Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 January 17

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.

January 17

Add date to toolbar

How do I add a date to the xp toolbar bottom right? I cannot get the upright line to hover over the top edge of the bar; it remains an arrow. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Right-click on the taskbar, and uncheck "Lock taskbar" (or whatever it is called in the English version of XP). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's "Lock the Taskbar". Pretty close though, Andreas. Thanks, gENIUS101 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hidden folder search

I have some hidden folders in a file on my computer. I always accessed them by searching by enabling the hidden folder option. Now whenever I click the search button on the toolbar, nothing happens. The search options do not appear on the side of the screen as they normally do. What is the problem? I use windows xp. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.54.159 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your search options aren't appearing, but you can also access hidden folders by going to the control panel, to "folder options" (in classic view) and picking "show hidden files and folders" in the advanced section of the "view" tab. Rckrone (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

.flv split

I'm trying to find a program that splits (and maybe joins) .flv files without encoding the entire thing (is this possible) - so far the options I've found require me to re-encode the entire stream - when I think it only needs to tidy the ends (create new key frames at the beginning?) and update meta-data? Will pay, (not house prices though), at a pinch can use the command line - but would need someway of finding the frame or time to sub-second accuracy.

When I say flv I almost certainly mean H264/AAC encoded files. Just to clarify I'm looking for something that can split flv without the image degradation associated with de-encoding/encoding. Shortfatlad (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

avidemux --kv7sW9bIr8 (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that before - but kept getting the message - "H264 detected.. if the file uses B frames... use a different method y/n" then beyond that got errors if I selected the optional method or not - either failure to insert a key frame at the beginning (giving 'LSD' type effects), or timing messed up/no sound.

it does very nearly work though...

(The generic software "ultra video splitter"/"allok video splitter" does work, but the seek method is so simplistic that it makes editing near impossible.)

Shortfatlad (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other options?Shortfatlad (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

AVS Video Remaker, however the free version limits the video time to 5 mins --kv7sW9bIr8 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that before, but I tried again just in case - 50% of the time it works, but the other 50% of the time produces totally garbled output (+other problems). Front end is quite nice though.Shortfatlad (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people want to chop .flv files - the first person to make available something - hopefully freeware - will have a huge demand. The format conversion programmes I've tried are very poor. Since several video players can play flv files, I'm wondering what is so difficult about editing them. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would guess (from some failed edits I've seen) that one problem is reconstructing the frames at the 'cut ends' amongst other things - though I'm don't know enough to know why this is problematic for flv when windows movie maker has done it for wmv for many years..Shortfatlad (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Every modern video editing program can do flv. If it's fucking up you've obviously got some weird ass flv file encoded in a shitty way or perhaps not even a normal flv just using flv as a container

DIY screensaver or moving wallpaper?

Is there any easy way to make my own screensavers? And would it be possible to have moving 'wallpaper'? I use Windows XP; but soon I am also going to be using Ubuntu. Thanks. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can make screensavers in any programming language with a decent compilator for the Windows platform, because a *.scr file is actually a *.exe file with an odd extension. When the application starts, you simply have to check the command-line flags to determine wheather to start the screensaver, open the settings dialog box, or create a preview of the screensaver. I have made several screensavers in Delphi, for example. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a screensaver in Visual Basic: [1]. I think VB apps will run in Ubuntu since it includes Mono. As for a moving wall paper, just use an animated GIF. You could also use Active Desktop, which is essentially a web page on your desktop. You could embed a flash movie into that.--Drknkn (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although as I am only familar with GWBasic that looks too difficult for me. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could try Screensaver Factory. There are a bunch of other applications out there for making screen savers, although the screen saver probably wouldn't work in Ubuntu. Yes, VB is very different from GWBasic, so I don't blame you.--Drknkn (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, although I was hoping to do some kinetic art like a cellular automata, not really a slide-show. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

media player

I was typing when a window opened up to aks me if i wanted to play a cd in media player or itunes or whatever, but my typing somehow inadvertantly selected media player. Now every music cd opens in media player.

