Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 February 25

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 25

Windows (2)

1. Are Windows 3.1 and its predecessors really operating systems or just...GUI's?

2. When was 3.1 really discontinued, December 2001 or November 2008? If it's the former, what was the 2008 discontinuation for?

3. I have a friend who has a Windows 3.1 computer that boots directly to Windows on startup. How does it do that? JCI (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To start Windows 3.1, you usually have to type win at the DOS prompt. This runs the win.com file found in C:\WINDOWS. To start Windows 3.1 automatically, you add the word win to a line in the autoexec.bat file found in the root of the drive. Windows 95 and 98 also use win.com, whereas Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Vista have the GUI built into the kernel.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, what K said. Most "hard core" hats of the day felt that 3.x, 9x, and ME were just GUI's sitting on a DOS OS (is that redundant)? — Ched (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It was an OS enough. It had common libraries and drivers and whatnot that applications could use, doing a lot of the hardware interaction and GUI stuff for them; that's kind of the definition of operating system, no? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows is something of an exception there though - pretty much every other operating system there is - or has ever been - has separated out the windowing system/GUI from the kernel of the operating system. If you aren't trying to monopolise the market and lock people in - it makes sense to keep them separate. Many of the ills of Windows can be attributed to that particularly poor decision. SteveBaker (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer to #1: Windows 3.1 and older pretty much are GUI. They are... basically shells to the MSDOS operating system. It is not until, if I recall correctly, either Windows 2000 or Windows NT 4.0 that Windows itself becomes an OS and not just a GUI.

Answer to #2: Windows 1.0-3.1 were supported until 2001. I have really no idea about this 2008 discontinuation.

As for #3, I don't really know about that. Until It Sleeps 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: Windows is not an exception. OS/2, NT 3.x, Vista and Win7 had/have it in userland. Also, I wouldn't go quite so far as to suppose that the binding between GUI and OS is microsofty evil. MS does not have a monopolistic advantage by having the UI in kernel space. Few people even know what a kernel is. BeOS had its GUI in kernel, and look where it got them. Its a different paradigm from the familiar one of unices (so why is cons in-kernel?), but if you were designing an OS with a GUI from the outset, then there are good reasons (*nudge*, *nudge*) for having GUI code there. MS's core engineers, for all their faults, are not dumb. Embedded Linux guys are not dumb either. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Windows programs are Windows programs, not DOS programs that merely made GUIish calls. Win 3.1 and 9x are OS enough that you have to reboot if they crash; there is no falling back on DOS. Moreover, Memory management had already been taken over by 2.10, so at least from then on, DOS even had to be emulated in a virtual machine. By 3.11, with its 32bit disk I/O (what was that thing called?) bypassed DOS for file access. By 4.1/98, unless there were DOS TSRs/device drivers loaded, 9x only used DOS as a bootloader, and bypassed DOS completely if it could.
2. What K;;m5m said.
3. General sales of DOS/Win 3.1 ended in 2001, but continued for the embedded market until November 2008. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Early versions of Windows required a reboot because there was no memory protection: if a program went wrong, it could stomp all over any part of memory. You rebooted because you didn't know what sort of shape DOS was in, not because Windows was an operating system. --Carnildo (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Floppies

Are there any modern computers that use 5 1/4 floppy disks? JCI (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You can still get the drives to put into a new computer at places like newegg, but honestly - most modern computers don't even come with a 3 1/2" anymore. Thumb/flash drives, and DVD now - Blueray coming up fast. — Ched (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving Firefox Settings/History/Bookmarks Between Computers...

