< September 9	Computing desk archive	September 11 >

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	September	October >

September 10

Screen recording

What *free* program can I use to make a video recording of my screen? Preferably one that I can select parts of the screen, and one that outputs standard formats such as mpg, mov, avi, or wmv. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

CamStudio might meet your needs. 1001001 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

try using fraps

ANSWERED -> Making stop-action digital movies

This is related to the previous question...

If I have a series of still digital images, what free (or at least cheap) software can I use to make them into a movie ? These could be computer generated images, stop-action photography, etc. I might eventually like to add an audio track, but that wouldn't be the first step. It would also be nice if there was a way to morph between consecutive images, to add more frames and make a less jumpy movie. It would also be nice if it could accept all images in a directory, in alphabetical order, and make them into a movie, as opposed to me having to individually specify the name and order of each pic (there could be thousands, so this could be very time consuming). StuRat 05:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good rundown of stop-motion animation software here. --Canley 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but can anyone give me a specific recommendation ? Also, that site seems to focus mainly on hardware, while I only need software to combine existing still pics. StuRat 05:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were looking for software to make animated .gifs, unfreez may be of interest to you. If not, I recommend trying to use Virtual Dub or some other video editing program. - Ridge Racer 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those look good ! StuRat 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux

Why has Linux become so successful compared to other Unix OS's? --Russoc4 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the Benevolent Dictator for Life... 1001001 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

when did linux become successful? 12:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the other flavors of Unix, Linux is FAR more prevalent. See Linux adoption for more details. 1001001 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said successful compared to other Unix's, Mr. Noname. Thanks for not answering my question ref desk, assuming you really want me to look for "liunx adoption". Otherwise, I'll assume you meant "Linux adoption" and thank you for the link. ;) --Russoc4 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the obvious main reasons are that Linux is open source, (generally) free, and is frequently updated (especially when you consider all of the different distrobutions as a whole). freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started on Linux

I have an old computer that I've successfully installed Slackware Linux onto. What I've run into now is my biggest question, Now what? I'd like to learn how to use it and such but I've never run anything that was a command line interface and I'm rather lost as to where to start actually learning anything. Any ideas? I have the book that Slackware puts out and I have the horse head book (Linux in a Nutshell) and Learning the bash shell from O'Reilly. I just really kind of need a big arrow that points at a page and says "Start here!" I don't mind being over my head as long as I know where I'm going... ya know? Dismas|^(talk) 09:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could start with a game or two of nethack :) --Robert Merkel 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really weird that you would suggest that since I was just reading that very article while you posted the above comment. I wasn't going through computer related articles intentionally either. I went from kraken > kraken in popular culture > nethack > Klein bottle > then to check my watchlist where I saw you had responded to my question.Dismas|^(talk) 03:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation: start by Googling (for instance, "Linux for beginners" or "Getting started Linux"). A quick 30-second browse showed me a number of articles that should help you get started. And always feel free to post more specific questions here or at one of the countless Linux help forums around the 'net... Good luck, and may the penguin be with you! :) — QuantumEleven 08:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

graphics card sharing system ramm

I have a Nvidia Geforce Go 7300 with 512mb videoram

I want to know if any of this is being shared off the system ram... and if so how much... is thre a way to do this??

many thanks

pulo 10:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure, but I'd be willing to wager that your card will use its videoRAM before using the system mrmory. Usually the issue is with integrated graphics controllers, which ALWAYS use system memory. Wooty 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - unless your video card is in a laptop and specifies that it uses shared memory, it will use its own separate memory (the 512 MB). Once it runs out, it won't use system memory, it simply won't render any more - as far as I know, there is no way for a video card to use system memory once its own memory is full. Hope this helps! — QuantumEleven 08:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

origional poster: sory to confuse you but i used incorect termonaligy in my first post It is in a laptop... Toshiba Satellite p100.. what im asking is.... it says it has 512mb graphics ram... in for example system information:

Name NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300 PNP Device ID PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_01D7&SUBSYS_FF311179&REV_A1\4&31B7BFB9&0&0008 Adapter Type GeForce Go 7300, NVIDIA compatible Adapter Description NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300 Adapter RAM 512.00 MB (536,870,912 bytes) Installed Drivers nv4_disp.dll Driver Version 6.14.10.8320 INF File oem15.inf (nv4 section)

how can i find out if the 512mb spevefied her is shated or videorampulo 10:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...:p Ronaldh 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gen, 28 September 2006 (UTC):

To the best of my understanding this is 128MB of dedicated on card memory and the rest is system memory made available through a process called turbocaching. Turbocaching does not cause an overhead on the processor since the graphics chip does this on its own and when the processor needs extra RAM the RAM used from the system memory is returned to the processor. Read on Nvidia website for more info about "Turbocaching"

A quick look on the nVidia website shows that it does not produce 512MB GeForce Go 7300s...So I guess not. Another way to check is to look at the nVidia drivers and control centre to see if it is using "Turbocache" a nVidia term used to describe when the GPU utilises the system RAM.

shattered screen

stupid question i know buttt....... does anyone know of a link where i can get a realistic picture of a shattered screen that when looked at...it looks like my screen is shattered/broken thanks

Hmmm, didn't have much luck finding any high-quality shots (most of them, of course, are low-res digicam pics). Would you settle for a BSOD? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is that what you mean? [2] is a wallpaper that gives you the effect. ~ct.e 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HalfLife2 not working with bootcamp

Hello!

