Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 December 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.

December 19

Finding a specific file with cmd.exe

If I was looking for a specific file (say, "file.txt") but I don't know what folder it's in, is there a way to search for it using the command prompt? 63.24.178.157 (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

C:\dir /s file.txt --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

or, to be more exact, use: dir /b /s file.txt

--grawity ^{talk / PGP} 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hacking into runescape.

How do you hack into a runescape acount? (Superawesomgoat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Probably the same way you hack into any account—try to find a way to guess or steal passwords. In any case, Googling "hack runescape account" comes up with a number of dubious options. Most seem to involve trying to phish for passwords, a strategy which only will work if you know how to be convincing and the person running the account you want is extremely naive about the ways of the internet. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, how can I gain illegal access to others' account for malicious purpose and have everything recorded on the Wikipedia server? First the Pacific Mall now this? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about malicious purpose? :) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of a non illegal reason to be attempting to break into an account you don't have access to? Runescape has quite a lot of password recovery options if it is his own account and if not it is automatically illegal under US law (which is what Wikipedia follows if I recall correctly) regardless of purpose TheGreatZorko (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Firefox three

The Firefox 3 betas are out and I've installed them etc. When they release new versions or non-beta ones will my beta rv 2 version automatically update via the "check for updates" or will I have to download and install it all over again? Thanks for your help! xxx Hyper Girl (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As updates to beta software may contain large changes to the source code, I would imagine that you would have to download and install the newer version. However, it should have the facility to install over your current version, preserving any settings, bookmarks and add-ons you may have. Think outside the box 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

sue linux

can i sue linux?am a borne and bred windows user,two days ago i got a suse linux enterprise 10.1 cd.i have neva used linux before.i had 80 gb hard disk,anyway linux was hard to install and i just blindly followed the default setup options.i have know lost 20 gb hard disk.i cant see one partion.my pc is showing three partions and i have three where has one gone.please whoever is going to answer me please try to explain thoroughly,am not a linux newbie am a linux moron.i know squat bout linux,its the hardest thing after calculas.i still have the cd and i also have an xp cd.help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.22.166.182 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no individual or organization called "Linux", so no. Under some stretch of the imagination you might be able to sue Novell, but there is really no reason to do so. It is likely that when you have installed Linux, you have paritioned your hard drive in a way that does not utilize all available space; However, I don't know why that would happen if you did indeed follow the instructions. I would suggest you try installing again, paying more attention this time to the partitioning part; If that fails, you should probably contact Novell for support. If you supply more details about what you had previously, what you did and what you have now we may be able to help more. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: We aren't allowed to give legal advice here - so I'm going to give you a dope slap instead.

Firstly: Linux is an operating system - not a company - it's written in much the same way that Wikipedia is - by a vast team of mostly anonymous volunteers - good luck with tracking down the one person whom you think is liable for your disk lossage!

SuSE is the German company (now owned by Novell) that compiled this particular version of Linux, packaged it onto a CD and probably wrote the 'installer' program. The software was licensed to you under the GPL (which you agreed to somewhere during the installation procedure during your 'blindly following the default' phase) and it says (see sections 11 and 12 if it was GPL 2.0) that by agreeing to this you understand that there is no warrantee and that the authors and distributors won't be held liable...yadda, yadda, yadda. I can't give you legal advice - but you might maybe want to read what it was that you agreed to here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

Secondly: You havn't "lost" 20Gb - it still there, you simply chose of your own free will to reformat it to be a Linux partition - since you were trying to install Linux at the time, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. I use SuSE Linux (I have 10.2) and I know for sure that one of the questions that you "blindly followed" was "ARE YOU REALLY, SURE THAT YOU WANT ME TO REFORMAT BIG CHUNKS OF YOUR BEAUTIFUL HARD DRIVE FOR LINUX TO USE? [Y/N]" (well, not those exact words - but you get the message). You agreed to do that - what did you THINK would happen?! SuSE's Linux installer did precisely what you told it to do...what's wrong with that?

Thirdly: The problem you actually have is not that this 20Gb chunk is "lost" - it's that Windows is too dumb to see Linux partitions. So from your Windows perspective, it's an unusable/unrecognisable chunk of disk space that it ignores. But when you run Linux, that 20Gb will be where Linux is installed - and it'll be perfectly usable. Better still, because Linux is smarter about these kinds of things than Windows is: from within Linux you'll also be able to mount your Windows partition as well as your Linux partition - so all 80Gb will be there for you to use.

