Computing desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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.

May 15[edit]

Touchpad and pointer options on a laptop[edit]

It's a employer supplied Lenovo T400 with XP. I had the tap function turned off last week but a software update has apparently turned the tap function back on again. All I want it to do is move the cursor around. Not in slow motion. Just move it at regular speed. I've managed to turn the touchpad tapping function off (good) but in doing so, this disables the TrackPoint (the red button thing in the keyboard) (bad). I want to use both the touchpad and the trackpoint for moving the cursor and I only want to click on things with the buttons below the trackpad. What am I doing wrong? #$%^ I hate Windows.... grumble... grumble... Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. A reboot fixed it. Why it takes a reboot of the entire f'ing system to fix, I haven't the faintest idea but it's working the way I want it to now... Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On one of my old Dell laptops, I located and downloaded a (free) third party driver from the vendor who had supplied the touchpad to Dell. It was probably Synaptics. That driver gave me more options (including the removal of tap-equals-a-mouse-click) that the Dell driver did not support. May be worth a shot if you have problems in the future; but I can't remember exactly how I deduced that Synaptics was the creator of the little touchpad on my particular laptop. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Password crack[edit]

Hi,

I've installed a parental control software on my kid's computer (Tueagles Anti-Porn). I haven't saved the password, thinking I would never need to uninstall the software. Now this bloody program is blocking everything on the computer: it's impossible to use Firefox and plenty of pages are blocked for 'adult content' (including Google News, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc.). Is there a way I could crack the password to uninstal Anti-Porn? (there is not even a way to get the password by email).

Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.221.71 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit - cleaned up the article by deleting duplicates) -Amordea (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking at some registry editing with that. I don't know what registry keys this program has changed and am not fixing to install it to find out! Without registry edits, I'd say what might work is manually deleting the files to the program first (by going into the program files folder which contains the program itself). You may need to shut down the program first to do this (via Task Manager) and/or reboot the computer a few times during the manual deletion process. You may even need a file unlocker. Your browser still might be locked after this, but you can uninstall Firefox, deleting all the old settings, and then reinstall it and see if that fixes everything. This is the simplest solution I can think of without getting into messy and potentially damaging registry editing. -Amordea (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for suggesting the obvious, but: What did their customer support site say to do? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

music extraction from song[edit]

Hello I have to ask you people,How can I extract the Music from a song not the voice of the song.please give any solution.Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.209.159 (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this quite easily in Audacity. In the latest beta, 1.3.12, the vocal remover can be found at Effects -> Vocal Removers (for center-panned vocals)... As the label suggests, it only works well if the vocals are located in the center of a stereo track, which should be the case for most popular music. If you choose to use the latest stable version, 1.2.6, instead, instructions for performing the same technique manually can be found here. For the few songs I have tried in the past it seems to work pretty well, although backing vocals are usually left in and some instrument parts may be cut out along with the vocals. Xenon54 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above won't work as well as you may think. When any song is recorded in the studio, each instrument and vocal is recorded on its own separate track, and then all the tracks are mixed together. All that we ever hear on the radio or from an mp3 file is a final mix; we don't have access to the separate tracks. The "vocals deletion" technique mentioned above attempts to take out sounds that are at a particular range of audio frequencies, which will not catch all of the vocals, and which will stomp down instrument sounds in the same frequency range. The only way to get a really excellent vocal-less track would be if the original recording artist creates a new mix without the vocals track. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Comet Tuttle is right. Vocal removal is highly non-trivial. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the vocals are located in the centre of the stereo field, and are unprocessed (no stereo reverb etc.), vocal removal is trivial. One of the channels is inverted, and the two channels are mixed into a mono track. This will of course also remove or weaken other instruments that are located in the centre of the stereo field, and you end up with a mono track. --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that method isn't vocal removal, it's common-mode signal removal. If (and only if) the common-mode ("center") signal is exactly and only the vocals, then common-mode suppression, as you described, will remove the vocals. In some cases, especially in commercially-produced pop-music, this is a suitable method; but most songs are not center-panned vocal-only. That would mean that every other instrument is exclusively on either the right or left track, which is rare. Actually detecting the vocal signal, using some kind of frequency filter or advanced signal-estimation method, is very hard - probably at the very far edge of "barely works in a research laboratory setting," let alone "ready for end-users to operate with a one-button vocal-removal tool." See our article source separation, particularly the "cocktail party" problem. Nimur (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the answerers in this thread agree on the technicalities. It all boils down to what the OP wants to achieve. For Karaoke purposes, a mix of the stereo channels, with one channel inverted and amplitude-adjusted to match the other channel, will effectively remove the vocals for a lot of pop music, provided stereo reverb was not used in the recording. Using this technique will, obviously, remove instruments that you might like to preserve and leave you with a mono track. If you want to remove the vocals or any other instrument exclusively, it is of course an entirely different matter. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rechargeable batteries[edit]

My home phone handsets use rechargeable AAA batteries. 1.2v, Ni-Mh, 550mAh.

