Computing desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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.

October 18

Introducing new digits (in Vista)

For a while, I have been wanting to convert my computer’s clock’s digits from Arabic numerals to Roman numerals. Windows Vista does not seem to support Roman numerals, so I am hoping to find a way to introduce them as a new option to my computer. Is there some way I can change my numerals to Roman ones? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search for download clock roman numerals reported more than 300,000 results.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t help me since it’s very broad. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you want 9:04 AM to show up as IX:IV AM? Or what? Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (though I prefer 24-hour clocks). --66.190.69.246 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll be able to change the current clock, since Roman numerals have more digits than Arabic numerals. However, writing such a program would be relatively simple. It would just need to read the current time, convert it to Roman Numerals, display it, wait a second, and repeat. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.1, Defender, and Avast

Last night I upgraded from Windows 8 to 8.1. I had been using the paid versions of Avast and Malware Bytes. The upgrade removed Avast and replaced it with Windows Defender.

Is Defender good at real-time protection?
Do Defender and Malware Bytes work OK together? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find anything regarding Defender's real-time protection in Windows 8 (let alone 8.1) but the general consensus seems to be that even though Defender is a lot better in Windows 8 than previous OSes, it would still be a better idea to get a different free AV if you're going to go the free route. I've always used AVG and had good experience with Adaware, too. Also for your second point, it's usually good to not run more than one anti-malware program at once, unless one is optimized for Spyware, one for Worms etc. Before Windows 8, Defender was only good at nabbing Spyware. However it's an all-around one in 8; so don't run it with anything else. If I were you I'd stick with Malwarebytes and if you don't want to pay anymore for your AV, then check out AVG or Adaware. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 19:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've used the paid version of Avast for a couple of years, but now that it is gone, I think it was causing problems. A reboot used to take 10 minutes - now it takes 4. Batch files are significantly faster (several times faster). I develop programs, and every time I would run one with Avast, it would wait 5-10 seconds before it started running - now they start when they should. I used to use the paid version of AVG, but I started having some problem with it (I don't remember what now) and I switched to Avast. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. In the AV world, less is more (in most cases.) I remember your reboot issue, actually; and I'm glad it's gotten better. :) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mobile for dialup vs. data plans

Hello, suppose if I connect the phone to the computer as a modem (Windows sees a 33600 bps modem), am I then charged like it's voice? Do I get it right that to use a mobile data plan the phone must specifically support USB or WiFi "tethering"? Asmrulz (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dial-up uses audio signals to transmit data, but I wonder how you are even connecting your phone to the computer such that it recognizes it as dial-up. I didn't know that was even possible. Mingmingla (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on the technology being used by the phone and the cellular operator. In the mists of time (about 2002-3?) I remember using a mobile 'phone's GPRS capability to browse the web on my laptop, and this appeared to be a dial up connection. I would guess the OP is seeing the same - the bit rate is about right.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my case these are an old Samsung X300, via an IrDA (infrared) dongle on the PC and a Sony-Ericsson k300i using an USB cradle. Windows saw both as modems sitting on some virtual COM port and you could set up a dial up connection in the Control panel. I guess many newer phones can be used in the same way via Bluetooth but I haven't tried yet. What I'm curious about is whether the phone must export "The Internet" (rather than simply it's modem capabilities) in order to use a cheap data plan :) Asmrulz (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused about some critical concepts. Having a modem does not mean you are connected to the internet; using a modem to send modulated signals does not connect you to the internet. To use dial-up service, you must dial to a server - specifically, an internet service provider that hosts service over a dial-up telephone link.

