Computing desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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 22

Freeware OCR

I need a program to take a scan of columns of numbers, or pages from a book, and convert it to a file I can place in a text document or spreadsheet. Any suggestions of an effective program free of malware? Edison (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Comparison of optical character recognition software. You probably got a commercial OCR program on the software/driver CD when you purchased your scanner.-gadfium 02:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 formulas in 1 Google Sheets cell

Is it possible to have 2 formulas in 1 cell? For example, I'm creating a spreadsheet of stock transactions. I want it to show the difference between the price i sold at and the price i bought at in numbers and as a percentage increase/decrease. CTF83! 03:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can try calculating, formatting and concatenating the two values in a single formula - something like =TEXT(B1-A1,"$#,##0.00") & " (" & TEXT((B1-A1)/A1, "0.00%") & ")", where A1 and B1 are the purchase and sale prices. This would give you something like "$1,111.11 (33.33%)". You will not have much control over alignment though. -- Tom N talk/contrib 04:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is there a way to make it so if the sold column is empty it won't show negative? Do I just need to unformat if I haven't sold? I did SUMIF <1 before the percent was added. CTF83! 05:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can wrap the entire expression in an IF function like =IF(B1="", "", ... ), where "..." is the earlier expression (without the leading "="). -- Tom N talk/contrib 18:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer speakers' subwoofer does not work (Edifier S730)

Sort of at a loss there. No manner what I try, there's never any sound coming from the subwoofer. I verified all connections, and made sure that the SW's volume was set to theoretically audible if working. Help would be appreciated.

Edifier S730 user manual direct link: http://www.edifier-international.com/sites/default/files/product-files/s730_en.pdf Pictures: https://imgur.com/a/N2Rdk Matt714 (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever work ? If so, what changed around the same time it stopped working ?

Also note that not all audio sources contain anything for the subwoofer to play, so be sure you have something with lots of low bass to play. StuRat (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That did it. I was insisting on having the subwoofer tested with Spotify, which needs some fiddling around to make the sub work. YouTube worked like a charm. Matt714 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Instal 16-bit Scrabble Program for Windows 95 on a Windows 7 Computer

When I try to install the disk with autorun, nothing happens. When I try to install the disk by opening the install folder I eventually get a warning that the 16-bit program is not compatible with the 64-bit system. Is there ay way around this? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could install an emulator that allows running 16-bit programs. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7 supports Windows XP Mode.[1] -- Gadget850^talk 08:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that run 16-bit programs ? StuRat (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Windows XP Mode: "Windows XP Mode may be used to run 16-bit applications." -- Gadget850^talk 18:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP Mode is only available for Windows 7 Professional and above, not Home or Basic. DOSBox is free and you can install Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 in it, but you need a copy of Windows 95 or 3.1. -- BenRG (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extracting photographs

I've run into this a few times: is there a way to extract the full-resolution photo from websites like this? The image is PD, published in 1906 in Briarcliff Outlook, but I can't find a resolution higher than 1200x764. Clearly the image exists somewhere within that website in a much higher resolution. I've had the same problem with MCNY photographs. Thanks for your input.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 06:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that website doesn't provide it at full-sized (or maybe does, but only behind a pay wall), you could try using TinEye to try to find one that does provide it full-sized and free. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in case you haven't tried this, be sure to click on the low-res pic to see if it takes you to a hi-res pic. (It might also take you to a mid-res pic and you then have to select that to get to the hi-res pic.) StuRat (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more wondering if someone has the technical expertise of finding where that image is hosted full-size. I'm familiar with Chrome's "Inspect Element" tool to find images, but it's not there; it must be viewable linked on the website's HTML or something.