I'm guessing that they're getting pretty old, as they don't seem to hold their charge as long as they used to - if the handset's off the cradle for more than a day then it dies, and call times aren't great any more either.

I went looking for replacement batteries, but the only ones I could find were 800mAh - I could find ones with higher numbers, but none lower, and no 550s.

So here's my question - can I just use the 800s? Or do I have to track down 550s?

Thanks for your help. I know Nyassa (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mAH figure just refers to how much charge they hold, so the 800s will last longer, and in all other ways will be just as good. --Phil Holmes (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, thank you. I know Nyassa (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet connection won't last in XP[edit]

My laptop has a recently installed Win XP OS. I use an ADSL connection requiring id and password. I get connected and for a few minutes it is okay then the connection freezes invariably. It won't last more than three or four minutes. The connection just freezes and the system doesn't even display the disconnection. I can reconnect after a number of efforts but the browser wouldn't recognise the connection and no data transfer takes place then. What could be the problem? --117.204.83.115 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried restarting ALL your devices yet? (modem, router, and computer...I know it sounds basic, but never underestimate the power of a device restart)

Having tried that, have you called your ISP yet? I would let them take a whack at it first since they are going to know your network better than we will. It might not be a problem on your end and only your ISP will be able to inform you if this is the case. -Amordea (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried everything with devices but that doesn't seem to be the problem, unless the NIC of my laptop is broken. It couldn't be the problem at the end of the ISP either because the connection works alright on my desktop. --117.204.82.49 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could very well be broken. But of course, you'll want to exhaust all your other options first since the NIC is integrated into the motherboard--usually not worth the cost of a repair (unless you happen to be handy with the soldering iron).

Intermittent failures are tough to track. Generally things work or they don't work. Hardware-wise, you may want to try a) plugging into a different port on your router, b) ensuring the cable is good (yes, I know you get a connection, that doesn't mean the cable is good--try switching it out with your other computer's to ensure it's not excessive line noise from a partially damaged cable) and that the plugs are fit snugly into both ends. That's about all you can do on the hardware end without spending money.

On the software side, it could be a driver issue. Download the latest driver, then uninstall the old one, then install the new one and reboot. If not a driver issue, I really could not tell you. I'd still recommend calling the ISP if you haven't. If it's some weird sort of authentication bug, I wouldn't be able to identify it for you, but they would.

If all else fails, both wired and wireless USB devices are cheapcheapcheap. You can get either on Newegg for ~$10-20 easily, so I wouldn't spend too much money on troubleshooting a potentially broken device.

Hope that helps! -Amordea (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you describe your exact set-up, please? Do you have a separate ADSL modem, and that's connected to a router which is connected to your laptop by Ethernet? Or is the ADSL modem connected to the laptop with USB and no router? Or what, exactly. Device manufacturers and types would also help. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Application Server in Windows Component Wizard[edit]

I tried to install ASP.NET and SMTP as explained here and here, but I don't have "Application Server" option under "Accessories and Utilities". I tried to install the programs from "Internet Information Services" in the "Administrative Tools" file, but I couldn't find any "Details" option. Any Suggestions? Thanks, 20:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Which version of Windows do you have? If I recall, these features are only available on the Windows Server editions, and maybe on some of the Windows "Professional" releases. As you can see, the instructions for SMTP in IIS are for Windows Server. Nimur (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu/Windows 7 dual boot[edit]

I've decided it's time to stick it to The Man and get a Linux operating system. I'm not that radical, though, so I plan on keeping my Windows OS around and creating a Dual Boot with my Windows 7 (already on the machine) and Ubuntu 10.04 (downloading a disk image as I write this). This is my first time doing such a thing (I'm not terribly good with computers), so I sort of need step by step instructions. I've found this helpful guide. It's a bit out of date (gives Ubuntu 9.10 rather than 10.04), but I think it ought to work. I'd like it if someone could read over that and make sure I'm not going to turn my computer into a brick. I'd also like it if you could look at my understanding of the process, to make sure I know what's going on. I'm going to:

Back up my system (I'm actually already backed up) in case things go bad and I erase my files. I also have a copy of my recovery disk on hand in case I fail.
Shrink my Windows partition: I figure I can get it into 50 GB, or so.
Create two new partitions (using Ubuntu from the disk): one for Ubuntu (about 50 GB again?), and one for storage (the remainder of my ~300 GB hard drive).
Make an Ubuntu installation disk by downloading from [1] (doing that right now) and burning it onto a CD.
Insert my CD, restart, and install Ubuntu into my newly created partition (the smaller one).
Connect my libraries in both operating systems to the storage partition.