Since, as we all know, windows media player is an annoying pile of toss, how do i change the settings so it just asks me what programme to use like it used to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.49 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

More than one way - select a file of the type you used using right click - then select "open with" - then pick your program from the list - AND - check the box that says - "always use the selected program to open this type of file". Done.

Or. Open your preferred media player and open the options or preferences box - you need to find the bit which says "file associations" or similar. Then check the boxes you want.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Very similar for dvd/cd drives - again more than one way - see [2] seems to cover most methods.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On Windows XP right click your cd drive and select properties, then go to the autoplay tab and change the settings. On Vista or Win 7 go to the control panel, then click hardware and sound, then autoplay and change the settings --kv7sW9bIr8 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.49 (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

LHC Computing Grid

Would it be correct in calling the LHC Computing Grid as a supercomputer?--Seraphiel (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any help, anyone?--Seraphiel (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on.. I think it's a borderline case - from what I read the system is primarily used for storing massive amounts of data, but not so much performing calculations (though their still is a lot of that), which is what most people think of when we say "supercomputer" - it probably could be reconfigured into a respectable cluster - see [3] (first 2 para) also news news - this makes me think of describing it as a "cloud supercomputer".. no idea if I just coined a new term.

The other article is Grid computing which explains the hair-splitting differences. I don't think their would be any real issue with calling it a supercomputer

...CERN (said sic) that its Tier-0 computing center runs on about 30,000 CPUs and houses about 5 PB (5 million GB) of disk storage and 16 PB of tape storage. [4]

, it's just not a conventional one like a cray.Shortfatlad (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting..Maybe I'm safer not to call it one then, since it is a borderline case.--Seraphiel (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Processor speeds and graphics hardware

Hello all. I have a Dell Latitude D630 with Intel Core 2 Duo T7500, which has a speed of ~2.20Ghz. My laptop's graphics card is a "Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset Family"; device ID 2A02 and 2A03. I am looking to possibly purchase this program. I need some help figuring out if my computer could run the program. The website recommends the following system requirements (which I have partially checked):

• Pentium4 2.26GHz or higher (see question below)
• 512MB of system memory ( Yes)
• At least 128MB of dedicated video memory ( Not sure...Where do I find if I have this?)
• 256-bit video memory bus -or- a high speed 128-bit video memory bus ( Not sure...Where do I find if I have this?)
• 8 or more pixel shader units ( Not sure...Where do I find if I have this?)

With the processor, would my 2.20Ghz processor be able to run the program, given the recommended requirement is a 2.26Ghz? I don't really know how much of a difference 0.06Ghz makes.

Thanks in advance for any help you provide. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you will. (If you have Windows XP or later.) The CPU frequency is only mentioned at the recommended requirements list. In addition, Pentium 4 is old. Your Core 2 Duo is faster. But if this indeed is a GPU and CPU intensive application, it will probably run more smoothly on a (powerful) stationary computer. But it will probably run quite well on your laptop too. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that this will not work. Your CPU speed may be enough, but the Intel 965 Express is about the lowest end video chip you can get. It lacks the pixel shaders necessary to do what you need, and probably the ram.

But don't take my word for it. Download this program to scan video card's capabilities. Make a note of the physical memory, and the shader processors. (You need either more than 8 "unified" or more than 8 "PP"), and finally make a note of the Direct X version. That software needs a video chip that is comparable with 9.0c. APL (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree. I focused only on the CPU (due to the headline). In general, mobile GPUs are not good, and this is probably more low-end than most GPUs. I would not dare to say that the app will not work, but if it does start, animation and rendering may be very slow. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I downloaded the program, and it came out with 384MB graphics memory and Direct X 9.0c, but a grand total of 0 VP and 0 PP. And therefore, a new question: What would I have to do to upgrade my computer to be able to handle the program, and what is a rough estimate of what it might cost? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have a good answer here. If it were a desktop PC we could easily tell you about upgrades, but notebook computers are much more model-specific. Unless someone here has experience with your particular notebook your best next step would be to contact Dell and ask them what options are available for your particular machine, if there are any. APL (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Intel graphics chips (I should put the word "graphics" in quotes I think) are horrible. Complete crap. They are exceedingly slow and lacking in features compared to ATI and nVidia chips. If the program you want to buy runs at all, it would be very slow. That said (with one major caveat which I'll come to later):

