Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 August 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.

August 28

Windows XP style file search

It was very convenient to search file using *.avi or t*.bmp etc. You also could narrow search by telling which directory or drive etc. to go ( not to mentiond the puppy animation ! ) But it is all missing in Windows 7. How can I adjust to get back my goods old XP style file search ? 124.253.127.129 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's all still there, just made less convenient. Type what you are searching for in the search box on the start button menu. That brings up a window where you can pick "Search again in..." "Custom" to restrict the directory. I agree that it's rather painful to use. As for the puppy, I assume he choked on the dancing paperclip and both died. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It now uses what is called Advanced Query Syntax (something along the lines of how Google has various operations you can build into a search.) Once you get accustomed to using it, it's actually fairly nice (I like it, at least). These websites [1] and [2] go into the syntax. Our article Windows Search has a section on it, but doesn't give a how to. If you google "windows search AQS" or "Advanced query syntax", you'll find a ton of tutorials.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

RealDownloader YouTube VLC

I use realdownloader to capture youtube and other videos, which I then watch using VLC. (Usually IE browser especially for downloads, and on a Windows 7 Asus computer. I use Safari for browsing otherwise--which won't work with realdownloader) Recently, the shows have been "downloaded" but I just get a black screen when I try to play back YouTube material. (Downloads from other sites still work perfectly.) Is here some update I need? Has YouTube managed to block such downloads? Thanks for any suggestions. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that YouTube has blocked that particular software. If this is the case, then an update/patch would be needed from the makers of realdownloader; though whether one is available or not yet is another story. In any case, I would highly reccomend getting Firefox and the addon VideoDownloadHelper, which has never given me any trouble and auto-updates itself whenever there is a new patch (coincidentally, it just updated yesterday; and, among other things, it got "increase YouTube compatibility".) Honestly, it works so well that it's worth getting FF for even if that's the only thing you'll use that browser for! :) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 17:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that newer YouTube videos use a format called MPEG-DASH:

I use NirSoft VideoCacheView to retrieve YouTube videos from my browser's cache, then play them with VLC Media Player. When this process stopped working a month or so ago, I checked for an updated version of VideoCacheView and found this comment in the version history:

Added support for merging the new MPEG-DASH streams of YouTube into one file. Unfortunately, this feature is currently useless, because I cannot find any video player that can actually play this kind of files.

I read a little about the MPEG-DASH format (see Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP). In this protocol, the server offers segments of the video in several bitrates. The client player monitors the network conditions and requests the best bitrate it can handle at the time. When I looked for an MPEG-DASH player, the things I found were designed to interact with a server (requiring you to set up your own test server) and didn't seem like they'd be able to read a saved stream from a local file.

I haven't looked into it further at this time. Perhaps the MPEG-DASH format is only a problem with my "retrieve from cache" method, maybe VideoDownloadHelper saves the file a different way. --Bavi H (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. So it sounds like I am not insane, that YouTube has done some sort of update, and there does seem to be a rational explanation. As for Fire Fox, I am not against that. I use Safari for everything, except that I have IE or the sole purpose of downloading from YouTube switching to Fire Fox might actually be gratifying. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I have downloaded FireFox and upgraded to the latest free version of RealPlayer and the issue is resolved; I am again able to download videos from YouTube. Yous guys are great. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Difference between webpage "updated" and "copyright"

The users told me all Richard Pogge's article is published in 1997, but on the footer, it always mentions " This page is updated 2006 or 2007" the main lecture. Richard Pogge's article is mainly the common style I see from college professors. How can the data updated in 2006 still uses information from 1997? Do university professors keep up with the newer updated informations, or not always necessarily. Because Robert Smith and KP Schroder's education are from University of Sussex, why will education level matter because Smith and Schroder are also college professors. How would astronomer not paid attention when new informations come out?--69.233.252.198 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's best to take the most recent date shown on the site as the last claim to copyright (in this case 2007). That way, you are ensuring you're not going to have any issues.  drewmunn  talk  09:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Without any detail in the source for what was added, it's impossible to tell how up-to-date the information is. At the very least, the sources cited by the lecturer are from 1993 and 2001, so I'd doubt that there was any more recent information than that. Clicking through to the course page, it seems it was last run in winter 2006 (which fits with the March 06 update), but the section the page is from is about the frontiers of science (the next two lectures are on dark matter and time travel), and the course as a whole is only introductory, so at best it will be a simplified summary, and since it seems to be off-syllabus (not actually examined in the final for the course), there might not be too much effort to keep the notes up-to-date. MChesterMC (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Drewmunn and MChesterMC are both right. It's probably either the last copyright claim; or simply the last time the original source was updated. And there's really no way of telling how outdated (or not) the information is without more details... --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So, Not all the Ohio-State or University of Ohio course are deep detailed sciences. So these course produces by Dr. Pogge is only general level? Some university professors only teach students introduction and general grasp of astrophysical tools, not deep, detailed studies?--69.233.252.198 (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Limit to Devices on Router

