Computing desk
< October 25	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 27 >

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.

October 26[edit]

Fonts in Microsoft Word (2010)[edit]

Are there any fonts in which every character has the same width (i.e., takes up the same amount of horizontal space)? I am trying to find a (decent-looking, professional) font such that if I type, for example, a five-letter word, it will use up the same amount of (horizontal) space as any other five-letter word. So, if several words are typed underneath each other on different lines, each line will have the same width, and all of the words would be aligned perfectly, from left to right. Typically, in most fonts, some letters are wider than others. So, for example, upper-case "Q" or "W" are much wider than, say, lower-case "l" or "i". I need all my letters/words to be able to line up, as if in nice, neat columns (that would resemble a crossword puzzle grid or a word search puzzle). See the graphic below, to the right, for an example. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what you are searching for are monospace fonts. OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Courier is one of the most common fonts of this type. I always use that one. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks! Now, Microsoft Word has dozens and dozens – maybe hundreds – of different fonts to choose from. Is there any way to know which of them are (or are not) monospace fonts (versus variable space fonts)? Or do I actually have to do a "test run" of each font, one by one? Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I think the only monospace fonts shipped by Microsoft by default are Courier New and Lucida Sans Typewriter. If you want another one, you have to install them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do want to test out fonts, I suggest a line of capital I's above a line of the same number of capital W's. Those two characters typically have the most width difference in non-monospaced fonts:

III

WWW

    III
    WWW

StuRat (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Word can list the monospaced fonts on your system, but I know Internet Explorer and Firefox can.

Internet Explorer:

Go to Tools, Internet Options.
Go to the General tab and at the bottom click the Fonts button.
In the "Language script" drop down box, choose a language or choose User Defined to see all fonts.

The "Plain text font" list shows the monospaced fonts on your system that support the selected language.

Firefox:

Go to Tools, Options.
Go to the Content tab, and in the Fonts & Colors section, click the Advanced button.
In the "Fonts for" drop down box, choose a language, or choose Other Languages to see all fonts.

In the Monospace drop down box, the fonts above the line are the monospaced fonts on your system that support the selected language.

--Bavi H (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not really too computer savvy, so your above post made me think of another (related) question. Are all of these fonts a part of my Word program? Or are they all just a part of my computer system (Windows) and Word just happens to utilize them (i.e., retrieve them when needed)? In other words, how did my computer get all these fonts? Did they come loaded with Windows? Or did they come as part of my Office Word program? I had always assumed the latter, but a few of the above posts are now making me think that it might be the former ... ? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once a font is installed, it is part of your Windows system. But any program (e.g. Word) can install a font - so it might be that the fonts came with word, but then became part of your Windows system.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Table Generator[edit]

Hello. I want to make a truth table from a Boolean switching network containing four elements: w, x, y, and z. How do I use a truth table generator? It's asking me for an expression. I have a chart showing the next value of an element as a function of any two of the three other elements. That is, my chart gives me the next value of w as a function of y and x; the next value of z as a function of w and y. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A truth table just shows the outputs for every combination of inputs into a logical expression. From how you've described it above, you've got two inputs (x and y) and one output (z), so you'll have four combinations ([0,0],[0,1],[1,0],[1,1]) or rows in your truth table. For each combination of x and y, use your charts to work out your values of w, and then z—and that's your truth table, so you won't need to use the generator. What you can do is use the combinations of outputs for z to compare them to the "Truth table for most commonly used logical operators" in the article Truth table (there are 16 combinations for 2 boolean variables, so if the z output does not match any of the six in that table, you can combine logical functions to produce the expression you need), which should give you a simplified expression you can enter in the generator to check against the table you constructed previously. --Canley (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The generator needs the boolean expression or formula joining the four elements or inputs, and Canley explained how to build one selecting values from the full table of possibilities having the results wanted as output. In this case, you already have a switching network, so you only have to find the equivalent boolean expression to feed the generator. I suggest searching for "boolean expression from logic circuit" in Google or any similar search engine. --Fjor (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (CST)

IOS 7[edit]

Has anyone any factual experiences of the above please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.197.82 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound rude, but the word "factual" here makes no sense as you use it. Can you explain your question more? Mingmingla (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean does anyone have personal experience with iOS 7 that would be useful to them. In this case, it would probably be best to check out reviews and info pages for it online. Here's one that may help: 19 iOS 7 problems and how to fix them. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 22:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously I got seriously lambasted for apparently asking for opinions on IOS 7 so I was careful this time to ask for 'facts'. Without success it seems! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.197.82 (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What facts are you asking for? Are you looking for articles that go into what the reviewer experienced (as far as bugs or things running smoothly, etc) versus more opinion based reviews? I'd like to help you out if I could but your question is too vague. Dismas|^(talk) 08:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I suppose I am looking for an opinion, is it better or worse than IOS 6, but apparently no one is allowed to give opinions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.197.82 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly point you to other people's opinions, such as this review, which ends by saying "We'd still recommend upgrading to iOS 7.0.3 as the look and feel changes, addition of features like Control Center and AirDrop, and app updates are a big improvement in our eyes." Is that what you are looking for? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It helps, thanks85.211.197.82 (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly clicking a Google SERP link opens in a new tab[edit]

Using Firefox v24.0 on Windows 7 Home Premium. Clicking on a Google result used not to cause the new page to come up in a new tab, but now it does. Have Norton AntiVirus active subscription on the machine, which doesn't find anything. Hoping some setting just got changed by accident, because I want it not to open links from Google results in a new tab. Did Google change its results to have target="_blank"? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can alter this in your Google settings: From any Google page click the cogwheel (upper right) and select "Search settings", then uncheck the box beside "Open each selected result in a new browser window".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]