Conclusion: No! (Er, that might be construed as legal advice - I struck it out so please don't read it.)

SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(This is, by the way, why I find the "just install linux!" crowd so irritating. Most people care barely deal with Windows XP; they can't deal with Linux. I don't have time to deal with linux and I'm more computer savvy than the average bear. I think it's obviously got places where it's a better OS but primarily in the hands of an expert user and/or hobbyist.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(This is, by the way, why I find the "linux is too hard" crowd so irritating. Most people have grown up with Windows and understand it reasonably well - the only reason they find Linux difficult is because they havn't grown up with it. My 16 year old son grew up with Linux and he managed with it just fine when he was just 8 years old - you don't need to be an expert - you just have to NOT assume it's a Windows clone. You open applications in Linux with a single-click instead of a double-click. Windows users keep starting two copies of every application - which understandably annoys them. Linux users click once on an icon on the Windows desktop and wonder WTF the icon is highlighted yet nothing is happening! It's not that one way is better - it's that they are different. (Actually - bad example - Linux is better! Why does it take two mouse clicks to do this in Windows? Highlighting the icon with a single click doesn't seem to have any function whatever - why do I need to double-click?). I came to computing from the UNIX/Solaris/IRIX/Minix/BSD/Linux route - and I find Windows difficult and frustrating. Installing Windows from scratch on a Linux box if you have little Windows experience is every bit as hard as installing Linux on a Windows machine if you have little Linux experience. Installing Windows on a Linux box SO THAT IT'LL DUAL BOOT is absolutely impossible. Why is it in any way surprising that the mirror-image operation is somewhat tricky?! There is a symmetry here that's a consequence of people not being willing to change or to learn something new. The problem is one of xenophobia - not technical difficulty.) SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Every Linux user I've met spends half of their time compiling, partitioning, mucking around in a console mode, and other sorts of things which are way beyond the technical difficulty of most computer users. Hell, I can barely get Unix-y things to work correct on something as slick as OS X, and I'm pretty damned competent! It is a rare, rare Darwin port that actually works well (Inkscape and GIMP get my unabashed approval, but so, so much is barely functional without spending hours trying to figure out what is wrong). Obviously if a kid grows up learning Linux they'll have no trouble with it—the same could be said about any operating system that a child has interest in, they count as "hobbyists" in my taxonomy, but if you wanted to make another grouping for "kids" that would be fine too, but you know as well as I do that the fact that children can use technology means really zip as to whether it is going to be impossible for most of the adult population—I'm talking about people who are not computer savvy. And for most users I have met, technophobia and technical difficulty are basically the same thing. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please also state your sample size and distribution? Partitioning? Why on earth would they do that live? Mucking around in console mode? You mean that "evil little black screen with text written on it"? Heck I've seen people spend hours deleting files by a very simple rule, and they do it by opening the folder in Windows, look through all one thousand or so files for files that fit the rule and delete them, something which can be done by a one-line script in a minute. From an efficiency stand point, which is easier? Just because you have grown accustomed with Windows and its pathetic command line doesn't mean command line is evil, or useless, or both.

• Why do you think that making something not designed to be ran on a system to run perfectly is easy? Try running the exact same Linux version of the programme in Windows, would you expect it to work? This has got nothing to do with Linux/Unix, but rather your biased view point, which blames everything on Linux/Unix. Ironically, Mac OS X, something that you use, is also based on Unix, and yet you can manage that without problem. It's not the operating system, it is very capable. Rather, it is cluelessness and prejudice, people never give something a proper try, and often stumble into something unsuitable to them, like Gentoo or Slackware, when they really should be using Ubuntu or Fedora, giving bad experience and prejudice ever after.

• OK let's take the normal web-surfing, email and light office application for example. Windows, you get IE, Outlook, and Wordpad, anything more you have to shell out for MS Office (suppose the user is clueless enough to not know about OOo, which is a reasonable assumption). In a distro like Ubuntu, you get Firefox, Thunderbird, and the whole OOo suite. For someone who had never touched a computer before, which one is easier, have to install something extra and have no idea how, or have everything they need right out of the box? When they used enough of the software, they might be dissatisfied and want to get an alternative. The Windows approach is to search on Google and Download.com or whatever and most of the time return shareware which you have to pay, and sometimes fraudulent ones loaded with spyware. On Linux, you can just use a package manager (comes with the system) to search and install thousands of free, safe software with just a few clicks. For someone who had used a computer for a few months, which one is easier? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The tone and content of your first two paragraphs make .187's point better than s/he did. --Sean 12:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'm tired of this. 187 clearly has NO CLUE about Linux and if Sean thinks 187 made any kind of a point then he doesn't understand squat about the matter either...Every Linux user I've met spends half of their time compiling, partitioning, mucking around in a console mode, and other sorts of things which are way beyond the technical difficulty of most computer users.??? WHAT!!! WHAT??? Oh come *ON* that's utter bullshit! It's been 10 years since that was true!

