Computing desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

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 7

Cannot access printer

I have a network set up in my home and I can see the other computers on my network. I have a main computer connected directly to my router and printer and two computers wirelessly connected. Unfortunately I can't use or even detect the printer from the two wirelessly connected computers, despite having enabled printer sharing and 'private network' on all the computers. Might this be related to my computers all running different versions of Windows? (one is a netbook with Windows 7, another is an old XP, and my main computer is a Vista). If not, what is causing this problem? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of different versions of Windows shouldn't be the problem. You didn't mention whether computers B and C could see computer A at all (for file sharing, for example). What I would do first is to first double-check whether you have Windows Firewall (or some other firewall) running on any of the computers, especially on the main computer, disable it if so, and test again. If that didn't work, I would get computers B and C connected to the router via Ethernet cables rather than wirelessly, and see if I could then see the printer from B and C. What type of router do you have? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check that whatever network you have set up has the same network name. Different versions of Windows use different default names for their networks. Exxolon (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interoperability, between operating systems, of GIF and PDF files on FAT32 flash drives

Resolved

I think I remember reading, on the packing of a USB flash drive with a FAT32 file system, that this storage medium could be used both in Windows, MacOS and Linux.
Do I remember correctly?
If so, then If I were to buy three (identical) of those flash drives and save a pair of GIF and PDF files (found on the internet) from Windows to one of them, from MacOS to the other and from Linux to the third.
Would those three flash drives and their files be usable by the two other operating systems?
Would the content of the three USB flash drives somehow be different from each other?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be usable; FAT32 should be completely compatible. The only difference in the content of the drives, I believe, is that Mac in particular will save resource forks on the drive as well, which will be invisible for the Mac users but show up as funny little filenames with periods in front of them for the others. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When will WiFi overtake wired ethernet in terms of speed?

If we were to regress the development and advances of WiFi and wired high-speed internet, when, if ever, will WiFi surpass wired ethernet in terms of bandwidth and speed? Acceptable (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're discounting a critical metric: range. Over a five or six foot distance, in ideal conditions, wireless 802.11n yields about 600 Mbits/s; consumer-grade ethernet goes up to about 1000 Mbits/s; so for purposes of comparison, wired- and wireless are almost equal in speed. But that same wireless protocol won't work over a 100 foot distance; let alone a 1 km distance. For those ranges, there's no contest: hands down, a wired connection (ethernet, fibre-optic, or some other long-range wired signal like modulated UHF on a coaxial cable) is a clear winner for signal integrity and bandwidth. Throw in the shared-channel problem that is inherent to wireless, and it becomes evident why our current internet uses wired connection for the last mile. Nimur (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It never will. I've never heard of an 802.11n connection going over 140 mbps outside of a lab, first off. Second, there are already 10 gbps ethernet cables out there. (See Category 7 and Category 6a.) In Japan, you can get a 1 gbps fiber-optic connection for your home, and I foresee Verizon offering something like that in the near future on the east coast of the U.S. I foresee us replacing all our twisted-pair cable with fiber optics, which has a theoretical maximum speed in excess of several terabits per second, and is more reliable. I also predict that it will become cheaper than ethernet cable once a certain economy of scale is achieved.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am replying over WiFi + a six-mile microwave link, and the speed is very unreliable. Fibre to the premises is the only reliable modern option for fast broadband. Dbfirs 10:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never, regardless of metrics considered. Even if you considered using beams of light to transmit information, a dedicated wire for transmitting that light would almost certainly perform better. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "never", because who knows what we'll invent. But sure; +50 years or something. Some form of satellite hook-ups might be a long-term improvement, à la William Gibson. Chzz ► 12:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you used satellites, if you could use wires between them (I'm not saying this would make sense :p just theoretically) they'd almost certainly yield better performance. I don't think anyone is questioning the convenience of wireless. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say definitely "never" as there are fundameltal physical limitations to the information density of modulated radio waves in free space that do not apply to varios "cable" based communications systems. Optical fibre is inherently (by the fundamental laws of physics) capable of carry much more information than any radio frequency signal. Roger (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While largely agreeing with the above answers i.e. cable will always be capable of providing more bandwidth a more relevant point which is not really what the OP asked is whether whether ever have enough bandwidth via wireless that you don't need cable. My belief is probably not for some purposes but it does seem to be the cases that wireless is increasingly becoming enough for a number of uses. In terms of the satellite thing, it may work for some things but particularly if we're talking about geostationary satellites given the latency issues may or may not be the best bet for real time communication. For example it seems a flawed way to communicate with someone 50 km away. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had a good set of answers to a similar question in the archives. Ah, here we go, from December 27 of 2010: a question about wired vs. wireless phones, where I linked to this insightful whitepaper, LTE Heterogeneous Networks. "Since radio link performance is approaching theoretical limits with 3G Enhancements and LTE, the next performance leap in wireless networks will come from the network topology." To re-quote my own summary of the paper, "In laymans' terms, the wireless part of the radio connection can't get any better - but we can connect up the radio-links in a more intelligent, efficient way." Nimur (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will a basic dongle be OK?

