Computing desk
< February 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

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.

March 1

Computer numbers

How many computers are in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lib214724 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCs : http://www.worldometers.info/computers/

If you included routers, pocket calculators and mobile phones etc there are a lot more.87.102.67.84 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I counted the number of computers in my home a few years ago - there were about 30 - in addition to the obvious desktops and laptops. Moreover, modern "computers" generally have lots of smaller computers inside them - at least one in each disk drive - probably one each in keyboard and mouse, another in the monitor. The GPU on your graphics card probably contains dozens of simple computers. So the total is clearly vastly more than the number of deskside or laptop computer boxes. SteveBaker (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on your definition of a computer, but "...one each in keyboard and mouse..." is quite a stretch. Just how little functionality is required before it is no longer considered a computer? The question is quite poorly phrased with a wide range of possible meanings, but I would guess the OP means he would consider a laptop to be one computer, a desktop to be one computer, a server at his ISP or place of work to be one computer; without breaking down the individual devices into components and calling each of them a computer as well. As for cell phones, mp3 players, game consoles, some newer TVs, CD/DVD/BluRay players/recorders, cable/satellite TV decoders, some kitchen appliances, the GPS/Satellite navigtion and fuel injection computers in the car, etc. I doubt the OP even considered them when asking the question. Astronaut (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual definition of "computer" is any device which can receive input, perform computations on the input, and provide output. That means that there are many things that fit the definition of computer that we don't normally refer to as computer. I had a student once who made a compelling argument that a toaster takes bread as input, performs quantum calculations on the atoms in the bread until the heat causes the surface of the bread to toast, and then gives back toast as output. I told him that when he could define the computations as a discrete formula that provides the one-way function from bread to toast (since we know you can't go back), I would accept that answer. -- kainaw ™ 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's throw Turing completeness into the definition. That should deal with the toasters! --Tango (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computers are not necessarily Turing complete. A universal computer is Turing complete (meaning that the instruction set is Turing complete). -- kainaw ™ 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said we need to explicitly include it in our definition. That way we're more likely to get a result the OP will appreciate - the number of general-purpose computers (or computers that could be used for any purpose if you really wanted to). (I am, of course, excusing finite memory.) --Tango (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, we could simplify by asking how many general CPUs have been sold in the last 5 years. That will put a reasonable cap on the number of universal computers. For the most part, computers are 1 CPU to 1 Computer. Then, the number can be made more accurate by getting statistics on how many computers have more than one CPU, what is the average age of computers currently in use, how many CPUs don't get into any computers at all, etc... However, it would be much easier just to get a list of computer sales for all major vendors over the last few years. -- kainaw ™ 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Turing complete processors that aren't general CPUs. The GPUs that Steve mentioned, the various special purpose computers that still have a Turing complete processor in them (cars, for example), etc.. If we want to interpret "computer" as "PC" (with the broad definition that includes Macs, etc.) we can get an answer fairly quickly, but it will be at least an order of magnitude smaller than an answer with a more general definition. --Tango (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to turn a GIF image into a JPG image

Hy there, I recently found an image on the net. Sadly it's in the GIF format. How can I change it into a JPG image? Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the free Windows program Irfanview. You open the GIF file, then when you save it you can save in a plethora of formats. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Linux or any real operating system, make sure ImageMagick is installed and type "convert image.gif image.jpg". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that installing ImageMagick on a unix-like operating system will probably take half the day if you have to compile it from binaries. On a Windows OS it takes about five seconds to download the compiled executables. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fink install imagemagick only takes half a day if you have a really really slow CPU/network. Of course, on most Linux systems, ImageMagick will be installed by default. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spread misinformation. With few exceptions, on every major Unix-like operating system these days the usual practice is to download compiled executables. Marnanel (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on windows, you could open the gif in MSPaint, then save it as jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.204 (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in most situations conversion of GIF to JPG will result in quality loss, especially if done from a program that doesn't let you specify quality (like MSPaint, at least last time I used it, in XP). Conversion of GIF to PNG is probably recommended if you have the option. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with the remarks made above. Microsoft Paint can do the conversion (XP and later). Also, whereas both GIF (obsolete for static images - for instance GIF normally only supports 256 colours) and PNG are perfect for illustrations, screenshots, etc., JPG employs lossy compression suitable only for photographs. So unless the GIF was the wrong format to start with, I would not recommend converting the image to JPG, but to PNG. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, pretty much any image editor would be able to convert gif to jpg. Spending minutes downloading and installing a new new program, or a day making it from source code (if the OP doesn't know how to convert gif to jpg, are they really going to know how to make an image editor from source code?), is not necessary when the OP probably already has one installed which would be adaquate for the job. The usual procedure is to open the gif file in the image editor and immediately choose "Save as..." from the menu. The save dialog usually lets you choose the output file format. Astronaut (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it sad that it's in GIF format? Admittedly it has its drawbacks, but simply converting the picture to a different image type will not solve them and possibly introduce more. Is there some specific reason you want this to be JPG (or PNG or whatever)? Matt Deres (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NORTON 360 or NORTON 2010?