Let's actually blow away this fucking stupid myth shall we? Let's actually analyse that statement.

The actual truth about a typical Linux user (such as the tens of thousands who use it in offices working for various governments and big companies - who are neither hobbyists or young or geeks) goes something like this: My wife (who now uses only Linux but who is not at all computer literate) has never in her entire life compiled, partitioned or mucked around in console mode. I very much doubt she even knows that there IS a console mode - and the word "partition" refers to what happened to Germany at the end of WWII. She auto-boots into KDE - she logs in - she clicks open some combination of browser, email, money manager, office tools, photo albums, music players - she sets her desktop theme to all sorts of horrible shades of pink and has photos of the family for her screen backdrop - and it's no different for her than when she used to run Windows - except we don't have to flush the viruses and bogus toolbars and crap out of her machine once a month and she doesn't have to call me to 'defrag' her hard drive up once a month or reinstall the OS whenever things get too screwed up - because things DON'T get screwed up. That's not because I set those things up for her - we installed SuSE 10.1 on her laptop using the default settings - and I don't think I've touched it again since.

The people who compile - are mostly the enthusiasts, the geeks, the programmers - and they do that on Windows too. As for "partitioning"...that's complete bullshit...I think it's been 10 years since I last "partitioned" - and that was when I wanted to repartition a WINDOWS partition so I could dual-boot Linux - if Windows worked properly - I'd never have to do even that! These days the OS installer does all of that stuff for you. You don't "compile" to install software unless you want to. You grab an RPM or do an 'apt-get' and you click on it to install it! That's *IT*...precisely the same as using a Windows installer.

Mucking around in console mode IS something I'll admit to doing...but I do that under Windows too (I'm a big fan of Cygwin) - for some tasks it's a million times more efficient than using GUI tools in either OS...that's your choice - the same set of file managers and CD burners and all of those common tools exist for Linux as for Windows - and these days they are all installed by default with your OS distro. I doubt I've manually installed a single package on my 'workhorse' laptop. (I *DO* install stuff by hand and compile a lot of shit on my deskside machine - and putting up a web server, firewall, file server, mail server and Wiki on various machines around my house did involve quite a bit of messing around - but most of those things are beyond "difficult" under Windows - they're either utterly impossible without buying a $1000 commercial license - or they are impossible period! But I'm a software developer - and I write OpenSource stuff - so OF COURSE I DO THAT!) You have it completely backwards. The reason you find me doing that is the reason I got Linux in the first place...it's not that because I have Linux, I have to do that!

If you only do the kinds of things that 99% of Windows users do - you can hardly tell which OS you are in. You have a bunch of 'big' applications on your desktop - you click on them to get them running - and then you sit inside the application doing whatever you do. For applications that are available on both platforms, you really can't tell. Firefox, GIMP, Inkscape, OOffice, Eclipse...whatever - they are identical. OpenOffice versus WORD/Office or FireFox versus IE7 or Thunderbird versus Outlook isn't really a good way to debate this...they are applications, not OS components and they are pretty similar in operation and general reliability. I worked for 10 years in a Linux-only software house - and we certainly didn't spend any significant amount of time repartitioning drives or installing drivers or any of those "scare story" things that Windows users think we do. We installed SuSE in about the same time it takes to install Windows - and we were ready to work.

The issue of shell-based tools versus GUI-based tools is also a completely bogus non-event. You can run Cygwin under Windows and there you are in bash with the same set of a bazillion command line tools - and you can forget you aren't running Linux anymore. Or you can sit in Linux and use a butt-load of k* tools under KDE and have a command-line-free experience if that's what turns you on. It's not about that anymore either. Windows stability (in XP at least) has FINALLY caught up with Linux...in 9 months of Windows use, I've had one BSOD...that's one more than I've had Linux crashes - but not too bad.