I have two separate computers that I use regularly. I use Firefox on both. I use mostly the same extensions and settings, but it would be nice if I could simply set it all up and then use the same "identity" no matter where I went. I know things like extensions couldn't be saved that way, but would it be possible to centralize and combine my history, bookmarks, and settings, and somehow transfer them easily from one computer to another? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The portable version of Firefox (article) consolidates all the program settings in a specific location. You could put this version on a USB key and transfer it from computer to computer, transfer a zip of the folder from computer to computer (via email, for instance), or set this up on a shared drive and access it from multiple computers on the same network (at least I *think* that would work, though it might be slow and you might be limited to running it on one computer at a time). – 74  07:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RECORDING ON COMPUTER

I LOVE STREAMING RADIO.CAN I RECORD IT WHEN NOT AT HOME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.232.211 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... I don't really think the caps were necessary. But, it is possible to record audio using some programs, even Windows Sound Recorder. You need to record from the Audio Out feed. I don't exactly remember how to do this, since I use Ubuntu as my primary OS, with Windows 7 as a secondary. Until It Sleeps 05:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible if you use an audio editor/recorder with a timer. Try to find at here. Oda Mari (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This archived question might be of interest. (Opcode should probably also make the list.) – 74  07:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You look into [1]. I haven't checked out there stuff in a long time, but at one point they had a utility that lets you schedule recordings for when you're not home. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

HDD recovery tools

Hi,

A friend of mine has recently had an external WD HDD fail - it's still "visible" in WindowsT and comes up with the error message "the file or directory is corrupt and unreadable" and if I run chkdsk it says "Check disk cannot be performed because Windows cannot access the disk". I'd appreciate any software recovery recommendations (preferably free ones). --Fir0002 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The first thing to do (it's free!) is to determine how valuable the contents are. In the event that they are "very" valuable, you should consult a professional data recovery service. If the contents are "not" valuable, you should toss the drive and move on. For values in between ("kinda" valuable), there's no shortage of "helpful" advice on Google. – 74  07:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The UBCD for Windows didn't help huh? Have you tried plugging it into a second/different PC?— Ched (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Knoppix maybe?

Thanks for the help - Photorec did the trick and recovered most of it --Fir0002 07:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Net connections log

I need a free or open source program that will monitor all connects to the internet and log them, such as "http://google.com" "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing" etc with the time they were accessed, and possibly the amount of data transferred. Thanks for your help --Jonas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

answer please --Jonas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? This is an emergency --Jonas

I'm afraid we don't do "emergencies", and I have difficultly accepting your request as an emergency. In response to your question, some personal firewall software may have the ability to monitor and log internet accesses. – 74  14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User may be looking for a Port scanner? — Ched (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard drive for videos

I'm looking for a hard drive on which you can store videos which can then be watched on a normal TV by simply connecting it to the TV but I can't find any. Can anyone point some out to me? -RMFan1 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple products you might be interested in are the Western Digital WD-TV, which requires an external drive, but supports many formats; or something like the Archos 605. --LarryMac | Talk 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not a matter of hard drive but TV. It is possible if you have a Toshiba REGZA ZH7000/Z7000. It's the only one TV I know that you can connect a hard drive. Oda Mari (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest the Western Digital mentioned in the first reply as well. If you intend to record off the TV as well, like a DVR does, then you need an external drive with a 7200 RPM rating, which is the most common now-a-days. You don't want an old 5300 RPM disk, as these do not spin fast enough to record the video in real time. UntilItSleeps PublicPC 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ones like these [2] [3] [4] [5]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

HD TV

Hi I am considering investing in a new HD TV has anyone got any info I should know before buying? Should I go for plasma or LCD? Thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems plasma is being dropped by most manufacturers. I don't know what the DTV arrangements are for the Republic, but for the UK they say they're going to start broadcasting Freeview in HD by the end of 2009, so I'd be looking for a TV that a DVB-HD decoder (pretty much all will have a regular definition DVB/Freeview decoder). A VGA connector is a nice to have (so you can use it as a PC monitor or hook it to a media centre PC - some PCs have HDMI out, but many don't). Any largish HD TV will run to a vertical resolution of 1080, but some are only interlaced (1080i) and some can do it "progressive" (non interlaced; that's 1080p). I'd personally recommend mounting it on the wall (all flat screen TVs have a a VESA standard plate fitting on the rear, making hooking it to the wall pretty easy) - this makes it easier to see, frees up some floor space, and keeps the rather delicate screen safe from small jammy fingers. My personal recommendation would be a Sony; I have a smaller 1080i capable one; a friend of mine has a 42" 1080p capable Sony, and I confess The Dark Knight on BluRay (which I'm to stingy to buy) on his does look quite breathtaking (I hate saying things like that, because I'm so not one of the "my expensive tv/stereo/gadget is incredible" squad. I wouldn't recommend Freesat, which I found to be inferior (in both content and picture) to Freeview. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, make sure what you get has enough SCART and HDMI ports. Right now your DVD player (and probably Sky box) will be SCART, but SCART is (thankfully) being replaced with HDMI - so your next DVD player (which is likely to be a BluRay) will very likely be HDMI. Thus you need SCART ports enough for your existing stuff, and at least as many HDMI ports for when, over the next few years, you replace that stuff with HDMI capable equipment. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Note that if you are in the US, you probably won't have to deal with SCART) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NoScript add-on