I have just bought a macmini (1.66 Intel Core Duo, 512 RAM) and i have installed a bootcamped WindowsXP on it.

I've installed a few games in the windows partition which work fine (Halo, EveOnline) but for some reason HalfLife2 deathmatch isn't working.

It starts, plays the valve intro fine and gets to the loading screen. As soon as the actual menu options load however the screen goes black. If i move the mouse to where the menu would be i can still hear the rollover sound effects, and clicking one of these menu options makes the 'option selected' clicking noise, so i assume they are there, i just can't see them.

So does anybody have any idea as to why everything works fine up until the point the menu is loaded?

This sounds like a DirectX problem, try running dxdiag.exe (Start-> Run). In addition, you may want to check to see if your hardware has the correct drivers. This is *not* a problem with bootcamp, as bootcamp is merely an automated Windows installer.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice computer man! Are you going to get Halo 2 when it comes out on Vista? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

If HL2 isn't working on your computer, it's probably not your fault, or your computer's fault. Steam was made with many bugs and glitches, and a study among gamers (Done by G4) once said that Half Life 2 and Steam actually run on less than 70% of computers for no apparent reason. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo with 1GB of RAM (sorry I just had to brag! :p) and I had some problems.. It took a call to valve and after the next patch, everything worked fine. Guess they fixed it --⁪froth^{T C} 22:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel cell batterys

Ive heard rumors about laptops having a fuel cell battery... lasting 23 days before refuling.... is this true or just a rumore???????pulo 11:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something that is false at current. Keep in mind that is over 550 hours of run time. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Depends on how big the fuel cell's fuel supply is. Even assuming the most efficient fuel, pure hydrogen, in the fuel cell, you'd probably need at least 600 grams of it to run a laptop for that long, and a hydrogen tank that holds that much would be too bulky and heavy to be practical.

The only thing that would come close to the kind of performance you're seeking is some kind of nuclear battery, but I wouldn't count on seeing those in a civilian notebook computer any time soon. --Robert Merkel 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UT

Origional poster: if they ever did come out with fule cell batterys how long would they last for? pulo 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously depends on how big the tank is. A chemist could do you a much more precise calculation, but as I understand it the theoretical energy available from the fuel cell reaction is basically the same as if you burned the material (the initial materials and the end product are the same). It's then a question of how much energy is in the specific fuel in question, and how efficiently the fuel cell converts the available energy into electricity. Judging by our fuel cell article, a typical fuel cell might get roughly 50% efficiency. The energy available from hydrogen is listed in heat of combustion. So, from that, you can figure out how much energy you can get out of a quantity of hydrogen - the unit used is joules.

Then, you need to figure out how much energy you need to run a laptop for the desired length of time. A bit of googling turned up these numbers for laptop power usage. Watts, the power consumption figure, is actually joules per second. So, if you play around with the numbers, you can figure out how much hydrogen you need to run a laptop for the specified period of time.

One other point of interest is comparing the energy density of batteries with that of hydrogen fuel. Lithium ion batteries have an energy density (by mass) roughly 200 times less than hydrogen. What keeps batteries in the game is that a fuel cell needs a bulky tank to hold the hydrogen, and the mass of the fuel cell itself.

In terms of practical fuel cell designs for laptops , thus far the mass of equipment needed for the fuel cell and the tank has been so bulky as to be as big as battery that could run a laptop for a very long time. here's an example of what the manufacturers are working on. --Robert Merkel

Optimal Settings for YouTube videos?

What would be the optimal settings for a video being uploaded to YouTube? I recently uploaded a video in H.264 format at 448 x 336 and it looked very nice. To be quite frank though, it looks like (expletive) on YouTube. Can someone give me some recommendations for settings that will maintain a decent picture after being uploaded to YouTube?

Thanks!

Good question, I am going to be uploading videos on YouTube (H.264 or mov), and I want to know how! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Guess: YouTube downsamples your videos before publishing them. Dysprosia 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend uploading the highest quality file possible, since youtube is going to resample and reencode your video into their format. H.264 is a rather lossy format depending on the bitrate. Try outputting the largest, best quality file that fits their limits and using that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have an FAQ somewhere on youtube that recommends specific settings. I've tried their divx recommendation (it recommends a certain resolution) and it came out great. Haven't tried xvid but I bet it's better than divx --⁪froth^{T C} 22:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube recommends: Mpg4 (DIVX) at 320x240, 30FPS with MP3 sound