Computing desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

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.

September 3[edit]

Old JVC Master COmmand II[edit]

I'm using an old JVC with rabbit ears. I need to watch Family Guy and the SImpsons tonight but the channel controls on the TV skip that station (channel 28). Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a technician but I understand your urgency. Moreover, I have not touched or watched a TV for years. Heck, you may suggest that I read the television article. The root cause of your problem may be many things. Is your television in your basement or above ground level? Something may be wrong with your remote control, antennae, television, or etc. Your last resort is to get a new TV. Otherwise, try living in my shoes. Anyway, I bet that you missed your shows. Better luck next time. --Mayfare 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

caught the end of family guy....I just bought a cheap universal remote from walmart where I can punch in the numbers. why no TV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time for watching TV, I will get a TV service provider. (Rogers cheated on my bill twice; I have stopped using them ever since.) --Mayfare 14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What probably happened is that your TV has auto-detected your channels, but for some reason detected this channel as static and therefore skips over it when switching channels. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norton's Dependence[edit]

Hello and sorry for asking too many questions day after day. My first computer displays its time in the order of day-month-year; so as the Norton AntiVirus 2007 software installed on that computer. My second computer displays its time in the order of month-day-year. The same, current antivirus software (Norton AntiVirus 2007), installed on my second computer, relies on the month-day-year format. Is this just one of the reasons why Norton AntiVirus 2007 is a strain on my system? Many thanks. --Mayfare 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting shouldn't mean anything, especially not in processor speed. The programs get the date from the computer in a direct way, not based on the internationalization formatting settings you have applied. --24.147.86.187 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have this TV, just change the option antenna to cable, for some strange reason channel stops reading at 27, but cable goes all the way, well not all the way only goes until 53 (wich sucks), antenna goes up to 83 but stops reading at 27 (my tv is just plain stupid)

Moving an OS from one HD to another?[edit]

Recently I received a free used 160 GB hard drive. My computer currently has 110 GB (on two HDs: 71.5 GB and 37.2 GB). The 160 GB drive has Windows 2000 Professional installed and some other stuff, but I don't want to save any of it. My current system has Windows XP Home SP2 on the 71.5 GB drive.

Could I completely erase the 160 GB drive somehow? (Zero-writing?)

Afterward, to make Windows XP functional on the 160 GB drive, would I only have to copy & paste the contents of my 71.5 GB drive (that already has Windows XP installed)?

Eep. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, if the drive letter for the new drive is the same as the old drive. I would think it would be a lot better to leave Windows XP Home SP2 on the 71.5 GB drive, then copy any data you have from your 37.2 GB drive to the new 160 GB drive. This would leave you with 231.5 GB in your comp and the 37.2 GB drive on the shelf. The copy process might have to be in two steps, from the 37.2 GB drive to the 71.5 GB drive, then on to the 160 GB drive. This assumes you have enough space on the 71.5 GB drive for the contents of the 37.2 GB drive. Do you ? (If not, there are other options.) StuRat 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so right now I have all three hooked up (luckily I have a 500W power supply), albeit the 160 GB drive is resting beside my computer due to lack of space inside. This is only temporary until I copy over the files. The 160 GB disk has been partitioned into four pieces, but I would prefer having it as a single piece. How can I restore it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just type mmc at Start/Run, File/Add or Remove Snap-ins and add Disk management, and you can delete the partitions and reformat your harddrive there. BUT, after you've copied all the files over it probably won't work as it doesn't copy the bootsector. I suggest you to use the dd command on a Linux LiveCD to copy your system drive over to the 160GB drive, then use something like Gparted to partition rest of the drive, and then copy all the things on the other harddrive in to the new partition(s). --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will take StuRat's suggestion and keep Windows XP where it is. However now I have to remove those partitions. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to the MS-DOS prompt/Command prompt and then type in FDISK. That utility allows you to destroy partitions and create new ones. Of course, destroying a partition makes it's contents go away, as you would expect. Note: this worked under Windows 98, I'm not sure about later versions. StuRat 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I once noticed that the copying I used for Win98 didn't work for WinXP, but then someone told me that was because it was installed on ntfs. So copying should only work if you work with the fat file system. That's just what I heard. Haven't tried it yet. DirkvdM 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that with Windows XP, it detects hardware changes and each hardware change counts as a "vote". Some components are worth more than others; the motherboard, for example, holds more votes than something like a sound card. XP might not like this, and due to the voting system your OS might become inactive. I think the limit is around 9 votes in differentiation between the hardware setup when Windows was activated, and the current hardware now. AvengeX 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think fdisk is installed with Windows XP. But here is the Microsoft Knowledge Base question on it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of it. I simply formatted the 160 GB drive and now use it as my secondary drive. My thanks to everyone for their help. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 file[edit]