Is the NoScript add-on for Firefox really worth it? Because I just installed it and now I find it quite annoying to have to adjust the settings each time I visit a website. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's definitely worth more than you paid for it. You can whitelist sites using context menu → NoScript → Options → Whitelist; a properly-formed wildcard entry should allow full use of a specific site. Of course, if you decide to whitelist everything you might as well just uninstall NoScript. – 74  19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, not worth it. Your results may vary. --140.247.243.27 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is worth it. I don't want to run Google Anal scripts on every site I hit. I don't want some script playing sounds when I hit a page. I don't want some script popping up new windows or trying to break my back button. Basically, there is so little that I do want scripts to do that I prefer to authorize scripts on a page-by-page basis. -- kainaw™ 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Anal? Seriously? Blech... Personally it seems hardly worth the effort—most browsers can block unauthorized pop-ups, most pages don't play sounds (from what I can tell), those few sites that do break the back button often are so poorly coded anyway that one needs their scripts for them to work at all, etc. Obviously it's a matter of personal choice as to whether the cost of the medicine is more or less than the disease, but your non-NoScript browsing experience doesn't seem very similar to mine at all. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A much better alternative to NoScript is Adblock Plus. It has a built-in blacklist where you can disable scripts from running. I'd also recommend the Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper extension. Alternatively, click Tools>Options>Content> uncheck Enable JavaScript (although, I'm sure you've done this already without success) -- penubag  (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I already had ABP running way before NoScript, but I just installed the Element Hiding Helper version upon your suggestion. So I guess this means I can safely get rid of NoScript, right? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you know how to write in regular expression, you can manually mass block anything you want with wildcards (*). The element hider is just an extension to Adblock to make the blocking easier. I've seen people misuse Adblock plus though, if you still see ads, make sure you have a subscription installed. -- penubag  (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand "expression" (I'm not too good at the advanced tech stuff, embarrassingly enough). --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look under the options of Adblock plus and if you have the Easylist subscription installed (you probably do if you installed adblock plus correctly) you'll see a bunch of examples that came with it. Do you want to tell me what exactly you're trying to block? Is it just javascript? -- penubag  (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it. There's nothing in particular I want to block, I just to make sure it won't be a loss uninstalling NoScript. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, nope, and if so, you can always reinstall :)-- penubag  (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolfram Rule 120

I have noticed an interesting logarithmic growth pattern in the 1D cellular automaton under Wolfram Rule 120. I would like to investigate this rule further, but I do not know of any satisfactory programs (preferably Java applets) that I can use to investigate this - and by satisfactory, I mean a cylindrical universe. Does anyone know of any such applets/programs? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no article on Rule 120 but there is on Rule 110 and Rule 184 and Rule 30. I programmed this in applesoft basic about 25 years ago, so if I find the code I will post it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an applet, but it's standard C99 (see MinGW or Cygwin if you want to compile this on Windows) and it implements all the rules:

/* wolfram.c */
/* Implements a Wolfram rule cellular automaton on a cylinder. */