He also mentions creating a "swap file", and links to this FAQ that is a bit beyond me. I've got 4 GB of RAM: do I really need a swap file? If so, how should I make it (create a separate partition, or do it in storage, like the lifehacker guy recommends)? How big should I make it?

For the record, I'm running an ASUS U81A laptop with an Intel Core2 processor, 4 GB or RAM, about 300 GB hard drive, and Windows 7 Home Premium (64 bit) (whatever that means). I've got plenty of space left of my hard drive (~190 GB). Thanks. Buddy431 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone in your circumstance, I'd recommend you skip this and instead install VmWare or VirtualBox, and install Linux in that. If you're not confident about stuff like partitions and not sure you'll like Linux, then this is a perfectly good way of doing things. Performance with a decent virtualisation environment like VmWare is very good. You can get the Linux "box" to see the contents of the Windows drive by exporting it over SMB (that is, making it a network share) and subscribing to that share in Linux. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to do this, have VmWare allocate it a virtual disk of say 20Gb (I think newer VmWare versions don't actually consume that space until you need it, which you probably won't), have VmWare treat the .ISO you're downloading as a CD drive, and boot from that. Then boot the VM to that CD and let the installer take its default course. Once it's done installing, have VmWare stop using the .ISO as a drive, and you're all done. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guide you linked is geared toward a "technical" install of both on a new (blank) hard drive. If you already have Windows installed, the easiest way is using the (default) Ubuntu graphical installer instead [2] - it takes care of most of the work for you (unless you *know* you need something different, the defaults "just work"). The installer is smart enough to recognize that you have Windows installed on the disk already, and won't overwrite it unless you tell it to. Simply choose the "Guided - resize" option, and choose how much space you want each OS to have. If that still seems like too much of a hassle, there is also Wubi. With respect to swap files/swap partitions, there's currently a bit of debat about how much you need. Some say none is needed with modern memory sizes, others stick with a traditional 1-2 times your memory size. If you have the space to spare, there's no harm in putting swap in. Finally, you should be aware of ubuntuforums.org, the official unofficial support site of Ubuntu. Contrary to linux-geek stereotype, they're amazingly kind and helpful. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add - on current linuxes, there's no difference in performance in a swap file versus a swap partition. The only benefit to using a swap partition is putting swap on a separate hard drive from the rest of your files - a separate partition on the same drive doesn't improve anything. In fact, I'm not sure that the graphical installer even asks you about swap anymore - it can take care of reasonable defaults behind the scenes. You can always change things later, if it ever becomes an issue. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unfamiliar with Linux, it might be a good idea to first try a Live CD and only go for the install paths mentioned above once you are happy that Ubuntu is the Linux distribution for you. A Live CD is a much lower risk option, especially if you have never tried this before and then find you hate Linux.

One other thing that the other answerers above haven't mentioned is that the download process usually gives you an .ISO image. This needs to be burned onto a CD (though I have heard of software that will let you skip that step). When burning an .ISO file to CD, you don't just copy the file onto a CD, but it needs to be burnt in a special way. Your CD burning software will probably have an option to do this. Astronaut (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was certainly planning to run it from the CD for a while before I tried putting it on my hard drive. The virtualization route actually sounds like a pretty good way to go. I'll probably try that (assuming I like it). And assuming I do do that, how exactly would I get my "Linux in a box" to see my files? Mr. McWalter referenced a "SMB", which I have no clue what it is or how to set one up. Buddy431 (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was referencing Server Message Block which is basically file-sharing in Windows. This is a pretty straightforward process in VMware: After you perform the install of the OS on the virtual machine, you can shut it down and edit the properties of it from the main menu, click the Options tab, click Shared Folders, then click the radio button to enable Folder Sharing. Your shared Windows folders should be visible on the network to your virtual Ubuntu machine now.

Another very nice advantage of the virtual machine option over the Live CD is the persistence, meaning any changes you make to it are saved, which I think will give you a better chance to adapt to it. Not to mention you won't have to wait for slow CD access times unlike on the Live CD. -Amordea (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot guys. I got a virtual machine with Ubuntu up and running. I'll be sure to come here crying if I need more help. Buddy431 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]