Computing desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27

Excel problem

I'm trying to do something in Excel, but it's not working. Can someone help. I have a list of items in column A and additional info on those items in columns C, D and E. I want to select one of the items with a pull down menu (preferably on another sheet in the workbook) and automatically have the appropriate information for that row appear in C, D and E. I tried the LOOKUP, MATCH, and INDEX formula's, but none of them worked. The latter looked the most promising, but it failed as soon as I wanted to use a cell reference instead of the A-cell's exact content. What am I doing wrong?

Regards, anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.38 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well part of your problem is that you're trying to get a spreadsheet to do the work of an application, but as a starting point, you'll want to lookup the row containing a specific value. Try here link. i kan reed (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to use VLOOKUP. For example, to find the item in column C corresponding to the matching value in column A you would write =VLOOKUP (value to search for,A:C,3,FALSE), where the 3 means get the value from the third column of the range specified and FALSE means look for an exact match. See e.g. here for more details. Sorry, just noticed that Ikanreed also gave a link to VLOOKUP AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't give a single value to search for, because I don't know in advance what cell A is going to say... and when I use for example A1 as example, I get an error message. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The INDIRECT function may be helpful. To return the value from cell A1, you can use =INDIRECT("A1"). To return the value from column A row R, you can use =INDIRECT("A"&R), where R can be a reference to another cell containg the desired row number. --Bavi H (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to do this is using both data validation (to create the drop-down list) and Vlookup (as pointed to above). In the cell where you want the drop down list Select Data->Validation from the menus (in Excel 97/2000....can't remember where this is in 2003/2007 at the moment). Here you can select the cells containing the info you want in the drop down selector. You may be restricted to data in the current sheet so may have to create linked cells from sheet to sheet. The remaining data is brought across using the vlookup as above. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethernet link aggregation load balancing?

I recently setup up a workstation with two gigabit ethernet connections (I have a very fast RAID that can saturate a 1-GigE link). Both the OS and switch are configured for link aggregation via LACP. When I look at the packet statistics on my switch, I notice the second link has much less activity than the first link. I assumed link aggregation would divide the network load evenly between connections, but it seems the second link is used only as overflow when the first link is saturated. The entry on LACP, Link Aggregation, 802.3ad, and Gigabit Ethernet don't shed any light if this is indeed the normal operating procedure or not. Can anyone with link aggregation experience speak to this? Is there any advantage or disadvantage of this method? --24.249.59.89 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a new computer - advice

OK, I'd like to buy a new computer. I'm sticking my butt out a little bit, as I don't really want to spend money right now, but it has to be done. I'd like some advice on how to find the best bang for my buck.

A few things to note about what I'm looking for:

I do not want the biggest baddest system out there. I discovered 12-13 years ago that buying the most recent computer is a bad deal, and buying the next-most-recent computer is still a bad deal. I want to buy one after that, because prices have come down to the best level. I would like to pay no more than $500-$700 dollars. For a jaw-dropping system, I'll make it $800. I am willing to buy refurbished.
I am pretty rough with my things (I use my computers all the time.), so if it's a laptop, I'd like it to be durable. I am good enough with computers that I can change parts, no problems.
I'd like a workable video card. It doesn't have to allow me to play the newest baddest 3D games; in fact, I'd be OK without being able to play most games. But my last computer's video card was so bad that I couldn't watch Hulu without it revving up my processor (I don't think this is standard...). And I couldn't get even a demo version of Machinarium to function until I went through the Ubuntu 10.10 upgrade (which presumably fixed some video inefficienes).
I'd prefer it to be a laptop, but if a desktop is cheaper, I probably need to just suck it up. Not like I need to drag my computer along with me everywhere anyway.
Windows is not a pre-requisite, but it sure would be nice to have a working version. I will probably run an Ubuntu partition most of the time. I don't know if I can transfer my Vista license from my old laptop's hard-drive (which remains fully unused) to the new computer, but I doubt it. I am certainly willing to buy Windows on my own at a later date.
DVD RW, Bluetooth, and a webcam would be nice.
I don't really need a printer/scanner; that's why they have Kinkos.

I am willing to buy locally or over the internet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My tuppenceworth:

Don't get a laptop unless you need a laptop. You pay (in money, features, and performance) for that portability.
If you're talking about Linux, I'd still recommend a mid-range nVidia card over ATI, and run nVidia's proprietary driver (which Ubuntu will offer to install for you). ATI's driver is reportedly better than it used to be, but then it used to be pretty darn poor.

-- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick thoughts. (1) don't get a laptop unless you need the portability. You get more bang for fewer bucks with a desktop. (2) Dell has some great deals on refurbished units - I got a good one for $259 last year (and free shiping, no tax). (3) I've flip-flopped over getting the latest and greatest. I did that one time and then I had to use it for 6.5 years to justify it (too long!). The absolute latest and greatest is usually more expensive than they are worth, compared to ones a step or two lower. But it is exceedingly difficult to move to a new Windows machine, that you want to delay that for a long time. (4) Intel-based systems just seem to be better and AMD-based ones. (5) an actual video card works better than video on the motherboard. (6) You probably want to max out the memory, or put in at least half the maximum. In my experience, it is cheaper to get the smallest amount of memory possible from the manufacturer and then buy memory from elsewhere - even if you have to take out the original memory. (7) get a large, fast hard drive. Then it is a good idea to buy a second one, and clone the first one to it so you can swap them and get running again if the main one crashes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} or at least rational for the claim "Intel-based systems just seem to be better and AMD-based ones". Perhaps for laptops but no reason for desktops at least at the low to mid low end if power consumption isn't very important to you. If power consumption isn't extremely important, there's no reason a cheaper equally performing AMD system is 'worse' then an Intel one. (If power consumption is important you have to consider the relative price-performance of systems and decide what's best for you.) Also I question the merits of a large fast hard drive. They tend to be quite expensive, often over double the price of a slower hard drive and it's quite unlikely you'll need the speed for a data drive. Makes more sense to get a cheap large drive if you need it and a smaller fast drive, obviously a SSD if you can justify it. Or even just stick with the slower drive. Also with the advent of the Accelerated processing unit, it isn't always true an actual video card is better then on the motherboard. In particular I showed some reviews a month or two ago showing that low end video cards tend to lose or only equal the latest versions of Intel's APU GPUs. (Although if you have any interest in gaming you probably want something closer to the midrange.) This is probably going to get even worse when AMD lauches their mainstream APUs. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it seems to me that Intel systems are better than AMD. My new one is Intel. Before that I had three AMD. Before that I had Intel. The Intels seem to respond better and work better than the AMD systems. I've had differnent HDs, and I think bigger and faster is better. It means that you can use the system for a longer time and won't have to upgrade as soon. I've had vido on motherboard and video cards. My experience is that actual cards are better. (on motherboard video generally shares RAM too.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very good advice and I appreciate it. But still I also would like to know if it would be better to buy refurbished/new, local/online, and what kind of RAM/CPU power I should expect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like a man who likes numbers. 8GB/Plenty enough would be my answer ;-). And I agree with Bubba - buy at least the RAM independently (and probably online). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hathi Trust

I'm very interested in downloading a series of books to help with my articles on Wikipedia from the Hathi Trust, viewable on this page. The website says that only members can download entire books, but I wondered if there was any other way for me to download everything without having to save each individual page. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me on this!-RHM22 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use a free program called Free Download Manager. It's simple to use, and has a batch download option that would be perfect for this. For example, in the 1875 listing, the "Download PDF - this page" link comes back as

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/pdf?id=pst.000068052935;orient=0;size=100;seq=1;attachment=0

And the second page is

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/pdf?id=pst.000068052935;orient=0;size=100;seq=2;attachment=0

All the way up to the last page, 116. (note that you don't need the ";attachment=0" portion of the link, so I discarded it.) In Free Download Manager, you would select Downloads > Create Batch Download. In URL, put

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/pdf?id=pst.000068052935;orient=0;size=100;seq=(*)

And in set of numbers, put 1-116, and hit OK. Presto, it'll download each page for you. :) (I tested these settings myself, worked fine.) I've used this program a lot, most recently to download files from the FBI's reading room. It's a great little program.

On another note, this will download each page as it's own PDF, so you may want to look for a program that can combine PDFs, so you can put all the pages into the book as one PDF file. I hope this helps. ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:21, 24 Iyar 5771 / 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is perfect! I already downloaded a few, and it works great. Thanks again for helping me with this! The Mint reports will be a great help for many Wikipedia articles to come.-RHM22 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could be of assistance. :) ^Avic _ennasis @ 12:04, 25 Iyar 5771 / 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Twitter 'follow' button broken?

I use Twitter via the web most of the time, and logged into my account, on someone else's account that I am not following, clicking the Follow button with a green bordered plus sign on it does not work. It flashes 'following' and goes back to the 'follow' button. I am using Firefox, but the same issue occurred on IE, and Firefox in safe mode. Anyone else having issues? Seems some people may have Tweeted about it. Thanks 66.23.238.101 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bump, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.23.238.101 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works fine for me - perhaps try another browser, like Chrome or Opera? Failing that, you might see if you have any applications that have access to your account as seen here - they might be causing a conflict. ^Avic _ennasis @ 10:59, 24 Iyar 5771 / 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Figured out why, I am following the maximum number of people. Seems when the user has 2000+ followers they can then follow more, till then my ceiling is 2001 it seems. 66.23.238.101 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 66.23.238.101 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Network and sharing centre Windows 7

When I look at my network map on my laptop the line between Gateway and the Internet has a red X denoting that I am not connected, now I am posting this from the said laptop so obviously I am connected also if I hover over the Icon at the bottom right of the screen which shows the signal strength it is full but has a yellow triangle over it and No Internet Access any ideas why this is appearing when I clearly have internet access hence this post. Also if I run the Windows network diagnostics it comes up that nothing is wrong also Mo ainm~Talk 23:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]