Have installed a new D-link router supplied by Virgin Media and although a newish Macbook can find it without any difficulty, two desktop computers don't seem to be able to. I.e. when refreshing the list of wireless networks available the new network that I gave a name to doesn't appear. I set it up with WPA security, would ideally like to use the more secure options, but main priority is to get it running. I'm guessing that this is because the dongles being used are rather old? I confirmed with Virgin that it is an N-router, and have found Belkin F6D4050ed Wireless N150 USB Adapter at Argos for £17.99. Should that do the trick? Should I be paying more for the dongles? Or less? Wireless connections are to run within the house, up to about 10m. Thanks very much for any help. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What type of dongles do you have? 802.11 B, G . . . ? Is your router configured to work with all of the wireless formats? Are you sure you are broadcasting the SSID? There are many places in the configuration of both the router and your desktops that might be affecting your network, more details are always useful. --LarryMac | Talk 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how old they are, they may not even support WPA. Some of mine don't.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't retained any info about the old ones, so they probably aren't coping with the WPA if Phil says that is a common problem. I was going to replace them with the Argos one mentioned above, just buying one, will see if it works, then if it does will buy another. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

troubleshooting with start up errors in computers,laptops etc..

we know that upon restarting the system(computer),the program counter is reset.most of the problems are solved.But sometimes if the system fails in terminating properly due any problem such as improper shutting down,power failure etc.,then there will a start up error which fails the system in stating up the next time. why does this happen and why cant restating the system fails in solving this problem?? is there any option to solve this? please suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girishkakalwar (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually if a computer won't restart properly, it is because an important file on the hard disk has been damaged. Usually the problem can be solved by fixing the file system, but it is impossible to give a general method for doing that. If you give more information such as what operating system you are using and exactly what error messages you are seeing, it might be possible to give a more useful answer. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Install Visual Studio

Ok so I'm trying to install Visual Studio 2010 on Windows 7, but the problem is it insists on being installed to the C: drive. My C: partition is very small (25 GB total, with only about 1.3 GB free). Even if I try to change Visual Studio's install destination to E: it still says it requires 2.2 GB free space on C: So, anything I can do, besides get a new computer with a bigger C: drive? Digger3000 (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page suggests that (most of) the space on C: is only needed during the installation itself and is released afterwards, so if you could temporarily find a gig or so on C: (e.g. delete some temporary files) you might be able to do it. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that temporary space required is not so much on the C (system) drive per se, but in the temporary folder - which is usually on C drive by default (eg "C:\Documents and Settings\Mitch\Local Settings\Temp" on my current XP box). One solution may be to change the temporary folder to be on a drive with more space, then try again (possibly after a reboot). You should be able to change the temp folder back again after installation is complete. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My history with development tools is that you should accept whatever the installer suggests as the default directory and even the hard disk letter. Personally I would enlarge that C: drive's partition and install into the default directory. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run something like crap cleaner to remove unnecessary files — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Rommel (talk • contribs) 06:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone want an iPod touch?

