Computing desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

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.

July 21[edit]

auto scanner[edit]

I seek a device where I can put in a stack of papers and it will go through each paper in the stack and scan both sides —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.40.7 (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look for a scanner with ADF. Duplex scanning is gonna cost you though. Keep in mind any copier worth its salt made in the last 5 years should have this ability. It doesn't cost any money to do so use one at work or have a friend do it for you if you're on the cheap. If you want to buy one see here [1]. Also, see how to do it oh-so-easy with Microsoft Office. [2] --mboverload @ 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up a few times in the last week or so. Your best bet is probably to go down to your local Kinkos and see if they can do it for you. It's a lot quicker and easier than buying your own. Duplexers also have a nasty tendency to break down, in my experience. Something about the amount of moving the paper required to duplex drastically increases the likelihood of paper jams and things just breaking on the inside. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think mboverload is referring to Automatic Document Feeder, as opposed to any of the other dozens of meanings of "ADF."89.240.185.90 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XKCD on an iPhone or iPod Touch[edit]

Since XKCD uses an alt tag on the comic image for part of the humor, it seems that iPhone and iPod Touch users may miss out. Is there a way to see those alt tags on those devices when you don't have a mouse to hover over the image? Dismas|^(talk) 10:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of web browsers let you right click on an image and get "image properties" or something similar. I'm not sure if that's possible on an iPhone, though.

One possible, but awkward, solution is to check the xkcd forums. Typically comics are reposted there with their alt-text. APL (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or does the iPhone let you view the page source and scroll through to find the appropriate tags? jeffjon (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information - XKCD actually (correctly) uses the "title" attribute on the image tag for the extra bit of humor, they also provide an alt attribute, but a proper browser shouldn't be showing that unless it's not showing images. --LarryMac | Talk 14:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast Voip ?[edit]

I currently use a conventional phone service, and for long-distance, I use a prepaid card (I call a toll-free # and place the call through the prepaid service). I am considering a Comcast VOIP service that does not include long distance (you can call long distance, but it costs more). Do you think I can still use my prepaid long distance card with the comcast VOIP? (BTW, I asked Comcast this question and the person I talked to didn't know). ike9898 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah oh. I don't know how I can even recommend you to go ahead with Comcast if their people don't have answers to your questions. Although I must note that it is better than giving you convulated answers that meant nothing. AFAIK, if your prepaid long distance card has a local number to call or has a toll-free number, Comcast Digital Voice should work with it. Have you considered other options such as Skype if you just plan on calling North America or Western Europe? I assume you have access to high speed Internet. Kushal (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard drive enclosure[edit]

Why do some hard drive enclosures advertise a maximum size of hard drive? How does it have any effect on the size of drive?78.151.50.55 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some external enclosures do not directly connect the drive to the computer. The drive is connected to internal hardware and the internal hardware is connected to the computer. If the internal hardware is not capable of handling, say, more than 300G, then the enclosure cannot handle more than 300G. -- kainaw ™ 17:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So these limits do actually mean something, you need to match the HD size to the right enclosure. Question answered.89.240.185.90 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this only applies to budget enclosures. I've never seen limitations on name-brand enclosures. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The enclosure I've just bought wasn't a cheap one, it has consistently high reviews peppered all over the internet.78.148.115.223 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is SMS texting so fast?[edit]

I'm always surprised just how little time it takes for a recipient to receive text messages. It seems far faster than the time it takes to connect a voice call. Just wondering how/why it's so speedy? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found it any faster than phoning. Why, what country are you in, and what network are you on?89.240.185.90 (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me (on U.S. Verizon), the time it takes to send a text message is slower than the time to place a call. It normally takes a matter of seconds for the called phone to ring, but can take up to 5 minutes for a text message to go through. -- kainaw ™ 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is less data sent in a text message, measured in number of bytes, than a voice message. So, in theory it should be faster. However, the phone company may decide to put a lower priority on delivering text messages, which can make them slower. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when I send a plaintext SMS, it arrives to its recipient in a couple of seconds -- at times almost immediately. If I'm in the same room with the recipient, which isn't that uncommon, this can be easily observed. As StuRat says, it's a pretty tiny chunk of data, and it's travelling essentially at the speed of light -- minus processing speed, of course. If you're in the same cell with the recipient -- covered by the same base station -- that's pretty simple stuff. If the signal needs to be bounced off several satellites or something, then the delay is going to be a little greater simply because the transfer delays add up, but even then we're usually talking about seconds, unless the recipient's phone is out of range or one of the service providers involved sits on the message before passing it on for some reason, such as network congestion or limited processing power or whatever. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small data packets make sense. I use AT&T, US and it takes 2-3 seconds for someone to get my text. Or when my bank texts me a passcode. It takes 2 seconds from when I hit send on my web browse for my phone to receive a text. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]