I have an MP3 file of my favourite song saved on my computer. No DRM. I want to make it the background music of my blog. I know the HTML code to do it, but where/how can I upload it online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try a free hosting service, the internet is teaming with them. You can also upload it to your blog, if you administrate it on your own hosting account. You'll probably need to make sure uploading MP3s is fine with your host, as usually they're issued with cease and desist letters if any copyrighted material is hosted on their server without the permission of the copyright owner, which is often the case with most MP3 files unless explicitly stated otherwise. AvengeX 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a free hosting service which allows uploading of MP3s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.2 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your blog hosted on? --Spoon! 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogspot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.5 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background music is generally a bad idea, see for example [1] or anything at [2]. Conscious 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially higher quality files like mp3s, because it'll force people to download megabytes of data and also raise the bandwidth used, which would turn you away from many free webhosts. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will never visit your blog if you play background music. Please, offer it as a link, nobody expects music to start blasting in their speakers when browsing. I hate having to hunt down which tab is playing some stupid song that's messing up the music I'm already playing. For the sake of the internets, don't do it~ --⁪froth^t 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have a problem in asp scripting can u help me out[edit]

hi i am having a problem in asp. i want to use a msgbox function in asp page and getting an error object expected and a runtime error that is can't use msg box. i dont know how to use msgbox on server side scripting and i want the solution very urgently so please reply me immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.225.50 (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a frisky problem...[edit]

I now got a new laptop from Acer. It's an Acer Aspire 3680-2682. Now, the problem is: When I went to the Internet for the first time on the laptop, there was sound. But now, it's almost silent. I went to check the volume controls on the laptop and from the Start menu, but they were all normal, but it's still near-silent. What can I do to fix the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the sound level for some particular type of sound (like WAV files) has been turned down (some software does this automatically). Try going to Options + Properties on the volume controls to turn on all the volume sliders and make sure none are turned way down or on mute. StuRat 14:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One file File System[edit]

Is there a way to store many files and directories in a single file (like a zip file) but be able to run / add / modify them without the hassel of zip files. Like, for example, a mounted ISO image that you could use like a physical hard drive? Thanks! Hyper Girl 11:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention your operating system, but the Loop device article might be a good starting point. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Windows, TrueCrypt is high-quality free software which will give you similar functionality to the loopback device. (It also encrypts the file, which may be a good or a bad thing depending on why you want to do this.) -- BenRG 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do I use to clean an LCD screen?[edit]

Acetone? Turpentine? Windex? Pepsi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.86.63 (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generic LCD screen cleaning wipes

OR a damp (not wet or drippign)cloth , use a 'soft cloth' not tissue paper.