If you can have an iPhone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an iPod touch, and enjoy it for many uses. The cost of iPhone ownership over a few years' time is quite large. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone need any of both? Android or Symbian phones are much cheaper and provide you the same capacity. Quest09 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The iPod Touch is way less expensive. It's about one-third the price of an iPhone. You could buy three iPod Touches instead of a single iPhone, if you wanted. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why would anyone want three iPod Touch? Quest09 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a Beowulf cluster, no doubt. --Tardis (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're somewhat missing the point of the comment. In any case there are reasons why you may want to buy 3 iPod Touches, e.g. if you have a family. Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an iPhone which was a hand-me-down (my in-laws have AT&T and gave it to me when they upgraded) which I use for everything else except the phone portion. I have Verizon as a carrier. I use it all the time as an iPod, play some games, check my email, check Facebook, listen to NPR while cooking, etc. It's a lot lighter and smaller than my laptop. For quick reference of all those things, it's handy. So yeah, I can see why someone would buy an iPod Touch but not an iPhone. Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should just jailbreak and unlock it (you have the legal right), and use it as your phone as well, so you can be cooler. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(you have the legal right): That depends on what country you live in. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than cost, as covered above, one problem with convergence devices is that you share the same battery for multiple jobs. In my case, my phone might run low on power because I've been accessing the web or watching videos. One option, therefore, is to get a rugged phone with good battery life just to be a phone, and an iPod to manage non-phone things, so it won't matter so much if you flatten the battery. - Bilby (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question means Apple is doing a good job: pointing a HUGE up arrow when you are considering a product (iPod) that does only a fraction of what another product does (iPhone). It's the same with McDonald's: Why would you pay $3.99 when for just a few cents you can have a much bigger drink and fries, the number of extra calories and the very little extra cost means, why would anyone ever get a "small" of anything, instead of at least the medium?? Yet, small is on the menu, and yet Apple does sell a lot of iPods. When you realize that people have all sorts of choices as to how they spend their money, it starts to make sense. Why would I buy a BMW 3-series, when the 5-series is really not that much more expensive and does so much more? Well, maybe that's my budget, and that's what I need... 217.136.92.148 13:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.92.148 (talk) [reply]

Of course as several people have pointed out, the iPhone is not just a few cents more but in fact about 3x more... Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you want it to really do anymore more than the iPod Touch, you need to purchase a rather expensive monthly phone plan as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, if you just want the phone part, the ability to send SMS and with a new iPhone since whenever they decided to support it the ability to send MMS not really a prepay plan will do in many countries. Similarly if you have good wifi access and aren't really that hogtied to having continous internet access on your phone so you'll only need mobile packet data occassionally again a prepay plan may be fine in some countries. Considering the price of the iPhone it's unlikely many will want to only do that but if it wer say only 20% more then an iPod touch I could see it being worthwhile (well personally I don't consider even an iPod touch worthwhile but that's a different matter). Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people still don't want a smart phone. Some people don't want to be tied into a contract. Having no data plan is way cheaper in the long run. Some people have an android smartphone and want an iOS device as well. Some people are younger and their parents won't let them have a phone yet. Some people are obsessive gadget collectors. Some people have an iPod touch as a "backup" for their iPhone... I personally bought an iPhone because I got an iPod touch and I loved it, so when my contract was up I sold the iPod touch and bought an iPhone (and due to subsidized costs of the phone, I even made a small profit on the initial purchase). 206.131.39.6 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why you have to be tied to a contract to own an iPhone in a number of countries. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only way to get a new iPhone in the US, so it's a reason for some people. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? [1] suggests you are mistaken although things could have changed since August 2010. Also in most countries where the iPhone is officially sold I'm pretty sure parallel importation is allowed and the iPhone is popular enough seems unlikely there are many countries where you really can't get an iPhone without contract... Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 February 7

Contents