The true differences are in areas like security: Windows STILL isn't safe to use on an open 24/7 web connection - and you've got all of these annoying "don't click on attachments, don't turn on Java/JavaScript" things to worry about - plus, if you don't have a raft of anti-malware shit on your machine, you're toast. I've been running Linux since before there was a Linux (it was called "Minix") - I've never had one single intrusion, virus, NOTHING - and I've never taken any precautions beyond turning on the firewall in SuSE. Linux is also free and open. That matters - really - for the PRECISE same reason it matters that Wikipedia is free and open. A typical user may not notice that - but if you have to get into the 'down and dirty' side of things, it matters a lot. I don't want to find that some imperial edict on behalf of Microsoft means that if my computer can't dial up headquarters every so often, it's going to lock up my system. I don't want them bundling up patches in a way that I can't pick and choose which ones to take. I don't like that IE is interwoven with the windowing sytem which is interwoven with the operating system. I want to use open standards like OpenGL without some faceless corporation deciding that in the next release they're going to deliberately make it go slowly so I'll have to switch to their API and lock myself into their inelegant interface forever. MS API's are UGLY...horrible, horrible things for a programmer to work with. I could go on. But the things that most people complain about (on both sides of the debate) are NOT the real arguments. SteveBaker (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, take a deep breath! My point was that many Linux users have a siege mentality which causes them to bite the newbies in counterproductive ways. Linux has been my primary system since the early 90's so I'm not clueless on this topic, but I long ago realized that the sort of "but the command-line is superior" argument that Antilived made has lost before it begins. Also, FYI, Linux was certainly not called Minix; I think it was called something horrible "Freax". --Sean 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason we have a siege mentality is that people are besieging us with that kind of ridiculous, outdated view of the operating system! If I posted that Windows sucks because you get BSOD's all the time - then Windows users would be in 'siege mentality' mode because WinXP doesn't crash a whole lot - that's an outdated meme dating back to WinME and before. Well, it's the same deal here. When Linux was new, it was very much a matter of setting everything up yourself and it was painful as all hell! But over the past maybe 5 years, that has changed dramatically - to the extent that my wife (who is about the least technical person you're likely to meet) can be perfectly comfortable with it. All the time, experienced Windows users (most of whom have never used Linux for more than an hour) spout these lies and misinterpretations - what do you expect us to do? Nod our heads and accept this bullshit?

Most Linux users don't bite newbies - but in any community (including those of Windows users) there are a few annoying idiots. If you want to see newbie biters, make a comment on the GIMP developers list for example! Ouch!!! But hang out on an actual, typical Linux User group mailing list for any amount of time (I belong to the North Texas Linux User group) and you'll find that not only are we polite and helpful to newbies - but if you are a newbie, you can bring your computer to one of our meetings and our team of crack install guys will actually install Linux for you while they feed you free coffee and donuts. Then later, we'll even feed you free pizza while we run presentations from various gurus who are visiting the area - or from local Linux experts! You'll walk away with a nicely set up (and 'performance tuned') machine, a set of free CD-ROMs with the distro on them - and some email addresses of people you can call if you get into trouble! How friendly is THAT? You even get to choose which of a dozen Linux flavors you'd like us to put on there for you! Other Linux user groups I've visited have been every bit as friendly. Does that sound like biting the newbies?

I'm also strongly of the belief that the command-line is superior for most things - but not for everything. If you look at my desktop on any given day - you'll see four tiled shell windows open to various commandlines - plus a browser and maybe one or two other tools. The real message is that it's not one or the other - but that the smart user keeps all of the tools in his toolkit rather than throwing half of them away.

Linux was never actually called anything other than Linux - but Linux's predecessor as "free Unix for small computers" was Minix - and Linus actually used Minix to get Linux going. Early versions of Linux used the Minix file system - and for a long time, even though Linux grew it's own file system, it had to be booted from a Minix partition. I transitioned from Minix to Linux - and at the time, it was hard to tell the difference (except that Linux was OpenSourced and Minix wasn't). SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that "just install Linux" is rarely a good answer to anything, the task that this user was attempting to accomplish (install a second operating system on a machine while leaving the current one unmolested) is ludicrously easier with Linux than with Windows. The last time I tried that with Windows, it just formatted my existing partitions without asking. --Sean 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - indeed, it seems that the OP may actually have succeeded into doing that (With SuSE, just saying "Yes" and "OK" to everything pretty much does that)...but that's not the problem here. The issue (at least as I read it) is that Linux's re-partitioning of the drive to carve off a not-unreasonable 20Gb chunk for it's own use caught the OP by surprise. So now (in Windows at least), (s)he is "missing" 20Gb of space. It is not at all unreasonable to be surprised and upset by that - and that's not what the dope-slap was for. The slap was for expecting to be able to sue someone over it...and (worse still) asking that on a site that SPECIFICIALLY says that we can't give legal advice. SteveBaker (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: While I'll be lining up with every one else to administer a dope slap, I'm forced to wave around the WP:BITE flag, first. --Mdwyer (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess someone has to! SteveBaker (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

