Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 February 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.

February 2

USB RF RECIEVER FUNCTION

I have an older accessory and am tring to figure out its function. It is labeled a usb rf reciever. I believe it is some sort of syncronizing device for computers. It is made by Gyration and is a small box that has five indicator lights named status-number-caps-scroll-and conflict. On the top side it has a learn button. What is this objects function? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.100.199 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Gyration makes wireless mice and keyboards. Sounds like you've got the little usb receiver doodad that you plug into a PC so you can use their keyboard. The number, caps, and scroll lights correspond with numlock, capslock, and scrolllock buttons on the keyboard. To mate a specific keyboard with the doodad you typically hold down the learn button on the doodad and the keyboard at once. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A Google search led me to a pdf manual, which you might be for this particular device (the receiver is described on page 14). — daranz [ t ] 00:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Going back to Windows 7 after upgrading to Windows 8

So 24 hours ago I downloaded and installed Windows 8, and I already LOATHE it. I wish to go back to the Windows 7 that came preinstalled on my computer (I have the recovery disk). I googled for info, but it's been of little help, as it mostly seems to only provide info for pcs that are preinstalled with Windows 8. I didn't do a clean install, I only migrated my files and settings, so I was wondering if it's possible to downgrade to Win 7? I hope I'm not stuck with this massive mistake. :( 70.55.108.19 (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you hate the completely new user interface, designed for touch screen devices, like most people do. If so, before you give up on it, try this: http://classicshell.sf.net/. That will restore the Classic Windows look. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you're not willing to pay for Start8, there's this which copies the explorer.exe and a few other things from a Windows 7 CD to the computer, effectively disabling Metro and returning the start menu. ProtossPylon 05:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I just want my old OS back. I don't want to replicate certain aspects of it, I want the real thing back. I hate Windows 8. Biggest waste of money ever. I just contacted the manufacturer of my computer, and they told me a downgrade is only possible with a Win7 installation disk, and that I'd have to contact Microsoft for further information. My computer came equipped only with a recovery disk. I don't want to have to buy a copy of Win 7 when I already have a valid license key. 70.55.108.19 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The best thing I can suggest then is to back up all of your important stuff and do a fresh install of Windows 7. There's no way to safely downgrade, if I remember correctly. You could try installing Windows 7 on top of the Windows 8 partition and see if it works, but still, have a backup on hand. I hate Windows 8 just as much as you do, too, honestly. ProtossPylon 06:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have all the registration keys and such, it should be possible to use Windows 8 to download Windows 7 from Microsoft to a new disk partition (expect this to take many hours), then wipe Windows 8 out of the current partition, and reinstall 7. However, all of your personalization might be lost, in this manner. Microsoft is not so concerned about preserving personalization when downgrading the O/S, as they assume everyone will love everything new they make. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a recovery partition on my HDD, can I restore Win 7 from it or does installing Win 8 render it completely useless? 70.55.108.19 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a general rule that every other Windows version is crap. Windows XP was decent, then Vista was crap. Windows 7 is decent, and now Windows 8 is crap. Perhaps we can convince MS to add a ".C" suffix to their crap versions of Windows, to make this more obvious ?  :-) StuRat (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to reinstall it with factory settings? Like how it was when I bought it? This nightmare feels like a crappy marriage I'm desperate to get out of :( 70.55.108.19 (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, getting Windows 7 back as fresh install with factory settings should be possible, but getting your money back and saving any customization is probably not possible. I'd still suggest you try the free link I provided above, and at least see if Windows 8 is acceptable with the Classic Windows interface, before "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". It will be far simpler and quicker than going all the way back to Windows 7, and you won't lose your personalization. StuRat (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about getting my money back, I don't care about losing customization (as long as my files and programs are spared). This new OS makes my system lag and eats up my RAM even though there was promise of it being faster and lighter on the resources. I need to get rid of it. 70.55.108.19 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Switch to a free Unix OS and you won’t ever be put into this position again. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Who told you it used fewer resources ? Looking at the system requirements for Windows 7 [1] and Window 8 [2], they look identical. As for keeping your old programs, you would likely need to reinstall each of them after you wipe Windows 8 and reinstall Windows 7. If you have the install disks, this should be easy. If you have registration keys, or the programs are free, then you could download the programs and reinstall them after you reinstall Windows 7. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Going by system requirements is a very limited way of gauging performance. Since you mentioned Windows Vista above, I would have thought this obvious. There was no difference in the system requirements, but it's well accepted that Windows 7 generally performed better and used less resources, particularly on a borderline system.