• At least 128MB of dedicated video memory - You can probably configure the BIOS to allow the Intel chip to use 128MB of memory (that may be the default) - but Intel chips don't use "dedicated" memory - they share it with the CPU. That shouldn't affect whether this program runs - the only difference between shared memory and dedicated memory is speed. If course if you give the graphics chip 128MB - then that's 128MB that your CPU can't use - so be sure that you have at least 512+128 = 640MB or total memory in your laptop in order to meet both this AND the other main memory requirement.
• 256-bit video memory bus -or- a high speed 128-bit video memory bus - Again, no. The Intel chip can only access main memory which is likely to be 32 bits wide if you have a 32 bit laptop or at most 64 bits wide on a 64 bit laptop. But here too - this shouldn't determine whether the program runs or not - it can't tell how wide the bus is. However, without enough video memory speed, it might be horrifyingly slow.
• 8 or more pixel shader units - Yet again, the Intel ship doesn't have this either - but again, the application program should work no matter how many of these there are because the driver software arranges to share the work between however many are available. So this too shouldn't stop the program from running - but would certainly make it run slowly.

So if these are truly the only requirements, then I'd expect this program to run on your machine - but excruciatingly slowly. However, since they go to the trouble to make this list of features into requirements, then if you can't meet them then you have no grounds for complaint if for some other reason it doesn't run...and the odds are high that it won't because it probably needs some feature that the Intel chip can't implement.

Another possibility is that this program uses an nVidia library called "CUDA" - which uses the graphics chip for doing parallel processing tasks that are unrelated to displaying graphics. CUDA programs might truly require some of these things in order to run on the graphics chip at all. However, CUDA has a software-only fallback mode in the event that it doesn't find an adequate graphics chip...so it should STILL be true that the program would run - but yet more slowly.

As you can probably tell - each of these little issues all result in the thing being slower - and when you multiply all of those factors together, you may end up with a program that is essentially unusable even if it does run.

Given this is evidently a piece of specialised professional software, you ought to be able to call or email the support people at the company that makes it and ask them directly whether it will run on your laptop. However, past experience with Intel "graphics" chips bodes ill. They really are horrible devices. Next time you buy a laptop - make sure you get one with either an ATI or nVidia graphics chip - and, personally ("trust me I'm a computer game graphics programmer") I'd buy nVidia because ATI's drivers are so frequently flakey.

Upgrading the graphics on a laptop is usually impossible. On a deskside computer, you could have fixed this by tossing a $100 graphics card in there - which is why I try to avoid laptops if at all possible. SteveBaker (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows 7 wake up alarm

I lost my mobile phone over the weekend and now find that I've no alarm to get me up for work tomorrow morning. Is there a way I can set my PC to wake me in the morning. I'm using windows 7 but can find any alarm clock app. Thanks. Stanstaple (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any respectable music player - for example, Winamp - should have an alarm clock function built-in or available as a plugin. Obviously you would need to leave your lappy on for it to work. If you have an iPod, it might also have a built-in alarm clock, depending on how new it is (my 5G nano does). As a last resort, you can try searching websites such as download.com. Xenon54 / talk / 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of desktop gadgets that you can use. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I can't seem to find one I like. Stanstaple (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Citrus alarm clock works well. It's a thirty-day trial, but after the thirty days it doesn't stop working, it just starts nagging you. 202.10.91.153 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows Product Key Update Tool

Not the same as activating a new product. What does the user get out of using this? Apparantly it replaces your old Windows product key with a new one. http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/selfhelp/XPPkuinst.aspx?displaylang=en&sGuid=7b567a9d-8e31-4c2c-b039-6ea2cf0c9cf4 Wouldnt the old product key be just as good? I can see that Microsoft gets to check if you have authentic software, but what is the advantage to the user if the old product key was OK and legitimate? 92.29.80.215 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You only need to use the tool if you have reason to do so (i.e. a wrong/non genuine key was input and you now need to enter a new one). If your product key is working fine then there's no reason to use it. ZX81 ^talk 04:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)