20GB swap partition? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Grr, I like windows because "linux is too hard" and I do know what I'm talking about. Compiling anything from source these days is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Manually configuring display configurations?! Windows autodetects my displays and resolutions fine, and I've _never_ been able to get x to play nicely with my non-standard configuration despite the fact that I do know what I'm doing. My wireless card is notoriously unsupported by linux and there's not a hard ethernet jack on campus. ndiswrapper fails spectacularly on my windows wifi drivers. I love bash and have managed a linux server (command line only; gnome is crippled, KDE is ugly and annoying, enlightenment is disgusting, xfce is ok but still too minimalistic) but I'm not going to put up with linux's shortcomings just to use my personal computer. On a server I love it but I wouldn't dream of using it for my own laptop. Too many times have I tried to manually repair a broken makefile, to resolve circular dependencies in completely idiotic package managers- face it, linux just sucks on the desktop. The Right Thing for a OS to do is not the thing that won't have its users pulling out their hair. Windows has bad performance, is malware-prone (by the way, you can't just "open attachments without worrying" in linux either, what are you talking about), and is usable. Linux is beautiful, and I love its endless configurability compared to windows but I won't be using it for at least another decade; it's maddeningly far from being mature --ffroth 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the idea that with Linux, you have to recompile the kernel just to get the system to boot has not been true for almost a decade. Yet, it gets perpetuated by Windows users whose only knowledge of Linux comes from a small footnote in a computer user's guide. I grew up with Windows - it took me until university (at 19 years) to even have heard of Linux. At that time, Linux was not as easy to use as it is now, but I still learned it in a matter of months. Nowadays, installing Linux is mostly a matter of pointing and clicking. I don't think I have ever needed to compile a kernel, and I've been using Linux for years. If people could get past the "Linux is hard because I say it is" mentality and just try it out, I think they'd find Linux as easy to use as Windows. Many public computers in Finnish libraries run only Linux, and I have never seen anyone say "Oh, this is that hacker OS I once read about! I can't use this! It's too difficult!" Instead, they just log in, and go browse the web, like business as usual.

For the last point, Minix is an entirely different system than Linux. Minix is not free software - it's a closed, proprietary system made by Andrew Tanenbaum, who was at one time something like Linus's mentor. Linus originally named his own system Freax, but Ari Lemmke renamed it to Linux. JIP | Talk 10:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear too often the claim that "if people would only try Linux, they will immediately see how great and easy it is and bow to its awesomeness", but this theory doesn't hold up. I consdier myself to be techincally oriented, but my own personal experience with trying Linux has been quite unfavorable. I have tried installing differnt distributions on different computers, each time having different problems. Having a graphical installer is great, at least until the point I get an error message saying that for whatever reason the installation can't proceed. If I did manage to install, I would often not be able to run it without running into a screen that reminded me of a BSOD. When I did manage to run something, I remember having all sorts of "general usability" problems (programs not running when I run them, programs crashing, windows getting stuck on screen, etc.) On one computer sound didn't work, and after digging through help files I could at best get it to quantum superposition between working and not working. I don't think I have ever managed to get the printer working - I worked with the instructions step by step, and everything progressed according to schedule, until the part where "now your printer will print a page" and it didn't.

I'm sure installation problems aren't common and there's something probably wrong with my computer, but there was never any problem installing Windows, so there must be something wrong with Linux as well.

The best way I can summarize my experience with Windows and Linux is - With Windows, I am annoyed whenever something doesn't work. With Linux, I am pleasently surprised whenever something does work. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki systems and reversion of multiple article edits by same user

I run a mediawiki system external to WP. I am not an admin on WP so am not wholly familiar with all the admin tools. I just know what I know. I have heard of, even read about, but cannot find despite searching for an hour, information about reverting the edits made by the same user over a certain time period.