OR licking also helps - then dry with an item of clothing87.102.47.218 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Window cleaner ought to work. Those other chemicals might actually dissolve the screen, so don't use them. StuRat 14:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried using a moist cotton cloth, and it leaves horrible visible markings -- not really 'streaks', but darkened areas. Are you sure about window cleaner? You know that LCDs have a different surface than CRTs, right (not glass)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.86.63 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it's not clean yet! try to use a cloth with a very fine weave, you could clean it when the monitor is on.. the heat from the lampps behind help evaporate any moisture left -plus if it's on you can see if its working..87.102.47.218 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC) PS I use water - just keep wiping softly - oh and if you have grease spots - I was serious about licking - it works!87.102.47.218 17:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHEC?K YOUR MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS, usually. Water is often the safest bet. Don't use acetone or turpentine!! --24.147.86.187 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, diluted vinegar works a treat. Just remember to rinse it off with water or you'll get a nasty yellow tint on your screen. AvengeX 21:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you own a piano, you may use piano keyboard cleanser. I am interested in this question too. I will watch this question daily (just as frequently as I check my questions above). --Mayfare 21:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babywipes. Works like a treat. Wipe the screen in one direction then dry quickly after with plain kitchen roll. Works fine even with those extra shuny screens. ::Manors:: 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My toolbar won't display any windows[edit]

Yesterday, i set my itunes to show as a small bar and after that point the windows on my toolbar disappeared. The toolbar is present but any window, whether minimized or fully open wont display on the toolbar and i therefore have to use task manager to reopen them. however, after fiddling around with the movable dots i was able to fix the problem however after logging in this morning the problem reappeared. I have closed the toolbar through task manager and re opened it however the problem is still occurring.

Thanks 82.42.74.59 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've resized the iTunes bar, and the bit of your taskbar which shows open windows is squished. Just keep resizing the latter section until you get it right, or turn off the iTunes bar. --saxsux 16:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a font in a web page[edit]

Hi, assuming I have simple HTML in my page (using Frontpage) - how do I propagate my special font so that anyone who loads the page can use it? Or do I have to create graphics for every place I used that font? Sandman30s 13:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of technologies for font embedding, but I have a feeling they're depreciated because I never see them being used. I use sIFR when I want a headline to render in a specific font. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way is to make the text a picture, or series of pictures, then you don't have to worry about matching fonts. StuRat 14:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks people, that webmonkey link was exactly what I was looking for. It helps when you know the technique is called 'font-embedding' :) Sandman30s 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware though that it is generally bad practice to embed fonts, and it likely won't work in most browsers. Usually you want to stick with a set of a few core web fonts (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New, Helvetica, Georgia, Dingbats) that everyone should have, and even then you should specify alternatives if it is anything face (i.e. have Arial be a fall back for Helvetica, since some systems don't have the latter). --24.147.86.187 15:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would avoid the techniques in the article I linked to because they're not cross-browser compatible. I've just tried them and Embedded OpenType only works in Internet Explorer. TrueDoc doesn't work in any current browser. I would stick to web-safe fonts for body text and sIFR for headers (I prefer it over images as you don't have to create a new file every time you add a heading, and it scales with browser text) — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

programing to access the internet[edit]

Is there some way to access the internet using a c++ console program in Microsoft Visual Studio .Net 2003? I've seen some forums on some include called "shlwapi", but I can't seem to make that work. Thank you! Indeed123 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably looking for the Winsock api. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.60.25 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with DVD-RW Drive[edit]

Trying to use K3b (from Ubuntu) to write a DVD-video, but it says I have no writer drives and only detects my read-only drive. I do have a writer drive connected via USB, which can be found here: [3]

I can't tell if it's just the program or the OS at large that isn't recognizing it. I tried asking at the Ubuntu forums but haven't got an answer. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before trying anything fancy, let's find out if the OS has even noticed that there's something plugged in to the USB port. Go to a terminal and run sudo lsusb which should print a few lines of information about the detected USB devices. If that looks good, make sure the usb-storage, sg, and sr_mod kernel modules are loaded. Then if k3b still doesn't behave, report back on your results and we'll think up some more troubleshooting ideas. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have posted this. It just wasn't reading that port; another one worked. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lcd monitor/tv[edit]