Is there a limit to the number of devices that can be connected via wi-fi to a home router? I know there are four ethernet ports in the back, but that of course, is a physical limitation due to the size of the router itself. We are not on any special limited up/download plan, as far as I know. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Most devices do have a limit, and it depends on the device itself. The limit of wirelessly connected devices can be between 10 and 50, and it depends on the device and firmware. You can usually find it by reading the manual for the device (available online, usually), or by Googling it. If you can't find it, tell us the model of router you're looking at, and somebody may be able to find it for you.  drewmunn  talk  09:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I need the extra specs?

Hi, I'm looking into purchasing a new computer, and have been specifically looking at the MacBook Pro. I'm choosing the MacBook because my business partner also uses a MacBook and it would simplify our lives greatly to not have to worry about transferring, etc.. And would help with our synchronization. However I do not quite know if I should opt for the beefier 526 hard drive with 16 RAM, or the smaller 256 hard drive with 8 RAM. So here's my question: for a guy who will use his computer for video editing, some GarageBand, basic word processing, play league of legends, and watch movies (I doubt any excel usage would effect it that much, but I will be using excel quite a bit as well). Essentially I'm an average user, at least I think, but I have been, and will continue to delve further into video editing from my go pro to help make promotional vids for the business. Any and all opinions are welcome, and thanks aim advance!--Hubydane (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

16Gb of RAM is a hell of a lot, I use a PC with 6 Gb which is more than enough (I play games, edit images etc) however "the more the merrier" is generally the case for RAM when video editing.this page says you will see a "noticeable improvement" when editing video. As for the hard drive, the only real way of filling that size HD is with lots of video files. A DVD quality movie takes up about 4.5Gb when straight copied from the disk (I'm sure someone will find fault with the "DVD quality" statement though). So it's really a question of how many movies you want to store on it at any time. Lots of uncompressed HD video will tear through 256 Gb in no time though this site lists the sizes of GoPro video files for different formats 80.254.147.164 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got 12GB in my iMac, and 4GB in my MacBook Pro. I use seriously system-intensive applications (graphics rendering, compiling, testing on multiple threads, etc), and I don't find 4GB too lacking for most purposes. If I'm working on anything too powerful, I switch to my iMac, and that's perfectly able to handle it. I'd not suggest 16GB unless you're planning on releasing a 3D CGI film in the next year or so, as it'll be overkill; the new OS X coming out in the next month makes large amounts of memory even less necessary in generally heavy use. Filling a larger storage device'll take quite a while, unless you gather video files, renders, and RAW images quickly. Movies and Music can be stored in the cloud, so you need not keep your entire collection on your MacBook. I personally prefer more onboard storage, but you'll need to remember that anything on board will need a similarly large backup. As a general rule of thumb, I go for at least 1.5x the overall storage for backup. I've got around 1.5TB of data in action at any one time across my 2 machines and an external hard drive. My backup drive is 4TB, and that stores a good amount of data going back a month or so, so I don't ever lose anything. As you'd be doing business, you'll need to think about backing up regularly, so a larger onboard storage device means spending more on a backup system as well. It also means backups take longer… Anyway, I'd say 8GB is plenty, and a 526GB (are you sure it's not 512GB?) onboard storage would be great, although a 256 wouldn't be lacking in any way.  drewmunn  talk  17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an example for large ram: You update your GPS map with openstreetmap data. You'll need to download a planet dump.