The siutation I envisage is "User:Userbot" unleashes a tranche of edits to say 1,000 articles that prove all to be rubbish edits. We need to be able to revert all those edits in one go.

Please will a kind soul point me to the documentation that tells me about it - I can't see the wood for the trees. I know it's hiding in plain sight, but I can't find it! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a feature of the MediaWiki software (or if it is, I can't find it on my private Wiki either) - I suspect there are special bots for doing this. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure I saw it on the mediawiki site, but can I find it again? Not a chance. I was even awake at the time. I was researching bots and vandalism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And the answer is I can Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, on closer reading, no I can't! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Playstation 1 Emulation

I quite recently found my PS1 and a collection of games in my attic and got all exited about being able to play them again. Then I remembered I don't own a television anymore so I have nothing to plug the playstation into. Also on closer inspection the laser lense appears to have been cracked somehow. This leaves me with a bunch of games I want to play but can't. I am aware of emulation and often use ZSNES to play old snes games. What is the easiest way to run my old PS1 games in my PC? I'd quite like to be able to use my Xbox 360 controller (bought for my PC - it has a USB connection and is a fantastic pad) if that is possible. TheGreatZorko (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

List_of_video_game_console_emulators. Some games actualy look better emulated than on real hardware because of improved 3d rendering. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So which on this list is the best? There are rather a lot TheGreatZorko (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried many of the emulators, and I think that "PCSX", is by far the best emulator for PS1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.1.104 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Java, C++, C# or Python??

This isn't really a question. I'm want to hear you opinion on what you consider to the best programming language of the four: Java, C++, C# or Python, and why you think that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.1.104 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Best for what purpose? --140.247.236.151 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just best in general —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.1.104 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Programming languages are tools, and just like tools there isn't a "best" one (which is the "best" screwdriver?). They all have their advantages and demerits, and the same feature is an advantage in one circumstance and a demerit in another. You could talk a look at Comparison of programming languages. If you're asking because you want to know which you should spend your time learning, the big answer really is "it doesn't matter much", as they're all fairly similar. If you want one that's the easiest to learn, without being a toy, that's probably Python. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong analogy: "Which is best - a chisel or a screwdriver?" ...well, you can kinda-sorta undo some screws with a chisel - and you could try chopping out a mortise and tenon joint with a screwdriver - but neither does the other's job terribly well. If you make fine furniture with hand made joints that fit together with glue and no screws...get a chisel. If you are someone who makes decking around people's pools...get a screwdriver. SteveBaker (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Asking a "Which programming language is best?" question is kinda like tossing a hand grenade into a hand grenade factory! However, I'm resisting saying "C++ utterly, utterly rooolz!" (damn! I said it) and going for a dispassionate review.

Firstly: everything (and I means EVERYTHING) depends on what you need to do with it:

1. If you need speed and you are a kick-ass programmer who doesn't make mistakes - C++ is the only answer.
2. If you need to be able to run in a web browser - Java is the only answer.
3. If you need to create masses of Windows GUI elements and if you don't give a damn about portability - C#.
4. If you need to produce one-time throw-away programs really quickly, or if you want a language you can embed into another application for scripting/plugins - then Python.

Secondly: A good programmer has a whole raft of tools at his/her disposal - including a good working knowledge of at least a handful of programming languages. You have to be ready to use whichever one you need for a specific job. Not one of those four languages you mentioned can cover 100% of the tasks you will be likely to encounter.

Here is what I've been using over the past month or so:

• I mostly worked in C++ because I'm a games programmer and speed is everything.
• I used a graphical scripting language called Kynapse to throw together a behavior to test an animated character at work.
• I used PHP so I could modify MediaWiki for my own nefarious purposes.
• I used JavaScript AND PHP AND C++ to write a fancy web-based photo album application for my son's website.
• I used Python to modify a loader for a custom 3D file format for blender.
• I used Java so I could fix a bug in a web-based car driving game I wrote for the MiniOwnersOfTexas car club.
• I used an obscure language called NQC to program a Lego robot I was playing around with one evening.

I probably know 20 languages well enough to "get by" and half a dozen well enough to program quickly and efficiently. However, mostly, if I have a quick job to throw together, I'll use C++ on my Linux machine simply because I'm more comfortable with it (after 20+ years of writing in C++ - I ought to be!) - not because it's necessarily better than the others. But other programmers might choose Python for that. I NEVER use C# - Java is better for almost everything and (most important of all) Java is portable and C# isn't - and there is nothing worse than having a program that runs on operating system A that won't run on operating system B - or vice-versa.

