Computing desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

VM in Win Serv 2008

I've been posting on related subjects a few days back and gaven some misleading information to people who tried to help me. Now I established that my CPUs are firmly E5450 (Intel) and I have four cores in each with virtualization as a parameter in BIOS, plus virtualization for direct I/O. Both are turned ON.

In one of my previous posts I claimed that the CPU was 5400 which is false. I simply misread the BIOS.

Well, the issue here is that despite all this the actual virtualization does not work, or more accurately worked only once and then after I quadrupled the RAM it stopped setting up the VMs. I wonder if anybody will throw me a suggestion as to where I shall go trying to overcome the obstacle? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I just did. I have two more OS's here on this hardware. One of them is Windows 7. I went there, downloaded and set up Oracle Virtual Box and installed Ubuntu VM 32 bit only. It did not allow me to install 64 bit version, and I think I understand why. It seems in this CPU E5450 there are only 38 physical bits and the rest of them 26 or more are added virtually. The question now is why cannot I install Ubuntu in the Virtual Box I set up in Windows Server 2008 on another hard (optical?) disk on this machine? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The VM business works flawlessly on Windows 7 but I have an ignorance problem. The Virtual Box here behaves totally different from what it did on Windows Server 2008. It is just different! In particular it offers me to either USE the Ubuntu or INSTALL it. The Installation option when I tried it gingerly offered me to wipe out my entire disk and install Ubuntu as one sub option (an option after you clicked on Install button). The other sub option is offering me to partition the disk, etc. The option to USE Ubuntu is safer but the "installation" is wiped out next time you reboot.

I hoped to operate it as a virtual machine which is ignorant of the physical reality on my computer but I am not sure it is what's happening.

Has anybody had this experience? I would like to hear from an expert. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks I just made a bona fide installation of Ubuntu in Win 7. Had to go through a tree of choices and am not sure I've made all the right ones but the VM seems to be working. One thing I cannot find. How do I make a link (url) attached to desktop with an icon for easy finding some websites? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla Firefox vs. Internet Explorer

I prefer Mozilla Firefox. It's easier to surf the net with it. Internet Explorer has a lot of problems Microsoft hasn't addressed and if they did, they need to do more. B-Machine (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question for the RD? Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to check out Comparison of web browsers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MFM hard drive transfer rate

I've been trying to find the typical data transfer rate of a 3600 rpm MFM hard drive, circa late 1980s. I haven't been able to find it - does anyone know? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of analysis of Tandy MFM drives here, and some more here. Data transfer rate seems to have been 5 Mbit/sec. --Canley (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One word of caution: the height of one drive is given as "0.75mm" in the second source, so I wouldn't be surprised if the data transfer figures were off as well. 5Mb/s looks about right for the data rate that saturates the bus, not the actual data rate the drives used to deliver.

From a late 1980's desktop I remember data transfer times of about 4 to 5 seconds per megabyte, so that would be about 1.6 to 2Mbps. Just shy of the broadband internet I'm using right now. 217.255.185.158 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From same source: "in a single-platter drive, you'd waste 50%, but in a big 8-platter drive, you only waste 12.5%."

It would be 12.5% in an 8-SURFACE drive, and only 6.25% on an 8-platter drive. So the point they made is valid, but their figures are off again.

Sorry for nitpicking. 217.255.170.25 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to block specific cookies on Safari

I use Safari for Windows as my browser. I'd like to block all cookies from Google, and Google alone.

Is there a way to do this? If not, do other browsers allow you to block cookies from just one site?

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must know their domain. Then you go to Control Panel==>Network and Internet==>Internet Options==>Internet Properties==>Privacy Tab==>Sites Button==>Enter the domain you want to block in the narrow window. I assume you run Windows 7, of course. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I knew there was a way to do it. Of course I use Windows 7. Last time I upgraded I intentionally bought a used computer on Amazon to avoid Windows 8. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what wonders MS has in store for the next upgrade ? No words, just icons for everything ? Or maybe instead of just autocomplete for the word you are typing, it will anticipate what you are writing and finish your sentences for you ? "Bill Gates must have his head rammed so far up his....excellent perception of user needs that he is able to provide the perfect product at an affordable price." :-) StuRat (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

For some reason the above solution is not working. I even restarted the computer and verified the various google-related cookie entities are blocked, but I still have to delete cookies or run into the same problem. The underlying issue is that have two email addresses I use for unrelated purposes.

Google wants me to relate them under its new unified account strategy. So one I log into one, the only way I can log onto the other is either to add them to the same overall GOOGLE ACCOUNT or go and re-empty my cookies. It seems Google has found some way around the Windows 7 privacy settings.

Assuming my concern is understood, is there another way to address it, or another browser that will actually not accept cookies according to the windows setting? μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had you considered using 2 browsers: one for each account?--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any major browser honors the "Internet Options" settings except for Internet Explorer. It's really "Internet Explorer Options". You need to configure Safari to block the cookies through its own UI (I don't know whether it's possible). I'm not sure that blocking all google.com cookies will solve your problem in any case; it will probably just leave you unable to log in to either account at all.

Google does allow you to log into more than one account at the same time; see here. I don't think this merges them in the sense you're worried about (the linked page says "Multiple sign-in does not merge account data, and it does not give one account access to another.").