I can view a very high resolution image, I just can't seem to download the whole thing.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 06:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think it's possible to take multiple snapshots and stitch them together. There's a program that somewhat automates the process, I believe. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has got to be a much easier way; could I respectfully request other users' input as well?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 06:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click the icon for 'full image'. Right click and 'view image' (Firefox, may differ for other browsers). This will bring up the image at 1194x679 (which appears to be th full resolution) and you can save it. -- Gadget850^talk 08:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Google image search nor TinEye can find any higher rez version than that; I suspect 1200x800 is the best you'll get without specifically contacting the owners of the website and asking them. SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that when you think you are viewing a high-res image, it's really just a low-res image, scaled up ? StuRat (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that "Clearly the image exists somewhere within that website in a much higher resolution". Some webmasters put only compressed versions on websites. Dbfirs 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, what I'm thinking is that he saw a scaled up low-res pic, assumed it to be a hi-res pic, downloaded it, and was disappointed to find it was low-res. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that myself! It's not always obvious on a low-res screen. Dbfirs 17:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that 1200x682 photo has sufficiently less detail when zoomed in than if I use the viewing software to zoom in. I don't think 'scaling up' can add detail, so I would assume a higher-res photo was used for that zooming capability on the original link. With this MCNY image, it's clear that the image you see is hardly the full-res copy, because if you click on the magnifying glass you can zoom in for much greater detail. I just can't access/download that more-detailed image; the only way I'm familiar with right now is the awfully slow way of taking many screenshots and stitching them together...--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean. The original image is very low-res (the easiest way to tell the resolution is probably to look at the "Briarcliff Lodge" caption). They have a "larger image" link which seems to show the same low res image. But, if you click on the magnifying glass, they allow you to zoom from 8% to 200%, but only see a small portion of the image at a time. If you set it at 100%, that would be 13×13 frames to stitch together, or 169. I think they are intentionally making it difficult to copy the full-res image, since they would rather sell you a copy. I estimate the original image at around 4000×4000 resolution. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the building in that photograph is hardly visible in the original image, but in the magnifier copy, it can become very clear. It seems they are making it very difficult to access; I was hoping someone would have some technical ability to access the original photograph.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are using Adobe Flash Player to show the magnified portions. I see no technical reason why a program couldn't be written to pan the image, take snapshots, and stitch it all together automatically, but that doesn't mean anyone has done so yet. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be simpler to contact the webmaster and buy a copy since they are deliberately making it so difficult to access. You would need some good stitching software to recombine all the zoomed views. Apologies for commenting earlier without trying out the zoom. Dbfirs 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The zoomed subimages are obtained from URLs of the form

http://imgzoom.cdlib.org/Converter?id=/13030/3n/kt2g50143n/files/kt2g50143n-z1.jp2&s=1&r=0&x=0&y=0&w=1200&h=1200

where s is the scale, r is the rotation (0/90/180/270), and x, y, w, h define the rectangle within the scaled image to return. The subimage is returned in JPEG format. The maximum value for w and h is 1200. The "id", /13030/3n/kt2g50143n/files/kt2g50143n-z1.jp2, is clearly a filesystem path to the original JPEG 2000 image, but there's no apparent way to download it directly. It would probably be easy to modify dezoomify or a similar tool to fetch these images. -- BenRG (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that looks like exactly the tool I described above. What would need to be modified for it to work, in this case ? StuRat (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MS Outlook 'appointment date' issue

Peeps, I have an issue: My PC ‘time and date’ setting is fixed to ‘Universal time zone’. I’m in a different country, if I change the time zone than it messes up my MS Outlook 2010 calendar appointments. I clicked on ‘File’ menu after opening the MS outlook, clicked on ‘Option’ feature, Clicked on the ‘Calendar’ from the left pane of the window that appeared after clicking on the ‘Option’ feature, scrolled down to the ‘time zone’ section, fiddled around with it, did not work…it messes up my appointments whichever way I try to change it from i.e., from the right hand bottom side where the clock is as well as from MS Outlook. Is there a solution to it? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Can you describe how it messes them up ? Also, be sure you not only consider time zones, but also Daylight Savings Time in your settings. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found any 'Daylight Savings Time' option anywhere, can you direct it's location for me to turn it on please?

Description of the Issue: The 'appointment' is set for 12 o'clock (12:44), when the time zone is changed to '(+6:00)', whichever way I change it from, it moves the appointment to '19:something'. When I click on the appointment to fix the time, it displays '12:44'. I don't know what to do... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

On my Windows 7 PC, I click the current Windows time, then click on the "Change time zone..." button, then check or uncheck the "Automatically adjust clock for Daylight Savings Time" box. In previous Windows versions, there was also an option to manually adjust the time zone.