Overall, C++ is my favorite. It's fast. You can compensate for a missing language feature yourself - but if the core language is bloody slow (as all of the others you listed are) then there is no way to recover that. However, C++ is like an attack dog - if it's on your side and obeys your commands - it's handy thing to have in a fight - but if it ever gets the idea that you are weak - it'll assume the alpha dog position and rip you limb from limb! Bugs in C++ programs can be exceedingly hard to find and the consequences of almost any error will be a core dump with no error message. If you can program well enough that you don't often make mistakes - you can tame C++ and make it work for you - but if not...choose Java! SteveBaker (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to love C++, too. One difficulty I have is that the hardware hackers I work with have been using nothing but C and assembler for 30 years, so they fear it. I'd love to use Boost.org libraries, but I know if they ever saw an error message like this, g++ would be banned from the building. --Sean 12:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing about that is that C++ is almost a perfect super-set of C. Almost all C programs can be compiled and run by the C++ compiler and you'll never know the difference so long as you ignore the compiler warnings! C programmers can therefore transition over to C++ gradually. Picking up the features of the language that they find useful - and ignoring the ones they don't like. Practically all modern C compilers are really C++ compilers with some features and warnings turned off anyway! SteveBaker (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NQC ROOLZ :D --ffroth 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like Java best. I'm forced to use C# in my current job, but still find Java easier and more elegant. Perhaps it should be mentioned that of the four languages listed, C++, Java and C# are much more like each other than Python. Python is an entirely different paradigm, whereas Java and C# are like more elegant versions of C++ - Java more so than C#. I have a strong experience in Java and some experience in C# and C++, but I have never learned Python. JIP | Talk 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

C# is basically Java with Windows firmly bolted to it - but the folks at Microsoft are just genetically incapable of making ANYTHING elegant, so C# is never going to be a pretty thing. In a sane, non-monopolistic world, C# would have vanished overnight.

Java is basically C++ with all sharp, pointy objects locked away in a safe place! It's elegant alright. Java has its roots as a network-safe language. It has to run in a sandbox and it has to not allow programmers to make loopholes and escape from the sandbox.

C++ programmers can do amazingly efficient things with pointers that make Java programmers turn pale and shake at the knees...and justifiably so. However, I maintain that if you write C++ code using only the feature set of Java, then C++ is every bit as safe and elegant as Java. Experienced programmers know when to leave the sharp, dangerous bits of the language shut away in the cabinet - and when circumstances demand a full rack of ceramic kitchen knives, some bloody great meat cleavers and a chainsaw or two! The ikky problem with that otherwise, reasonable approach is that not all programmers are good programmers. It's been said that the best programmer in any large group is 100 times more accurate and productive than the weakest ones - and that's easy to believe. If you leave a poor programmer in a room full of sharp, pointy objects and he may run amok. You make one error with pointers and you've got a bug that could take you weeks to find! So if you don't need the performance you get with all of the dangerous bits of C++ - lock them away and use Java. Good programmers will hardly notice the difference - but crappy programmers will suffer far fewer missing fingers and toes!

Python is definitely the weird one of the bunch. Syntax is very different from the others - also it's lack of declarations and all of that runtime typing stuff is very different from C++/Java/C#. It's lack of those things make it more of a "read only" language. It's harder to understand a Python program that you wrote a year ago than it is to do so in C++/Java. It's OK for really short, simple scripts - or programs you're going to run once and then throw away...but I definitely wouldn't want to write something large and permanent using it.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Scaling up low-res images

Ages ago I remember seeing a number of clever programs listed here that can do a pretty good job of scaling up low-res images (that is, a better job than Photoshop, for example) by doing all sorts of interpolation and extrapolation. Anyone know what I am talking about? Any amount of pointing me in the right direction would be appreciated, thanks. --140.247.236.151 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This might not be what you're looking for, but you could feed the image into VectorMagic. The resulting vector image could then be scaled without limit. See also List of raster to vector conversion software. --Mdwyer (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I had in mind (there were some raster-to-raster programs awhile back that I recall seeing) but I'll give that a whirl too and see what the results look like. Thanks! --140.247.248.40 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's pixel art, you might be interested in pixel art scaling algorithms. ›mysid (☎∆) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not pixel art. I recall reading about a few programs on here maybe a few months ago that did a much better job of rescaling low-resolution images than you'd expect—there were a whole host of them, I guess they were used by professionals mostly, but I can't recall the name of them and can't find any articles about them. Sigh. --140.247.248.40 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The thread was a conversation about "Why does a computer draw big boxes when I scale up instead of a nice line?" Most of the thread explained pixelation and then some algorithms were mentioned along with programs that implement them. Hopefully that helps you find the thread. I'm rather certain it was at least 2 months ago. -- kainaw™ 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This page might be helpful; it visually compares a bunch of algorithms, and has some further links. -- BenRG (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wanna help us by setting up a bot?