Windows Safari apparently hasn't had an update since mid-2012, and unless Apple is still releasing security fixes for it, it probably isn't safe to use for general web browsing any more. If you use another browser for most web browsing (which I recommend) and Safari for certain trusted sites, you could also "solve" your problem by logging into one of the accounts in Safari and the other in the other browser. -- BenRG (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the solution through Google which you have suggested is just what I want to avoid--a hierarchical account that unifies my personal email under my name with an account I set up to use facebook, youtube, and disqus, which I don't want attached to my family and business email. Even if I didn't have a problem with that (why the eff do they think I set up two separate accounts?) it is clunky as all get out. This was not a problem until last year. It seems I will have to switch email providers for the "web" account. I hate Yahoo!. Does anyone have any good suggestions for free email providers not affiliated with gmail or yahoo? μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hierarchy or unification or master account. You log into each account with its own credentials, and they are only connected inasmuch as they all show up in the dropdown menu. When you log out that "connection" is gone. The only legitimate concerns I can see here are 1. By logging in to both accounts you're explicitly telling Google that they both belong to you, and they could conceivably use that information someday when they turn evil; 2. You might inadvertently use the wrong account. I'm not sure that using a second provider would necessarily solve either of those problems. -- BenRG (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome, Firefox and some stand alone download managers do follow the proxy settings in most cases by default, although this behavious can be adjusted and you can often set a proxy in the browser itself. I'm not sure they follow much else. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll have to use Phil's suggestion, and move one of the accounts over to IE, although that won't be ideal, since I already use IE solely for youtube (it crashes safari) and have a dummy account there I use solely for logging on to things like my dummy facebook account I use to access webpages that require a sign on through facebook or some such portal. The real problem with two gmail accounts on safari now is not that I don't want google knowing they are both me, but ease of access.

It used to be that if I wasn't signed into gmail, there would be a field for username and password, and if I typed the first initial of the username, autofill would do the rest and the password. So, to check email I clicked the bookmark, typed the first letter, and hit enter--three keystrokes. Then sign out would let me get the other email via the same process with three keystrokes. But NOW, once I sign out of the first account, it doesn't go back to blank username and password fields. It has my last-used username with no way to overtype it, and I have to type the full umpteen-character password to get back in, no autofill.

In order to get in the other account I either have to dump cookies and start over, or go through googles "add a second email to your account" process. This means manually typing in the whole second user name and password, then telling google, no, I don't want to merge the accounts, and having to be prompted every time I sign in whether I want to give google my cell phone, my first born and a pound of flesh, and have to look for the invisible link in offwhite text saying, "I'll hand my kids over later."

That all done, autofill will not work. So I have to sign out from one account, click on the name for the second account, and type in my entire umpteen-letter password. Checking both email accounts has gone from three keystrokes, sign out, and three keystrokes, to 10-12 keystrokes, no, I am not going to give you my cellphone, sign out, another 10-12 keystrokes, no, you can't have half my baby, and off to the pub to calm my nerves.

So, to fix this, instead of using safari for almost everything I do, I will have to switch one of my emails to IE, end up having to browse sites I usually browse in Safari over on IE if they are associated with whichever gmail I move over, deal with the fact that that email will want to associate itself with youtube, which I do not want.... In fact, I think I'm going to end up moving my private/family gmail to Firefox, which will be the only reason I will user that third browser, unless anyone has any other suggestions. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this script that removes google one account safe to install?

This site http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/184950 offers to install a script that gets rid of google one account. Is there any way to know if it's safe to install? Will scanning it with AVG tell me if it's okay before I execute the file? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly know what Google one account means but assuming it is an executable program why don't you try to go to Control Panel==>Program==>Uninstall a program and remove it. Everything should be there. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I installed it after I asked this question. But it led to a repeating loop in Firefox. So I have uninstalled it. It seemed to be straightforward code, and caused no problems besides not actually working. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malware problem? Or?

I have to preface this by saying that I know little about computers save how to turn the damn thing on and off. I seem, however, to have developed a problem; whenever I go to many Web sites (I can't figure out exactly what they have in common; most seem to include a lot of advertisements and graphics—newspaper sites and MSN Games and the like—but not all of them), my browser doesn't crash, but my Internet connection disconnects. All the lights on my cable modem (except the "on" light) go off, and it takes a minute or two for the connection to be reestablished. So far, I'm OK with Wikipedia and most other sites without ads. I've run my antivirus software to no effect, and I'm unsure what else to do. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

If it matters, I'm running Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 7 (and a response other than "Use some browser other than IE" would be appreciated). Deor (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the cable modem is crashing and restarting, and I think it's most likely a problem with the modem itself. It could be overheating, for example, or the power supply could be failing to supply enough current or voltage to support a high load (lots of simultaneous connections to different hosts, as you'd normally find on a "busy" web page). If it was provided by your ISP, call them and see if they'll replace it.

I suppose it could be malware, such as a malicious ad trying to hack the router and crashing it instead, but I doubt it. You could try viewing the problem sites in a different browser to see if the same thing happens. -- BenRG (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm not the only one to have this problem -- when I updated IE from IE9 to IE11, my modem crashed and wouldn't reset every time I tried to run it, but after I rolled it back to IE9 (and reset my modem, and called my ISP), the problem went away! So it DOES look to me like a problem with the software itself. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I installed Firefox as a test, and the problem is still present when I use it rather than IE. I can't figure it out at all; sometimes I can view a page without the disconnect occurring, but at other times I'm disconnected by viewing the same page. Pages with streaming video ads or automatically changing ads seem to be the worst, though I seem to be able to view YouTube videos, for example, with no trouble. Deor (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with BenRG on this one. It seems more likely the problem is with your cable modem or somewhere along the cable connection itself. You should contact your cable provider about this issue. Good luck! -Amordea (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]