Which one is better for laptop? Thank you very much.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.148.167 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norton 360 is a suite that includes backup utilities and anti phishing things, as well as all the features from Norton 2010, whereas Norton Internet Security 2010 is just an antivirus and malware detection suite. It follows that Internet security will use less resources although I'm unsure. However if you can chose other anti virus programs and are willing to pay may I suggest Nod32? It's about the same price as norton antivirus, uses less resources, and is better at detecting them. They also have a smart security suite similar to Norton 360. There are also free anti viruse programs from AVG Antivirus and Avast which work quite well especially considering their price. Gunrun (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that one Norton 2010 Package is good for use only in one computer? If I format my computer, will i not be able to use it anymore to reinstall it to my computer? Can I share it with other computers? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.148.167 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look around on google and have found that while Norton Internet Security is by default valid for just 1 PC it seems to be for concurrent installs. It appears that reformatting will allow you to install it again fine, and probably even if you installed it to a totally different PC as long as you uninstalled the old one first. I may be wrong though, and I don't use the product myself otherwise I would test it. By the way if you follow your post with 4 "~"s it will make your posts be signed and thus look slightly neater. Gunrun (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't pay a penny and get all the features for free with AVG Free...! Chevymontecarlo. 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norton software is notoriously bad and has been for quite some time (since Norton sold the company). ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-linear waveshaping

what is non-linear waveshaping in electronics? what is the use of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geethikachaitanya (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Waveshaper? Used to change tiranular wave to sine wave, or in electronic music. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kodak Easy-share Picture Program Issue- Library Back up

I would like to copy my entire picture library from my Easy-Share program onto an external hard drive, but I cannot seem to locate where the pictures are hidden inside the software's program folders. The program itself allows one to copy the files on to discs, but I really don't feel like burning twenty or more discs. I know I can also place photos one by one into the editing program and save to the hard drive, but again, that would take an incredible amount of time. Is there a way to simply copy the library with a couple of clicks? What is strange is that I discovered some much older pictures on my external already, so I MUST have done this somehow a few years ago. As always, any help will be greatly appreciated. thanks, 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(assuming you are using Windows) The easiest solution to finding where Easy-share is squirreling away your pictures is to write down the exact filename of one of those pictures, then click the Start button, select Search, and type it in there. It should have no trouble locating the exact folder location. I judge from your post that you're savvy enough to take it from there. :-) 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea, I'll give it a try. The software seems to be designed to make it difficult to transfer easily. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for watching videos using YouTube HD

Just wondering, what do you actually need to watch videos in HD on YouTube? Clearly you'd need a computer and an internet connection good enough, but what else? Would you need a special monitor or something? Chevymontecarlo. 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are available in HD are they? - though you could watch them on a HD TV, but you wouldn't be using the available resolution. Dbfirs 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, they are now! - but the 1080p will need a better bandwidth than my internet connection, or much buffering!Dbfirs 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Youtube videos now offer the option to display as 320, 480 or 720 vertical pixels. 480 is roughly equivalent to a 480p video, while 720 is roughly equivalent to a 720p video. Computer monitors usually have much more densely packed pixels than TVs, so even a 20" monitor will often display at 1280x800 or 1680x1050, both of which will display the full detail of a 720p video. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually any computer monitor can display 720p video. 720p is equivalent to 1280x720 screen resolution, so if your display is configured to display at that resolution or higher, you'll get some benefit from the HD resolution. You also need a CPU and/or GPU powerful enough to display it; many netbooks won't be able to play it without pauses or skips, but any machine capable of, for example, running the Aero interface on Vista/Win7 will probably be able to handle HD video. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Even if your monitor runs at a lower resolution than the video, as long as your CPU/GPU is up to it you will still be able to play the higher resolution video, you just won't get as much out of it. You might even lose a little detail; if the video is fit to your screen by subtracting lines, you might have been better off with the lower resolution picture. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't true HD (widescreen) at least 1920x1080? Don't we need a fairly fast processor to display this? Dbfirs 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

720p is considered HD, even if it's not the highest HD quality. 1080p is gravy; on larger computer monitors you might be able to display that level of detail but you probably won't be able to see the difference. You need a decent processor to display it, but if your codec is GPU accelerated, the GPU can handle most of the work. Virtually any non-integrated graphics solution from ATI or nVidia can handle GPU accelerated decompression; the most recent netbooks can display 1080p with minor stuttering if the decompression is GPU accelerated (using CoreAVC). So yes, there are minimums, but they're as much about the strength of the software as they are about the hardware. My point remains salient; if you can run Aero smoothly, you're probably fine. 1080p might need a bit more juice, but it's rarely beneficial to display at that resolution and the requirements aren't that much higher in any event. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd CD-Burning Question

I use the built-in CD burner of Windows 7, to create a CD with the following structure:

Root of CD
   |- myapp.exe
   |- User's Guide
   |  |- manual.pdf
   |- Examples
      |- pic1.png
      |- ...
      |- picN.png

Windows 7 makes it really easy to create the disk, but after the CD is burned, it is not finalized, so more data can be added, and it is identified as a CD-R rather than a CD-ROM. I want it to be a finalized, high-compatibility, non-appendable CD-ROM, so I use Roxio Easy CD and DVD Burner to finalize the disk. This works fine; when Roxio is done, the CD identifies itself as a non-appendable CD-ROM. But, and this is really strange, the entire Examples directory is now missing! Comments? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had issues with Roxio trying to add a file, failing, and failing fairly silently-ish. In my case it was filenames that weren't compatible with the CD disk filesystem (I think paths were too long); perhaps that's the case for you, or maybe it's a filename charset issue. Make sure you've got Roxio configured for Joliet rather than plain ISO 9660. I've found InfraRecorder to be a bit friendlier than Roxio, so you could try that. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found CDBurnerXP to be quite reliable. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also DeepBurner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.204 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In particular InfraRecorder looks great, so I will probably use it from now on. Any theories about what happened to the Examples directory? I guess the data is still on the disk, but invisible to (most) users? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 March 1

Contents