Computing desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8

Screen capture for Mac OS X

Hi, does anyone know of any good screen capture programs/cards for Mac OS X? Has anyone had any experiences with them? What did you think of it? Do you have any recommendations? Chevymontecarlo. 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Mac user, but how about this? And this page may be helpful. Oda Mari (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. The first link sounds really good. I'll look for reviews. I'm surprised it's free! :) Chevymontecarlo. 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/Applications/Utilities/Grab that comes with OSX works fine for me. --Chan Tai Man 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Local Dropbox?

So, Dropbox is a great tool, and I believe the client at least is open source. What I would like to see is a way to duplicate the functionality while keeping it local, i.e., at the router. On my network I frequently download things on one PC, then will later add it to dropbox so it syncs on the file server of my network, then I move that copy and delete the files from dropbox. This is becoming a problem though, as I have additional bandwidth usage here. Instead of downloading, say, a 100mb file, I download, upload, and download it again, so the cost is 300mb of bandwidth. As I am now hitting my bandwidth cap, I am wondering if there is an equally simple, auto- or semi-automated process to do this same functions? Thanks in advance! 98.236.176.190 (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What operating systems do you have on your server and PC? --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP/Vista on the clients, Windows Server 2003 on the Server. 98.236.176.190 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you could download them to the Server, then use the Offline Files facility in XP to synch them automatically to your clients. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that Dropbox has a LAN sync option that can at least eliminate the last download in your process: Computer A downloads from source, uploads to Dropbox; LAN computers B, C, and D sync from LAN computer A. --Bavi H (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Targus Driver

i have a targus usb pc camera(model: AVC04AP, part:DC-5126, SN:0801000237). i miss placed its driver cd. i have been trying to find the driver on the internet but i couldn't, may be because i know less about how to find stuffs on the internet. i'll be grateful if some body provides me a link from where i could easily download the driver. i am a newbie to this site. --Kelzdorjee (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not easy to find. Go to targus.com, select "United States" and click "support". Then you get here: [1]. Click "Locating drivers and manuals", and you get here: [2]. Click Downloads, and you end up here: [3]. Then they inform you that the downloads page has been moved, and asks you to search for your product name instead. But you get no matches for either "AVC04AP" or "usb pc camera". A general Google search for "targus usb pc camera", AVC04AP, or 0801000237 yields nothing. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful if the page said where the infomation had been moved to. I did a search for "camera" and it yielded many camera bags and just one actual camera on the US site: the AVC0101LA. Looking elsewhere in the world, I found downloads for AVC02EU, AVC03EU and AVC05EU cameras in the UK (selectable from the last list), and support for the AVC0102 camera in Australia (very bottom of the page). If none of these will do, you might find similar downloads for your specific camera by selecting your country and following the support options from there. You could also try contacting the country-specifc support by phone or email to ask if they can send a disk, email you a download link or suggest a compatible driver from the ones they do have available for download. Astronaut (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVC04 is specifically mentioned on this page (the result of a Google search) and a few others related to the same BAP0011 webcam &headset kit. Astronaut (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto reconnect network drive

I have a laptop computer running windows xp, and use windows file sharing over my wifi network. I have several locations mapped as network drives, which makes them show up in My Computer. This allows me to, for example, have my music collection stored on another machine but the iTunes on this machine treats it as local (is there an easier way to do this?). The problem is that when the machine boots up or wakes up from hibernation the network drives show up as Disconnected, probably because the connection to the wifi network happens after startup. The drive will reconnect if I open it in Windows Explorer, but if I open iTunes while it is disconnected then all my music shows little gray !'s by them. Apparently iTunes trying to access the drive does not reconnect it, but opening the folder does.

Is there any way to fix this in Windows? If not could some little script be written that whenever iTunes is opened, drive J:\ should be accessed in such a way that it is reconnected? Thanks for your help. misli h 13:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGA cables, thick or thin

My 10-year old CRT monitor failed recently with crackles of static electricity and eventually disappearing forever with a fading dot - just like a 50's TV! I got myself a replacement LCD monitor with a picture every bit as good as the one on the old CRT. One minor difference I did notice was that the VGA cable on the old monitor is about twice as thick as the cable on the new monitor. The old cable also has two lumps in the cable (like the dark lump in this cable - what are they called?) while the new cable has just one lump. Has cable technology improved in 10 years such that a thick cable and two lumps are no longer required, or does my new monitor simply have an inferior cable? And is the lump better positioned close to the monitor or to my PC's video card. Astronaut (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bumps are called ferrite beads and act as low pass filters to reduce electrical noise. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is manufacturers being cheap. You can also see it in PC cases. Old cases have quite a bit of heft; new ones feels like you can bend it with your bare hands. 121.74.136.10 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of assumed that cost was a big factor in supplying a thinner cable. But, since the newer thinner cable doesn't seem to affect the resulting image, why did the old monitor have such a thick cable? Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we even referring to the same type of cable here? The CRT monitor almost definitely had a cable with a DE-15M plug used for transmitting an Analog RGB video signal. If new cable has DVI-D then it's only for transmitting a digital signal. These are completely different types of signals and comparing them makes little sense. In particular, with a digital signal the cable will (mostly) either work or won't, if it doesn't work, it will have clear problems (e.g. intermittent reception or simply not working at all) rather then simply a reduced quality signal or some signs of interference in the output with an analog signal. BTW if your new LCD monitor isn't using a DVI-D cable, nor a DVI-I, you may want to see if it supports DVI-D and if it does consider using this instead at some stage. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both cables are definitely VGA. The new monitor doesn't support DVI of any form. That doesn't bother me though, none of my PCs have anything other than VGA output anyway. Astronaut (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OCR reading of poor text