As for the problem, it does look like a bug, in that the displayed time is adjusted for you current time zone, while the time you see when you click on it is not. However, presumably you can still adjust the appointment time, accounting for the offset (7 hours ?) to get it to display the correct time. So, if you want it to display 12:44, and you are getting 19:44, set it to 5:44 instead. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to resolve this issue tomorrow as I've ran out of time now. Speak to you tomorrow! -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I have Window 7 (Ultimate) too, I can't seem to find the box you mentioned.

I'm sure there is a bug in the MS Outlook software, because when I change the title of an appointment and delete it thereafter, it relocates into the 'delete' folder but doesn't change the title... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Weird, so no way to control Daylight Savings Time on that PC ? StuRat (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to, the way you defined, I'm assuming it is by clicking the clock situated on the right hand bottom side of the taskbar, next to the notification tray, inside the monitor screen, after clicking the clock, a small window appears with a calender on the left and an analog clock on the right, I clicked the 'change time and date setting' link available at the bottom of the window, another window appears with three 'tabs' closing the previous one, the first 'tab' 'date and time' displays two buttons 1) 'change date and time', 2) 'change time zone', the latter two 'tabs' not subjugated, I clicked both the buttons, I didn't seem to find a box... The only other way the 'Daylight Saving' thing, works in my PC, could be the internet connection, e.g., every time I change the time it automatically fixes itself to the original settings, still, it does not mitigate the MS Outlook issue... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The 'change time zone' button is what leads me to the box where I can choose to automatically update the time zone. It won't fix your bug, but might help explain why you are off by 7 hours instead of the expected 6.

Did you try adjusting the appointment time by -7 hours as a workaround ? Did that work ? StuRat (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It muddles up the whole thing... The only option is to recreate them all, what I inclined to avoid...(a headache and waste of time). Thank you anyways, I appreciate your help... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry I couldn't help more. StuRat (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concluding matter is straight cut in this topic. Thank you for trying, however much...

Kind regards. -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Ram and motherboard or psu combo

I have a pc since 2010 , and its having some issues.

-Wont turn on -Change the rams places , wont turn on -add a different ram with lower memory and one of my own rams, wont turn on -remove the graphic card , it turns on.... - check the psu with a multimeter and its within the allowed values -add the graphic card , wont turn on -removed the battery and cmos while the graphic card was still on , it gets working... -after some time ...it wont work.

-I have a 400W PSU , is it possible that the frequencies required for the ram and graphicc card , are asking for more voltage than the one that the psu gives?

-Or is it just some missmatching of frequencies from the motherboard and the ram and the graphic card.

The motherboard is a foxconn am2/am3.....

Thank you........Ddeevviiss (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the wattage of each component ? Perhaps the total is over 400W, and pulling the graphics card drops it down below that. (And even if the rated wattage is OK, perhaps the power supply is supplying less wattage than rated, or one of the components is using more than rated.) StuRat (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So would be a good idea to change my psu or just find the faulty element that consumes more watts? Thanks...Ddeevviiss (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What CPU and GPU do you have? How many hard disks and other things do you have plugged into the PSU? Vespine (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitors in PC power supplies are the most and earliest failing parts, sometime operating out of specificatins. Typical failures can not be tested with a volt meter. If you get the idea to repair ist yourself, note even when removing the plug from the power grid, the psu will store hazardous voltage inside. If you are not an engineer and familiar with this technology, do not try this at home. It also requires knowledge of electronics and electrical safety and spare parts with required to be made for such application. Fire, hazards, eletrical damage is caused by unadequte repair or modification. Onboard (Mainboard), there are also stepdown converters. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 03:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the caring Hans, and yes I am an IT. Still I dont wanna buy a new PSU without being secure that it has the problem. I have a amd 2.9 ghz plus a ndvida 9500 gt. Sitll cant find the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddeevviiss (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a bigger power supply you can borrow, just as a test to see if that's the issue ? If not, I suppose you could buy one from a store with a generous return policy, then return it if that isn't the issue. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In being careful, I mean repairing the PSU. Refer the German version of the article, it may give some other details. Only opening the a PC made in this century, just care about electrostatic discharge, you already knew. Did you try another graphic card – without the 9500gt installed in the system? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 10:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]