In fact it was one of the few clearcut advantages of Windows 7 of Windows 8, there were other changes often minor but the evidence I saw was that the reason why people hated Windows Vista but liked 7 was not so much because of the extra polish but simply because people had gotten over their hate of the changes by the time Windows 7 came out. And in particular, hardware vendors had gotten their act together and released drivers. Software developers had fixed any apps which didn't work on Windows Vista (usually because the app was flawed from the start). And those hardware and software people who hadn't, well frequently far fewer people cared about their stuff by the time 7 came out. The other big advantage Windows 7 had was beyond the improved performance, hardware had advanced significantly in the years as it always does and so there were far fewer machines which were borderline for Vista being sold, and far fewer people still using them. Therefore far fewer people were trying to run 7 on machines were they possibly shouldn't anyway, compared to Vista. In other words, while Vista may have been slightly crap, the big advantage 7 had was not so much that it was less crap but people were far less likely to think it was crap.

Anyway large number of reviews have shown that Windows 8 generally performs better in a number of areas http:// www.examiner.com/article/windows-8-versus-windows-7-performance-shootout [3] [4], particularly in boot up times and app start up times. I can't comment on why the OPs experience was different from most other people, except perhaps to note that claims like 'makes my system lag' are highly subjective and therefore easily influenced by factors other then actual system lag and similar 'eats up my RAM' is fairly complicated as it depends greatly on installed and running apps and settings and in particularly how you're counting (most modern OSes are designed to eat up you RAM all the time for caching purpose if nothing else).

Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"clearcut advantages of Windows 7 of Windows 8" ? StuRat (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I meant clear cut advantages of Windows 7 over Windows Vista. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a recovery partition on my HDD, is it possible to restore Win 7 from there or does having Win 8 installed render it completely useless? 70.55.108.19 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Short answer, yes, it will restore Windows 7. You will probably need to check Google or your computer's manual for the key combination to access it (if it's a dell, I think the key is ctrl-f11 right after boot or something). Usually, they clear the entire main partition and then place a fresh install of Windows right where it was. ProtossPylon 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Easy way to find out. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A recovery point normally doesn't store the entire O/S, so it won't be able to restore Windows 7. You'll need to reinstall Windows 7 after downloading it. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

IME what people refer to as recovery partitions do, however. VARs’ solution to not wanting to press and include (re)install media. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Microsoft Word 2013 Equation Editor

Has there been any improvements/changes to the equation editor in Microsoft Word 2013 (compared to Word 2010)? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Equation Editor" add-on, or just the native insert equation functionality? Seems there are two similar things here which are different - see [5] ---- _nonsense ferret 00:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean the new one (the 'native' one, first introduced in Word 2007). The old one (the OLE object) is very obsolete. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I haven't noticed any differences after several hours' use. 220.233.107.108 (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Blue Ray that can actually browse the internet

I bought a Sony Blue Ray player a few years ago that said internet ready, and which the salesman assured me I could use to browse the internet. What it actually came with was access to YouTube, and about 20 pay channels that allowed video streaming, and no access to the web itself for general browsing.

At this point I am using a laptop through the hdmi port to browse the internet from the TV, but I don't like having to dedicate a computer to that use, have the computer on and open to the same page, etc.

We don't even have an article on blue ray players, and our article on blue ray in general says internet when it means access to limited pay content through an internet connection--the same with google searches, leading to things like "internet ready" players at Amazon, which seems to mean capable via wifi of accessing limited and usually pay channels.

Is there an information on a device that will actually play my discs and allow me full web access, not just to the channels they offer? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sony PS3 is a device that would allow you to watch blu rays and surf the web. However, I personally find this quite a frustrating experience and compares to the experience of web surfing with smart tvs. I would anticipate any dedicated blu ray player giving similar results. I therefore have a media pc with a blu ray drive under my tv as it is only this that I have found meets all my media/surfing needs without too much hassle. ---- _nonsense ferret 22:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't even watch TV, just use my laptop to download, stream and watch discs. My interest is for my parents, who would occasionally like to see things on the internet. They wouldn't be editing wikipedia, for example. I had been thinking of getting them a Wii, since they like the bowling. But I don't think it allows plain web surfing. So the PS3 will allow full web surfing? What is frustrating about it? I'm also curious if it comes with the same sort of bowling game as Wii. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