When I first saw "33600 bps" I immediately assumed you were talking about IrDA - (few other protocols have defaulted to 33.6 kbps in the last few decades!). That is technology that can establish a link from one device to another, over line-of-sight. Device A, your personal computer, can link to Device B, the infrared-capable mobile phone. Most phones use this for a sort of quick and easy file transfer, of the sort used to synchronize calendars and contact-lists. I am not aware of any mobile telephones who use the IrDA link to bridge networks or provide application-layer proxy service to the internet (relaying data through the telephone, accessed via the mobile data service, and not making any voice calls). In principle, that technology is implementable; but it is an open question whether your device software and hardware can be modified to do so. Based on your line of reasoning, it is fair to assume that you have neither the software and hardware tools, nor the requisite skill-set, to implement these types of difficult software and firmware changes.

Another approach would be to use an acoustic coupler to the personal computer, and then use an ordinary telephone call to establish a link with a dial-up service provider (to whom you must subscribe!). Even historically, acoustic coupling devices were almost never used, because they were horribly unreliable and suffered serious performance limitations. Now that plain old telephone service has been totally replaced by newer technologies, this approach will barely work at all. Your ordinary mobile telephone heavily compresses voice audio - achieving bit-rates as low as a few dozen or few hundred bits per second - by digitally filtering the voice audio in a way that most humans can't hear - but is incredibly dissimilar to the original waveform. (For example, GSM voice telephone calls use one of several algorithms, mostly based on linear predictive coding, and may vary adaptively during the voice call; other network technologies like CDMA use similar filtering). If you were to try to send arbitrary digital data, modulated as audio, over a voice link on a mobile telephone, you would find the bit error rate incredibly high; equivalently, you would see the channel bandwidth as a tiny trickle of just a few valid bits per second. (In fact, if your signal has non-voice-like statistics, you might find your data is 100% deleted by a squelcher algorithm). This unfortunate effect is inevitable when you try to send any type of signal across a channel for which you do not understand the noise model; specifically, you are trying to approach a complicated, heavily-filtered, packet-switched digital network as if it is a straight analog audio channel - in the hopes of using analog technology from many decades ago. With a significant amount of effort, this will work, but it will not even perform as well as analog telephone networks from several decades ago.

My suggestion, if you enjoy programming assembly language and studying digital communications, is to study up and hone your skills in these areas; focus on the mathematics of signal processing; and apply your hobby-efforts to program communications protocols on much simpler networks for a start. You could, for example, build an acoustic modem to send data between two Raspberry Pi or programmable iPod devices. Once you've mastered the theory and practice of basic digital signalling, you will be much better equipped to tackle the engineering practicalities of a more complicated channel. Nimur (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It must be my "Inglis" or something, but I'm not confused! I have a phone that can act as a WiFi hotspot. When I do that, I kind of know that the traffic goes over mobile broadband and the provider's data plan is in effect (though I heard that mobile network operators discourage doing this and insist that you order the most comprehensive data plan if you intend to use the phone as a broadband modem for a computer or tablet. I don't know how they enforce this, though) The question simply was, if I instead dial-up from an older phone (assuming the speed doesn't matter), does the mobile operator still honor my data plan or do they charge as if that was dial-up or voice - precisely because it is base band. Still, I appreciate your taking time to answer, a lot, thank you! Asmrulz (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it's presenting itself as a "dial up modem", the phone is offering up its GPRS data connection; it's not offering to do an analog modulation like V22 or V34. Digital modems (like ISDN modems) still call themselves modems and usually provide AT commands for dialling and configuration, where "dial" means "make a connection", not "emit DTMF". The phone's GSM/GPRS modem chip doesn't have support for analog protocols like V22 and for the analog dialling and negotiation sequence, because it will never be connected to an analog phone line. It's for this reason that digital phones can't send and receive faxes, as the fax protocol is stuck with dependence on these ancient analog signalling systems (you'll see services which offer faxes to/from mobiles - these use a real analog modem in some building somewhere acting as a proxy, and talk to the app on the phone over the internet). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's me again. I did an experiment - I set everything up and after downloading some 3MB of data over dial-up, my balance was the same, from which I conclude that the data plan was in effect. Thank you everyone for your answers! Asmrulz (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]