?

It appears to be simply Randomize; I assume that it randomizes based on the current value of the internal clock, as "Randomize Timer" did in the past. grendel|khan 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

hmm, yeah, guess it's just "Randomize". Odd that it doesn't turn blue in the VB editor.. Wjlkgnsfb 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Installing Windows

Trying to reinstall Windows and I got an invalid product key error. I haven't installed this copy of windows on any other computer...why would this happen?

Now my laptop's out of commission! Wjlkgnsfb 22:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft's website says that this can happen if your copy of Windows XP SP2 isn't genuine. If it's Windows 98 or 95, this page says that this error happens if the installation CD is damaged or if you're running anti-virus software. The pages I've linked to have instructions on dealing with this error, although if it was XP, their instructions are more or less "ask the reseller if the copy of Windows is genuine, or just buy a new copy" -- not much help. If it was 98 or 95, though, they've got some more useful instructions. Hope this helps! --Cadaeib (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, that does help! THanks a lot. Wjlkgnsfb 06:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 06:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Many times there are key generators and such on the internet, not that I am recommending this. But you can call Microsoft and explain. They will give you a new key, likely. --Proficient 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You can try obtaining an OEM copy of Windows. They are CDs distributed by computer manufacturers that are intended to reinstall Windows incase anything happens to the original installation. Often times they are not tethered by software keys and encryption. I have one from Dell. --Russoc4 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)