besides the input connection in the back, is an LCD TV any different than an LCD monitor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's a different shape and resolution. LCD TVs will be 16:9, with resolutions of 1280x720, 1386x768 or 1920x1080. Monitors will generally be 16:10, with resolutions of 1200x800, 1440x900 or 1680x1050. Froglars the frog 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also they are often specifically designed for different uses so the technology/focus on what is important varies. On a screen expecting constant movement/change speed-of-change would be important (the old mhz) whereas on a monitor it may not change as much so this technology can be dumped in favour of something that, say, maintains very crisp/clear images that are stable. All speculation on my behalf mind. ny156uk 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am pretty sure tit is the opposite from what you say. Most computer monitors use a TN+ grid (especially if it claims to be a game monitor) which is very good for fast movements but is lacking in contrast and vertical viewing angle. TN+ is the by far most common technology for monitors, since it also happens to be the cheapest to produce. Contrast and viewing angle vital for TV and graphical artists, which is why expensive monitors and probably (just assuming since I have never bought one) most LCD TVs use other technologies. I believe most TVs use PVA grids, at least those with a godly contrast ratio (like the insane 3000:1). See our article on TFT LCD for this information and some more. Jeltz talk 23:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freudian slip there? And what about this monitor I got from my dad that's in 16:9 aspect ratio? This thing behaves like a mini-widescreen TV, but the 720 verticle pixels do make me appreciate other monitors. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why so expensive?[edit]

http://www.provantage.com/nec-display-solutions-lcd2180wg-led-bk~7NECL06C.htm

why is this so expensive (~$3500 !!!)? I've seen 21.3" LCD's go for under $500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because size is just a small factor in the price of a monitor. The quality of the output, the reliability etc. will affect the price. Also some monitors are highly calibarated to ensure better colour-rendition and more accurate colour representation - essential if you are producing work on screen that needs to be printed/written to some other medium. This model is presumably one that focuses on quality over price. For the average user such a price is, doubtlessly, too much but for those in the profession where such accuracy is paramount this could be the difference between acceptable and unacceptable. ny156uk 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between me and my negative counterpart =) Acceptable 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Laugh!) I like that one! --Mayfare 21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drive cleaning[edit]

lets pretend that a person hypotetically happened to vist their friends house and happened to view extensive amounts of porn on the computer. how would this perosn, oh, remove all, literally all, traces of this occurence(s)? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.78.253 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

serious question, by the way, not a prank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.78.253 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only fail-safe way of destroying any sort of data on a hard disk (though it will work for any medium) is to physically destroy the device beyond recovery. For example, smash it into bits, shred it, crush it, etc. Formatting the drive may destroy the data, but security experts don't format their drives and dump them because it's not secure enough. It all depends on who this person wants to hide it from. Delete > Empty Recycle Bin will hide it from most people, but those with deletion recovery tools can recover fragments or even all of the data. Deletion tools such as file shredders and nonsense overwriters can prevent this, but it's not guaranteed. See file deletion. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways of deleting various records of online activities, which vary with the browser. They may not actually remove the info from the tracks on the hard drive, but they will not be just hanging there for the next user to view by clicking the history button. In Internet Explorer, you can click Tools-Internet options- Delete browsing history. Then you will have a menu of things that you can delete. The more you delete, the more obvious it will be that you tinkered with the computer. Some choices are: Temporary internet files, Browsing history, Cookies, History, Form data, Passwords. If you delete form data or passwords, then every time the other users look at their favorite sites, it will want their user ID and password, and that might cause perplexity. Your choice. Edison 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LiveCDs. They're the shit. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure--lucid 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to clean the mess up too. AvengeX 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category-based file system[edit]