#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<assert.h>

/* Using single bits would save memory, but would be more complicated. */
typedef char bit;

bit getrule(const bit r[8],bit a,bit b,bit c) {return r[4*a+2*b+c];}

void advance(const bit *a,bit *b,size_t len,const bit r[8]) {
  for(size_t i=1;i<len-1;++i) b[i]=getrule(r,a[i-1],a[i],a[i+1]);
  /* Handle first and last bit separately: */
  b[0]=getrule(r,a[len-1],a[0],a[1]);
  b[len-1]=getrule(r,a[len-2],a[len-1],a[0]);
}

void write(FILE *out,const bit *f,size_t len) /* adds a newline */
{for(size_t i=0;i<len;++i) fputc(f[i] ? '*' : ' ',out); fputc('\n',out);}

int main(int argc,char **argv) {
  if(argc!=4) {
    fprintf(stderr,
            "usage: %s rule len cycles\nReads len ASCII binary digits\n",
            argv[0]);
    return 2;                   /* BAD_ARGS */
  }

  const int r=atoi(argv[1]);
  bit rule[8];                  /* individual bits from r */
  for(size_t i=0;i<8;++i) rule[i]=r>>i&1;

  const size_t n=atoi(argv[2]),t=atoi(argv[3]);
  bit *const f[2]={malloc(n),malloc(n)};
  assert(f[0] && f[1]);

  for(size_t i=0;i<n;++i) {
    char c;
    scanf(" %c",&c);            /* skip whitespace */
    f[0][i]=c!='0';
  }

  for(size_t i=0;i<t;++i) {
    const size_t p=i&1;
    write(stdout,f[p],n);
    advance(f[p],f[1-p],n,rule);
  }
  write(stdout,f[t&1],n);

  free(f[0]); free(f[1]);
  return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

Have fun! --Tardis (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For further reference, you probably want to use "Rule 106" instead of "Rule 120" as the smallest equivalent Wolfram code is conventionally used. --Tardis (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

uTorrent limit

hi, basically it seems that when downloading files using uTorrent it seems to limit the speed to 235kbs, every time and anytime, which is odd because i did an internet speed test and got a download speed of about 2000kbs/2mbs. Ive taken all the limits off that i can see in the options menu thing....how can i make it faster basically? thanks, --81.77.209.125 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that this limit is being imposed on BitTorrent traffic by your ISP, in which case changing your settings won't help. Algebraist 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So your saying that my ISP (Orange Internet or whatever its called) can single out traffic from Bittorrent (and related) and limit it at their will. Would using another P2P program, eg Limewire, solve this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.209.125 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but you can use encryption in utorrent that might increase your speed. Go Options, Preferences, select the Bittorent tab and change Protocol Encryption to Enabled or Forced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several things that can affect your d/l speed.

1. check you program configurations / preferences to see if you have a limit there - often default program settings will set aside x-amount of upload bandwidth and limit d/l speed.
2. Check your router configuration, there are often tweaks there that limit ftp in favor of html, smtp, etc.
3. Indeed it can be your ISP, Comcast (a US major ISP) faced heavy criticism for limiting and even blocking P2P and torrent users. Actually - blocking is wrong, they dropped their connection. (I think Verizon ran a-foul of this as well). — Ched (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, no "blocking" was taking place (at least in Comcast's case); Comcast was injecting fake reset (RST) packets. Of course, Comcast's PR machine was spinning these forged packets as "not a block". The logical escalation is to modify P2P software to ignore these RST packets, which would have resulted in even more traffic (mostly unwanted) on Comcast's network. On the bright side, this whole affair inspired significant interest in net neutrality. – 74  23:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure your port forwarding is working correctly? Torrent programs require your router settings to be just-right in order to get maximum benefit. Google "utorrent port forwarding" if you have questions. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely use encryption and "randomize port", as mentioned. These two things allowed me to avoid the ISP limits. Also, you tend to get more bandwidth at night, so try to target your downloads overnight. 2000kbps is an extreme speed. If I were an ISP with that kind of bandwidth, I would be targeting business clients, and definitely be throttling bittorrent traffic during the day.NByz (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit Torrent self regulates the download speed you get based on how fast you upload. It's only a rough calculation but I am guessing that your cable is significantly slower uploading than downloading. I usually CAP the upload speed of the torrent app to ~80% or so of my actual usable upload speed and this tends to improve things a lot as otherwise the upload channel gets so clogged up that you cannot even use your connection for browsing web sites, and your download speed may end up being SLOWER as the ack packets cannot be transmitted back fast enough (as they are competing for bandwidth with the actual data being uploaded by the torrent app). 204.16.236.254 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)