Computing desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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.

November 10[edit]

Facebook albums cause WiFi to drop[edit]

Whenever I view a photo album on Facebook (since they did the new thing with all the images on one page, and they appear gradually as you scroll down), my WiFi connection drops for about 2-6 minutes, regular as clockwork. Anybody got any ideas or solutions? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 08:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe it in more detail? Is it on a mobile site, or in the regular site? Which operation system? Have you recently done something new to the computer? General Rommel (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a Windows 7 laptop in my home. It's only happened since they changed the way albums worked (on the regular site) – they used to display about fifteen photos at a time, then you clicked to move onto the next page. But now they're all on one page at once. Also, for about two seconds before the connection drops, the little signal-strength indicator, which normally registers one or two, hits five (full). ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 09:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to upgrade (or even downgrade) the firmware on your router. I used to have a Linksys router that would crap out if I hit any page that had Flash that implemented something it didn't like. Certain sites were guaranteed to crash the router. I found out that the only solution was to downgrade the firmware. Instead, I threw the router away and bought a new one. -- kainaw ™ 17:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're under ahack!! 84.153.247.200 (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindle specs[edit]

Hi, I am considering buying a Kindle, the choice is between the "new" "Kindle 3G+Wifi" and the most recent "Kindle DX". However, I haven't found anywhere information about whether the hardware and software specs except for the screen size (such as processor, RAM, document format support, operating system) is similar for the two models. As the "Kindle 3G+Wifi" was released later I suspect the specs for it is better, which would increase the probablility that I buy that one even though the screen is much smaller. Thanks, Jørgen (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kindle uses a linux based operating system and runs on a 533Mhz ARM processor. According to iFixit, the Kindle 2 had at least 32MB of RAM, so it's likely that the Kindle 3 has more RAM. It looks like the specs of the underlying hardware have remained much the same since the Kindle 1 while the design of that hardware has changed with each revision. From what I can gather, the screen and storage have been the only significant changes in specs since the original Kindle. As far as buying a kindle or eBook reader, Original research suggests having a comfortable size and weight is more important than any hardware or software specs. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is good advice. However, if anyone has a specific comparison between the "normal" Kindle and the Kindle DX currently being sold, preferrably with some online source to back it up, I'd be even happier.. :-) Jørgen (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the Kindle DX has very similar internal hardware as the regular sized Kindle with the exception of a bigger screen. I am unable to find a current Kindle DX teardown but you can find various teardown coverage from the original 2009 release of the Kindle DX. The Kindle's hardware specs are pretty hard to find, and the most information I can get about the internals (with a few quick Google searches) is that the Kindle 3 uses a Freescale processor. Perhaps asking at a forum or site specializing in Kindle hacking would be your best bet in finding the most accurate information about different Kindle revisions. Amazon definitely doesn't publish the full hardware specs for its device though. I did find a chart with a comparison between the current Kindle models though, but it doesn't show full hardware specs like you want. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Just what I was looking for. Jørgen (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Problems[edit]

My computer has been acting funny since last Friday and has been going downhill from there. If I remember correctly, the first thing that happened was that the internet kind of froze up, but the computer didn't. I restarted the computer and the startup process stopped at a black screen with the cursor. I restarted again and it went to the login screen with a popup that said something like: Windows needs to be reactivated in 3 days due to major hardware change. I have not had any hardware changes. So when I logged in I clicked the reactivation bubble and reactivated, but Im still having alot of problems. No reactivation popups have came up since. On Sunday it said the firewall was turned off so I turned it back on. I had never turned it off before.

Here's a list of stuff that is happening....

1.When turning on computer, it often stops at black screen with cursor.

2.Sound won't always work.

3.Sometimes I can't get to my hompeage on the internet. It just says connecting.

4.Popups from various websites now come up.

5.Most internet logins will not remember username/password.

6.Websites freeze up.

7.Tabs usually wont work. It just says connecting.

8.Cities and Topic names on craigslist don't stay highlighted like they used too.

9.Internet will not always close up.

10.A bubble pops up that says Found New Hardware: Infrared.

11.Found new hardware wizard pops up every time I start my computer.

12. A popup that says Generic Host process for Win32 has encountered a problem and needs to clost. We are sorry.

13.The back button on the internet does not always work.

14.When I click a link on google it often takes me to a different website. It is usually some strange search engine or porn.

I ran a virus scan and it says it found malware, so I moved it to the vault, but I still have the problems. I don't know much about computers, but is it possible a virus changed something with the hardware which caused the reactivation thing to come up and now the virus is messing everything else up?

