Computing desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

December 11

Sansa C140 MP3 player Frozen

My sansa c140 was doing just fine yesterday. Today I loaded it up to my PC to upload more music. When I opened Drive E all the music was gone but I was able to upload a few new mp3. After I disconnceted it from my computer it would not go past the Sansa opening screen. Now the only way to shut it off is by disconnecting the battery. And even when I connect it to the computer the screen likes up but the PC doesn't recongize that any device is even connected. Please help!

Ok so I've left my mp3 player connected to the USB whenever I use my computer and suddenly my computer recongized it. I tried to take advantage of it by using the downloadable fixers but it didn't work. Now my computer wont recongize it any more.

I was thinking about formatting it..but that erases EVERYTHING. If its ok to do that let me know and I'll try it if it ever pops up again.--Gosplan (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Function Key not Working after Hibernation

I'm running XP on a Vaio Laptop. Most of the time when I suspend or hibernate my computer, the function key, and the controls that go along with it (including the secondary volume keys) do not work...what would be the reason for this? A glitch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.2.110 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My computer suffers the same way. I have to push the functionn lock on the keyboard after wakeup. From the lights on the keyboard I can see it goes wrong when the computer restarts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ram software

is there a software to check if ur ram is faulty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.77.226 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try MemTest86+ -SandyJax (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that doesn't work; I'm probably doing it wrong. Search for MemTest86+. -SandyJax (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memtest86+. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.ogg

Anyone know how to run a file like this? it might be a type of sound file, if that helps.the juggreserection (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's audio then it'll be in Vorbis, so see Vorbis#Software for a list of players and plugins that will handle it. Try VLC media player. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image watermarks

How difficult would it be to remove the watermark in Image:KenwoodFrontDoor.jpg to obtain this? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it would be labourious. Either you'd have to find exactly the right font and locate and size and rotate it perfectly to the same position, and then apply exactly the inverse of same filter (looks light lighten) - get it even a pixel out and you'll have to clear stuff up by hand. Or you could just clear the whole thing away by hand. So not difficult, per se (you don't need great skill or knowledge) but lots of work. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's pretty much what I expected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird - the image-fixer-upper fairy seems to have just uploaded a fixed version! (Clone paint RULEZ!) SteveBaker (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source software - source code only

Hi there, I have came across several instances where I have wanted to download free software from the net but not found anywhere I can actually download the software itself from, only finding the 'source code', for example I tried to download the LAME MP3 codec tonight only to be told by their website: "LAME is only distribued in source code form. For binaries and GUI based programs which can use LAME (or include fully licensed versions of LAME), check the LAME related links. All software from the LAME project can be found in the project's file area."

This isn't very helpful and I would imagine it would put a lot of people off downloading their software. I like to think I know a fair bit about PCs but I wouldn't know what to do with the source code. Does it have to be executed at a command line or something or is is there some kind of software that I have to use to compile it? GaryReggae (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to compile it with a compiler. But if you are not paranoid, there are other versions online. The problem with LAME is that although LAME was invented separately, MP3 technology is patented. This means it does not matter if you invented it separately from the original inventor, you cannot distribute your invention. I am not a lawyer but I know it is not a good idea to host the executable binary software unless I know what I am getting into. --Kushal^t 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for many small development teams is that they just don't have the resources to build for every platform on the planet. Remember - they aren't getting paid for it - and much of the time they write the software for their own use and simply decide to 'put it out there' and let anyone who can take benefit from it to do so. There is no guarantee of some kind of service for everyone who might need it. You rashly assume that the original author actually cares about how many people download it! For example, my own PLIB software is only distributed as source code because it's just too much hassle to make windows versions and MacOS versions and versions for half a dozen different Linux systems. Furthermore, I don't own a Windows machine or a Mac - so I really can't build those versions easily. If you want it, you can have it - but I'm not going to build it for you. In the Linux world, this is actually a pretty acceptable approach because:

Most people get most software via a Linux Distributor (like RedHat or SuSE or whatever) - and those companies like to build from source code anyway.
Since everyone in the Linux world has all the tools they need to build from source code, it's rarely any harder to install from source than it is from a binary.

  tar xzvf somepackage.tgz
  cd somepackage
  ./configure ; make install

...and you're done. Sadly, under Windows, it's a lot more hassle...and if the package is set up for MSVC, it may be expensive!

SteveBaker (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical file search utility for Linux

Hi. I've been trying to find a graphical (GTK etc.) file search utility for Linux, but it seems surprisingly difficult. I found gnome-find, but it was removed by a dist-upgrade some time ago. I recall there was one that could take advantage of locate and its database, but I can't remember what it was called. Any ideas? Thanks in advance. ›mysid (☎∆) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try tracker, beagle, strigi or Google Desktop. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! :-) ›mysid (☎∆) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CPU Question from a newb

I was just wondering if somebody could give me a basic quick comparison of the differences in Celeron vs P4 and P4 vs Dual core? Or even pentium vs AMD? How much difference does ____(whatever this element/aspect of a CPU) make? Ultimately I imagine the speed is what matters, but I've seen different speeds attacked to each of these titles. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing different CPUs is tricky, and depends on the specific CPUs and what you're doing with them. As a general rule:

At a given clock speed, a Celeron is slower than a Pentium 4. The difference depends greatly on the exact model of Celeron and P4.
At a given clock speed, an AMD Athlon/Athlon XP is faster than a Pentium 4. You can get a rough idea of how much faster by comparing AMD's "performance rating" number to the Pentium's clock speed.
For most purposes, a dual-core CPU is no faster than a single-core CPU of the same design and clock speed.
At a given clock speed, an Intel Core 2 Duo is about as fast as an AMD dual-core CPU.

In general, the most important number for comparing CPU speeds is one that never shows up in advertising: the number of instructions per second the CPU is capable of executing. --Carnildo (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]