Are there any category-based file systems in use at the moment, like Gmail's labels? So if I want to find a 2005 financial report from Business A, it would be labelled "2005", "finance", "report" and "Business A", rather than the complicated subdirectory format "Business A > Finance > Report > 2005", which could need standardisation (say "2005 > Report > Finance > Business A" could be more useful if, say, we wanted to collate all 2005 reports from all businesses via a batch script, which might be harder if the former subdirectory structure was in use)? I understand that some programs like Microsoft Office offer keywords for files and a specialised search program, but are there any computer systems that use a file system entirely based on categories? x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wouldn't want an entire file system based around this, but you could imagine having a file browser which used this sort of thing, though it would need the user to put in a lot of meta-data for it to work. You could, of course, do the subdirectories however you wanted to on your own file system (C:\2005\Report\Finance\Business A), but I'm assuming you want it to be more flexible than this (and allow you to see all reports at once, regardless of year, for example). --24.147.86.187 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinFS works like this, but as its name implies, it's still in the future and may always be. Keep in mind that you don't have to use a complicated subdirectory format just because the filesystem supports it. You could put everything in one big directory and give your report a name like "{y=2005} {c=finance} {t=report} {b=Business A}.doc". Then shell globbing is enough to select the files you need in simple cases. I've used this technique occasionally and it works well. -- BenRG 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to develop one. It works reasonably well as a proof-of-concept, it just needs refinement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.102 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be File System has this feature. I'm sure there are people still using it, but not many. -- JSBillings 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is ZoneAlarm needed if using McAfee Security Center?[edit]

If a computer is protected by McAfee Security Center, which says it has firewall protection in addition to antivirus and spyware protection, is there a benefit from additionally using ZoneAlarm, or is there any possible conflict between the software products? Edison 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts are possible. I think that ZoneAlarm does a better job as a firewall because it gives slightly clearer messages and has an interface clearly designed to be a firewall rather than "bundle it together for the sake of making a Security Center". I'd disable the firewall on McAfee, though you could always uninstall ZoneAlarm instead. Note that if you disable the firewall on McAfee, it may turn the Windows Firewall back on instead - so be sure to disable it if you plan to use another firewall (because that one can conflict with the firewall too - ugh). x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Options?[edit]

I see that I can go to Options and then go to Properties and do the rest to fix my sound, but where is Options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.157.102 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What operating system and computer program are you using? In most versions of Windows, you can click Start→Control Panel→Sound (or something very similar). -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Windows is probably Windows Vista. Now, where can I go to options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.157.102 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't obvious - "Start" refers to the little icon, usually in the lower left corner of the screen, that normally has the word "Start" written on it. Click on it. A menu will pop up. It has a lot of items in it. One of them is the phrase "Control Panel". Click on that. The Control Panel will open. There are a lot of entries here also. If you look around, you will find that one of them has the word "Sound" in it. Double-Click on that and the sound options will open. That window is different per computer because it is based on the hardware you have inside your computer.

So, when someone says Start→Control Panel→Sound. they are referring to "Click on the Start button then click on Control Panel then click on Sound". -- Kainaw^(what?) 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running PHP in a browser without installing a server[edit]

I currently do a lot of work in PHP for things that I'd like to primarily run locally. That is fine for my own stuff, since I have Apache with PHP installed and can run it off the localhost. But distributing the software is a pain, since a lot of people don't have Apache with PHP installed, and their settings are often unpredictable.

Is there any program out there that will, say, allow me to use a browser-like application but without installing a server? I'm imagining something that looks like a standard browser but could compile PHP files itself and receive sent POST data and do pretty much everything my computer currently does off of localhost but be a stand-alone executable.

It seems like a fairly obvious thing to me to want, since you can do things with PHP and other server-side applications that are really tricky to do in actual coding. For example, it is super simple to make dynamic interfaces with PHP/HTML/CSS/Javascript that are really flexible and easy to manage, whereas in any other language such a thing is really a pain in the ass — the interfaces are much more "static", and keeping track of controls and the like is really an effort unto itself.

I've never been able to find such a product, though. I tried making something similar using the HTMLViewer control in RealBasic but as far as I can tell it really can't process POST requests and it has a hell of a time intercepting the "response" to the server and acting upon it.