Then you'll need to shrink it before converting the map in your GPS format. Even 256Go of ram would be not enough for that operation here. 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.71.15.95 (talk)

I don't suspect you'll need it. I personally have 16 GB of RAM, and I actually have never had it use up 50% of it. The only reason I got 16 GB is cause of matched RAM, which is hassle if you want to upgrade. I don't do much video though, but 8 GB is still plenty. For hard drive space, however, video does take up a lot of room really fast. Uncompressed video can be over 0.3 GB per second. If you plan on doing video editing, I'd recommend storage over the RAM. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 21:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

On my Macs, I usually feel the pinch at the hard drive first, and I don't even routinely do movies. Music and photos tend to accumulate over time. My current Macbook Pro is about due for replacement, and I will probably go with 512GB or 768GB SSD, 8 GB RAM. Now if someone could tell me if I want a Retina or a standard Macbook Pro, that would be great. Or if I could get a Retina with build-in Ethernet, Firewire, and Superdrive ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The enthusiast blogs want you to get the Retina display. If you do so, it seems you can't have a built-in Superdrive any more. The older non-retina 13" still comes with Superdrive, Firewire, Ethernet and Thunderbolt. There could be a revision of the Macbook Pro line in the fall to use the Haswell processors. This should improve battery life. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The display is one point (but the HD displays of the Pro are "good enough"), Other points are less bulk when travelling, and (even) better build quality. On the other hand, my current Pro has been very good to me, and I like to have the connectors (and the ability to easily rip CD). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

p7zip with mx=9 m9=lzma2 ms=on mhc=on mfb=65536 mc=1000000000 and md=1100M can require 45GB of RAM 2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

how practical is it to keep multiple facebooks? (under pseudonyms)

if you have totally idfferent groups of acquiantances, how practical is it to keep multiple facebooks. (logging in and out sequentially to check them). i know facebook tehcnically has a real names policy, but inf act poeple use pseudonyms. Also facebook will ask friedsn 'is this a real name?' but i doubt my friends respond.

so in practice, can/do people keep multiple facebooks that they check from the same computer? What should I think about if I do this? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I ask by the way because i'm very private. recnetly for the firs ttime i created a facebook with some coworkers under a pseudonym. i like what they post. i'd like to do the same for my closest family under a different facebook, and also a pseudonym. is this practical? do people actually do this? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Sometimes, for example, there are several people using one computer. How is Facebook to know whether the user is one person with three accounts or three different people? You will have to have different email addresses for each account. Bielle (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're supposed to give your true name and date of birth when you register. Although I don't suppose they put a lot of effort into enforcing that, they have strenuously resisted calls to officially allow users to register under pseudonyms (it would dilute their value proposition to the people paying the bills).

So if you adhere to that rule, it's trivial for their algorithms to identify two users as the same physical person. Even if you lie, it's probably not very hard (this is right in the wheelhouse of an internet company's core competency).

On the other hand, I don't know of any rule that you can't just openly have two accounts with different e-mail addresses. I'd be interested to know whether there is such a rule. But of course that doesn't help the OP. --Trovatore (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Facebook's terms & conditions say (under 'Registration and Account Security') 'You will not create more than one personal account.' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that answers that, then. Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a very good point! 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you need more email accounts, i have several gmail accounts and find them very easy to manage. Vespine (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you do not like logging on and off al the time you can use multiple browsers, eg Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome and so on, one for each name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I second the multiple browsers idea. Facebook is integrated automatically into so many other sites that it can get really annoying to use two accounts in the same browser. Jessica Ryan (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Though I don't use FB in particular, I use multiple e-mail addresses and multiple browsers for managing different accounts on other sites... it's quite easy to manage. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 16:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't favor the multiple browser idea, I'd prefer multiple profiles, you can't have 20 browsers, but you can have 20 profiles, I wish you didn't had to do this for cookie managing. This will talke a lot of memory either ways. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can have 20 browsers... but that's a little excessive. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 16:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• An easy way to handle this is to use two browsers, like Firfox, Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, and to have one account on one browser and the other on the second browser. Each can be set to remember its own password. Then, rather than signing on back and forth, just pick the bookbark on the appropriate browser and you're already logged in with no cookies going between browsers. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)