re bowling games - have a look at PlayStation Move - this is motion detecting similar to the wii controller and there are quite a few different games. re frustration - it is probably just a personal thing, i guess if you got a keyboard and mouse it might be a bit better, using the game controller or bluray remote always felt like a hassle to try to find a web page, and for me a very pale (and slow) imitation of using firefox with mouse and keyboard and all the plugins/addons and multiple tab/window capabilities. I am not sure it will necessarily be compatible with every site, but at least they seem to have a flash plugin. I tried to use the PS3 but never found it intuitive for surfing. If your parents are anything like my older relatives then I've seen an ipad (other tablets will be just as good I'm sure, and cheaper) be a really successful (addictive!) way to get complete computer novices surfing the web, and I've seen an inexpensive netbook be a good option for someone that has a little bit of familiarity with computing but only wants to get online for shopping etc. I've seen a smart tv fail really as it was too complicated to use a remote control to get a web page up (I struggled, and someone unfamiliar with computers just found it not worth trying. ---- _nonsense ferret 22:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, my father has two laptops and is happy surfing them. My mother is crotchety and rejects anything new you suggest to her, and will never learn to browse herself. But she was introduced to the Wii as a game at my sisters, and will accept that. They have enjoyed it when I have found movies or old episodes of What's My Line, which they could simply stream but which I have had to download, bring to their hose, and show them through my hdmi port. Looking on line I see there is an "internet channel" available for the Wii that supposedly allows you to browse. I'll have to see if we have information of that. I am curious if there is any good commentary or anyone can give an educated statement on whether there is any hidden catch with using a Wii to browse. I assume being able to search google and click on a link will be sufficient for our purposes. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. Not having a keyboard and mouse makes entering search terms extremely tedious. I suggest Medeis get them a cheap netbook and hook that up to the TV. That will provide the mouse (or equivalent) and keyboard which are otherwise absent, and, as a plus, they can unplug it and take it with them, say if they want to store a pic they find online and then show it to others. StuRat (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at the Wii article, it implies that internet channel can be used with a USB keyboard. If that's the case, I would think a logitech keyboard with a mousepad attached to the Wii with the internet channel should let my dad browse from the couch through the Wii and watch videos, unless I am mistook? μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't used a wii, but maybe [6] might be of assistance - and I guess you can always go the shop and try it, but take a list of different sorts of websites that they might use - some of the shopping ones/tv ones are the most complicated for web browsers to cope with. Bit of a leftfield suggestion maybe the raspberry pi could be a cheap and cheerful alternative :) ---- _nonsense ferret 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah and the other thing I wanted to add is - surfing the web on a tv from a chair can be a bit painful - my eyesight is ok, but at about 6 feet away from a 40 inch screen at 1080P resolution I don't find it comfortable to view most sites without a lot of zooming in and out (although obviously it is fab for video) - bit of a strain on the eyes, and money no object i'd personally prefer a handheld tablet or netbook type thing. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a sony blueray that has a web browser on it. The webbrowser isn't very advanced, and I haven't tried it with flash or javascript, but if you have a specific question about those I can test it out later. It also has the youtube and pandora apps, among other things. I can answer more specific questions if you let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting to see that Sony now offers a browser. No, the point would not be to use the TV for actual browsing-browsing, but to go on occasion to clips from the news, use HULU, check the weather, use FreeTV--basically stuff that would replace some of the functionality of cable with just enough searching to get us to a clickable content website. At this point I'd like to see a screenshot of how the internet channel at Wii looks, although our article doesn't provide one. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My blueray has Hulu, but I think it only works with Hulu+. It has netflix, which is great if you have a subscription to netflix. It also has pandora, youtube, a few other pre-loaded things. You can hook a keyboard up to it too with usb... I'm not sure about a mouse. It's ok, probably not exactly what you want though. Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hulu is decent on a window on your computer monitor, but the resolution is too low for a full-sized TV. It would look terrible. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with this - the quality may be affected if you don't have much throughput on your internet connection, but I watch hulu on my tv using a media PC in fullscreen and the picture looks great to me. The only downside is adverts. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the lede in our article: "Hulu provides video in Flash Video format, including many films and shows that are available in 288p, 360p, 480p, and in some cases, 720p HD." Now, you must admit that 288p is going to look like crap on a full-sized TV. I apparently have been unlucky enough to get that resolution. Even 720p isn't great, especially if it's been upconverted from a lower res and/or is displayed on a large, 1080p screen. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this link [7] by Ferret seems scary and helpful. The last thing I want is a standard def internet connection that can't be read! μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)