Hello,

I help at a MediaWiki site, and we really need some bots over there, that DONT use IRC, as we cant use it. Anyone got any ideas or can help?

Let me know

Bluegoblin7 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A "bot" is a very general term. What do you want to do? Since you run your own site, it should be easy (and preferable) to set up a script on the server to handle any maintenance issues that you want. -- kainaw™ 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually run the site. I'm just an admin and one of the most active editors. But anyway, what were looking for is Anti-vandal (if its possible without IRC), Delivery, Assessment, Archive and probably sign. If you can't run it, code would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What you do is have a script that hits the "recent changes" page. For each change, it clicks on "diff". Then, for each diff, it decides what needs to be done (if anything). Then, delay to be nice to the server and hit the "recent changes" again. No IRC is required. You can have it run on the webserver or on any computer with access through the web to the site. This is not something you want someone to write and send to you. It will certainly need to be developed through trial and error. If you can't write it, you won't be able to maintain it and will end up just shutting it down to avoid problems. -- kainaw™ 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought - if the site owner is nice, he may let you have direct access to the database - then you won't have to screen-scrape anything and you'll lighten the load on the server. -- kainaw™ 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the help... Bluegoblin7 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You can almost surely find the code for any of the bots on Wikipedia and just adjust it for your needs, most likely. --140.247.248.40 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AIFF vs WAV

When I'm decoding FLAC audio files, I am given a choice between converting them to AIFF or WAV format. I intend to convert the AIFF or WAV files to AAC before uploading them to my iPod. Which should I choose, or doesn't it matter? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter - both formats are lossless. SteveBaker (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. You're basically talking about apples and apples there. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Picking a motherboard and CPU

So, I'd like to build my own PC. The procedure looks hard, but do-able, so I don't think that I'll hit a very major (as in, explosions, doom and gloom) snag. But I'm falling at the first hurdle: I just can't figure out which CPU and which motherboard are for me. There are an absolutely baffling number: the advice I've gotten is to make sure my specific CPU model is supported by a prospective motherboard model, which is a lot of help considering I don't know which of either I'm eyeing up.

Memory type shouldn't be a problem (DDR2 is the standard for new PCs, right?), and I'm not too bothered about out-and-out processor clock speeds - I'd much rather have an okay processor with a good quality motherboard than the other way around. I'm not aiming for the bleeding edge, but I'd like it to not be completely and utterly obsolete for 4-5 years. Does anyone have some fairly recent advice on this, or even just on how to narrow down the ridiculous amount of information there is out there to just what I'm looking for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.138.230 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, it might be a good idea to say what I'll be using it for: this would be my main toy at home, which means that the most used programs will be something like firefox, my homebrewed python MUD client, pidgin aka gaim, and vlc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.138.230 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For a workload like that I think pretty much any CPU will do. Of the applications you listed only VLC needs significant CPU, and any modern processor should be good enough for VLC. If you're worried about future-proofing then you might want to get a processor with 64-bit support. Aside from that I'd go with the cheapest one you can find. If you have extra money, I'd spend it on a name-brand motherboard and power supply, a good monitor and ergonomic keyboard, and quieter mechanical components (fans and hard drive). -- BenRG (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not use Windows. So, I start by seeing which CPU will work best with the flavor of Linux I will be putting on the box. Then, I get a motherboard that doesn't have driver issues. Then, the motherboard will limit my choice of power supply, memory, video card, and harddrives. Finally, I find a case to cram it all in. It usually works well. I have had problems. I found that a video card I purchased sucked too much power, requiring me to return a 350W one and get a 500W one. I purchased a case that hid the power button behind a door - what a pain. I thought a motherboard I purchased was SATA, but was actually IDE. Luckily, I was able to return the drives and get new ones. For the most part, it works well to go from OS to CPU to Motherboard to Accessories. -- kainaw™ 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)