Sorry for the long post, any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware - virus scanners are not the best way to remove malware. Exxolon (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Superantispyware and Spybot search and destroy among others. The free anti-virus Avast! can do a boot-time scan before the malware becomes active. Worth using Ccleaner beforehand too. 92.28.240.244 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the malware affected the software on your computer. When anti-malware software removes malware, it doesn't always repair the affected system software and applications. Items #14 and #4 are probably caused by damage from the malware. The most straightforward advice to give you is that you will be able to fix most or all of these problems by first backing up (probably onto an external USB hard disk) your important documents, e-mail databases, pictures, MP3s, and everything else you want to save; and then erase your hard disk and re-install from scratch your copies of Windows and all your applications, using the guide at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses. Then use a malware scanner again to scan that external hard disk, to make sure one of your documents won't be re-introducing the virus to your newly re-created system. Then finally copy all your documents back to your computer's main hard disk. Skimming your list, it seems to me this might fix everything on your list except for #2, but your problem report is very vague and I don't know what circumstances you're referring to. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the wrong thing to do, its like setting off a nuclear bomb when you have a burglar; and although making of a back up is a good idea, if you do not eliminate the malware then you are quite likely to re-infect your HD from the back-up disk (and if you are going to scan the back-up disk, why not scan the HD first). Use a series of anti-malware scanners as suggested above. If they do not solve the problems, then find one of the several computer forums that deal with using the HijackThis software, and follow their instructions exactly. As I understand it, only if the malware has irrepairably damaged your operating system should you re-instal it - something time-consuming and difficult for the beginner. I await CT's rebuttal. 92.29.125.32 (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The metaphor of a nuclear bomb vs. a burglar is wrong because once a burglar is gone, he's gone. Malware is more like putting together a dinner plate of yours at a dinner buffet, then inviting a stranger to your table, watching him spit and drool upon several places on your plate, and then shooing him away. Do you choose (a) 92's method, which is akin to casting a weary eye over the plate and removing each food item that you notice has spittle upon it; or (b) my method, which is to throw the dinner plate in the garbage, get a new one, and put together a new plate of food from the buffet? The problem is that you don't know what malware you had or what it was capable of doing, and you don't know what damage occurred, or even whether remnants of the malware remain. You're putting 100% trust in the malware scanner's ability to flawlessly, 100% fix the piece of malware that you happened to install, if you follow 92's approach. The safe approach is to nuke everything and start from scratch, which will be inconvenient for a couple of days but in the end you're certain to be safe. Whichever route you choose, be sure to create and use an account without administrator rights, as mentioned in the Viruses page above, which will greatly limit the damage that malware may do to you in the future. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using your metaphor, you are going to pour some of the burglars drool into a back-up disk, and then pour it back into your rebuilt and sterilized home. If you are going to clean the back-up disk, then you may as well clean the HD instead. 92.15.3.20 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. What you miss by simply cleaning the HD is that you still may have damaged applications and system software; and since the original poster probably downloaded and ran an executable, it's possible that any given antimalware software will miss it. The nuke-and-start-from-scratch approach is drastic, yes, but offers a 100% guarantee of fixing both those possible issues. If the user then treats the "poisoned" backup carefully and only moves (scanned/cleaned) documents over and never executables, then that probably keeps his risk pretty low. Lower than simply cleaning the HD. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found various pieces of malware on my computer from time to time, none of them have damaged the operating system. If needed, the OP would be better off doing a repair rather than reinstalling everything. Your treatment is too drastic and should only be used when everything else has failed. Most people have probably not got Windows OS disks anyway, so they cannot reinstall. 92.15.3.20 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd re-read the original poster's post, he wrote that his antivirus software did identify some malware and quarantine it, but he's still having problems. Time to nuke! Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's having problems most likely because not all the malware has been removed. Whenever I've scanned people's computers who are casual about anti-malware, I've always found lots of bad stuff to remove. I just scanned my computer, which I thought was clean, with a different scanner and found two bad things. 92.15.3.20 (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the other responses, I think there is a good chance that something is broken at the hardware level. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your problems could be Browser hijacking - see the external link. In fact 9 out of 14 are browser related - you could try uninstalling your browser, then reinstalling the latest version. 92.15.3.20 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISPs, privacy, tethering[edit]

I tethered my PC to my phone, and checked my IP address. It includes the text "customer{six-digit-number}.kt.cust.t-mobile.co.uk", which kinda concerns the privacy voice in my head. The six digit number (edited out) looks like it could identify myself, and let webmasters know how often I visit their site. (T-mobile is the network.) I know IP addresses are identifiable. That is how record labels snare filesharers on bittorrent; they just keep a list of IP addresses, find out the ISP, who can then tell them who the account holder is. The above info is, however, new. Have I stumbled on anything new, worrying or what not identifiable at all? The difference between this and non-3G connections is that it is my mobile phone in my name, and it might be the same for a long time. Whereas IP addresses change, and where I use a wifi/ethernet connection changes all the time. Cause for concern?--81.98.97.252 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That information is just what the DNS server at your mobile phone company tells other dns servers so they know who they are talking to. For example, my full address for my regular landline ISP is cpe-***-***-***-***.stny.res.rr.com where the *** is my ip address. Also, your IP address will be registered in your name if you have a contract with an ISP regardless of whether that connection is dialup, DSL, mobile, cable, etc. This is so they can keep track of how much data you are using, make sure you aren't doing something that violates your contract (like running a personal website if your contract forbids you from doing so) and to help protect themselves form liability if you do something illegal. However, ISPs do not give this information to anyone unless they are served with a court order or something (I'm pretty sure they are legally bound to keep this info private but I am not sure). In addition, as a rule, ISPs do not assign you a new IP address very often though a few will give you a new one every time you reset your modem. Most of the time, they will randomly assign you an IP address from a pool of addresses and then you will keep that address for like 2-4 years or so. I have no idea if mobile internet providers do the same thing but I assume they probably do. That being said, even with that information it would be extremely difficult for anyone to do anything malevolent with it. So.. to summarize: 1) its normal for that to show up. 2) people won't be able to find out anything other than your IP address and ISP by looking at that information. And 3) they could already find that out anyway if you're going to their site because they have your IP address they can easily find out a fair amount of info about it. For example this info about your IP address is freely available but it would be ~~almost~~impossible to figure out exactly who you are with just that. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]