Any thoughts or suggestions? --24.147.86.187 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen anything remotely similar to this. The only thing I could imagine you will find is a Firefox extension that runs the PHP CLI before displaying the HTML. Even then, the user will need Firefox, the extension, and the PHP CLI. -- kainaw™ 23:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Roadsend PHP. Never used it myself, but it does just what you want. — Kieff | Talk 12:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roadsend looks great. Unfortunately, it won't install on my system so I can't see how well it works. -- kainaw™ 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadsend website claims to include a "micro server", which I imagine would be used as a proxy for any browser. (Note, I'm not sure that I understand why PHP had to be reimplemented as Roadsend open-source, since PHP is free.) I've seen other tiny servers available (search the web). I suggest you get a tiny server, get it working (that should be easy), then add PHP to it. Since PHP can be called two ways (as an Apache module and as a CGI executable), there should be no problem calling PHP from the tiny server. You may need to create an installation script, since the resulting system will be a kludgy set of pieces. I have not tested any of these ideas. David 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing Satellite Broadband Connection[edit]

Hi. I have a satellite broadband connection that is hooked up to a desktop computer. There is only one output on the modem and the connection works fine. However, when I try to split the connection using a Cat 6 splitter, to use the connection on another computer at the same time, it stops working on both of them. Would I be correct in guessing that the only way to use the connection successfully on two computers at once would be to connect the modem to one computer and then network the computer with the other one I'm trying to use? And what would the chances of this not working be?Thanks, Mix Lord 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need a router. There are many versions sold in all of the common stores (Walmart, Best Buy, Target, KMart...). You plug the modem into the router and your computers in to the router. -- kainaw™ 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a non-wireless type that is cheaper than the wi-fi ones? And will a network card work, to share the connection instead? Mix Lord 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are many non-wireless types. Mine is a 4-port non-wireless. Just shop around. -- kainaw™ 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible to do this without a dedicated router, you only need one of your computers to act as a router (having an ethernet connection to the other computer in addition to the existing connection to the outside world). See IP Masquerade. This is what everybody did before those el-cheap-o home routers came along. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 00:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I've aqcuired a network card and have linked the two computers with some Cat. 6 cable, but now each one is saying that the network cable is unplugged and the lights near the network cable plug aren't on. Is this because I'd need a hub or something else? Also, the two sections of wire I'm using are connected with a splitter for ethernet cable. Is there any reason this would affect it? Thanks, Mix Lord 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should connect the two computers with a crossover cable. I've never heard of a splitter for ethernet cable, are you talking about an ethernet hub? Most likely, you aren't actually getting connectivity between the two computers. You should first diagnose the network connectivity problem. After that, you'll need to configure one of the computers to "share" the internet connection. -- JSBillings 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A splitter literally splits the cable to two connections. It is useless for computing. A hub, in this case, is also useless. A router is required (even if one of the computers acts as the router) because each computer must have an IP address and a default gateway. If you use one of the computers as the router, keep in mind that the router computer must be on for the other computer to access the Internet.

This happens a lot. People think that because they can split cable to many TVs, they can split the Internet to many computers in the same way. Cable is a one-way signal. The Internet is two-way. They are not similar at all and shouldn't be thought of in the same way. -- kainaw™ 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An ethernet hub isn't useless, just as long as you are using it only for the private network. Sometimes, it's easier to come up with a hub and some straight through ethernet cables than it is to find (or build) a crossover cable. Most operating systems give the user the ability to run their own NAT and router, as long as you have more than one network interface. The OP never mentioned whether either computer had more than one interface, and I'm beginning to think it might be easier to just say, "buy a home router" than try to explain how to set up a private network with a NAT (particularly after hearing about the Cat-6 splitter). -- JSBillings 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That was my opinion. "Buy a home router" is the best route to go for anyone who doesn't want to learn about IP Addresses, DHCP, gateways, DNS lookup... I saw some on Amazon.com for under $20. That is far less than the cost of the broadband access. -- kainaw™ 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Well I've tried the crossover cable but it turns out there's a problem with my network card, because the cable only registers from the port that the Internet connection was in, so I'm guessing there's also a problem with the card reader. So I'll try and get my hands on a router and see how that goes. Will I still need the crossover cable if I'm using a router?Mix Lord 21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Crossover cables are for connecting computer-to-computer. Connecting computer-to-hub or computer-to-router or computer-to-switch uses normal cables. -- kainaw™ 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I won't need the crossover cable but will it still be compatible with a wired router?Mix Lord 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]