If I made a copy of something and then re-copied again and again with 1500 different copying machines, each time from the previous copy, would OCR sofware be able to read this 1500th down line copy?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not well. OCR has enough issues with pristine copies. APL (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would perhaps be easier just to OCR the original? ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hAve seen copies of copies of copies and how each time there is some degradation. I would imagine at the 1500th down-line copy that the text would be very corrupted. So much so, that I would guess the the best of the OCR softwares would not be able to read it. Perhaps at that level even humans would have trouble. Are those a fair statements?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would really depend on the copying machines. I've worked with some that would be illegible by humans within ten generations, let alone 1500. —Korath (Talk) 23:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say for the sake of argument that a random area equivalent to two 0.5mmx0.5mm specks is obscured with every copy. For an A4 paper sheet (~ U.S. letter size) this means that after 1500 copies approximately 1.2% of the page will be obscured by the copying process (1-(1-(2*0.5 mm*0.5 mm)/(210 mm*298 mm))^1500). This compares to an ink coverage of 4-5% for an average page of printed text. OCR would be difficult, at best. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easier just to type it in again if you've got a typist friend. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Korath that it depends on the copy machines, and probably the original text. I have used machines that repeated photocopying of the same page (don't ask why) did not change things significantly after copy #1 (which polarized it but that was all). This was something typed on a typewriter—very simple to begin with. A scan out of a book that has a lot of page "noise" would probably be more troublesome. But on a new machine you could probably do pretty well—I'm not sure copy #1000 would really look that different from copy #10. On older machines, or dirty ones, you'll get worse results. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP Explorer columns

The Windows XP Explorer displays several columns with data in its right pane, e.g. file name, size. What does the column "status" mean? Almost all my files are labeled "online" in this column. Why is this? And what do the letter like A, H and so on in the "attributes" column mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.107.213 (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm remembering this correctly, A=Archive, H=Hidden, R=Read-only and S=System ... they are the attribute flags that Windows' file system supports. Archive is something to do with whether the file is picked up by a backup process (either backing up clears this flag and changing the file sets it to ensure the changed file is backed up next time, or vice versa). Hidden and Read-only are self explanatory. System is like an extra level of hiding a file. See attrib for more detail. No idea what the status column means. Astronaut (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Status' column is useful when working with files available offline, typically a folder shared over your network.[4] It is probably less useful when viewing a local drive.Cander0000 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save every image seen in the browser

Is there any free software that will save every image displayed in my browser, to my hard disk? There are some utilities that will save images from the cache to HD, but only a few of the images seen are in the cache. I'm using WinXP. I think I recall seeing a description of some freeware like this, but do not know what it was. Google search has found nothing. Thanks 92.24.17.70 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a built-in capability in Windows operating systems to capture screen images. Use Alt-PrintScreen to capture the contents of the window that currently has the focus. It will be stored in the clipboard. Then bring up any graphics program (MS Paint will work fine) and use Ctrl-V to paste the clipboard into a new image. You can crop this to save any parts of the image you like. Use Shift-PrintScreen to capture the entire desktop including the current window. Linux has similar functionality, using Alt-PrintScreen for the window with focus, or PrintScreen for the entire desktop. --CaritasUbi (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure thats what the OP meant Caritas. But one thing, every image displayed on your browser will be a hell of a lot, take [5] for example, it won't just be the pictures, it will also be the boxes and the backgrounds and the icons, and that's not even including the ad's most pages have. Are you sure you actually want that?--Jac16888 ^Talk 04:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am acustomed to filtering the results. I do not just want to save a static screen, but what is shown as the screen changes over time. Thanks. 78.146.175.181 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could use web crawler software and filter the result to only save images. To get changes, you might have to re-run the crawler on a regular basis. Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try DownThemAll!; it will save every image on a given page (although not all of them altogether). Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is where the images you want are shown in a scrolling window - I do not think the above suggestions would work for that. (I am not talking about Flash). 84.13.53.169 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]