Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2017 March 22

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.

March 22

Right-side taskbar in Windows 10

What do you call the thing that pops out from the right side of the screen in Windows 10, giving you choices between such things as single-screen view and hooking your computer up to multiple screens? It's not the same as the Action Center, but it appears in the same part of the screen. If you accidentally activate it, you have to choose something from it, because if you just get rid of the popout, it kind-of stays active; if you have hide-taskbar activated, the taskbar stays un-hidden indefinitely as if you're using something, and there's no way to deactivate it. It can be activated through some sort of keypad swipe on my laptop, or it can be activated through pressing a set of keys that's close to Alt+F4. I was constantly activating it by accident until I disabled touchpad-activated swipes, and I still sometimes activate it by making a typo when attempting to type Alt+F4. The frustrating thing is that I can't figure out how to re-activate it, since I only ever activate it with a typo, and since I don't know what to call it, I can't figure out how to search for instructions on activating it, aside from touchpad-related activations that forced me to disable most of my touchpad functions, and the only way to get the taskbar to hide is to restart the computer. Because I don't know how to activate it, I can't describe it beyond the memories that I gave in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, on all previous computers, I had Windows 7 or earlier. This computer originally had Windows 8, then 8.1, and currently Windows 10. Through all three OS'es, I've used Classic Shell, so I'm not particularly familiar with the default Windows 10 start menu. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain on the name, but the shortcut for it is windows+p (and just hitting enter as soon as it appears will select the option which corresponds to your current configuration, closing it while effectively doing nothing) MChesterMC (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And just to note that while that seems an incredibly odd typo for ALT+F4, if you're on a laptop it's probable that you're hitting fn+(something), which your laptop manufacturer has configured to activate that option (Often fn+f5, but these things aren't really standardized) MChesterMC (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now I feel rather silly — it's Fn+Win+F4. I'd already tried Fn:variousfunctionkeys, but it didn't occur to me until right now to hit three keys all at once. And yes, Win+P also brings it up. Thank you for the help! Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be an official name for the popout, but it's referred to as the "Project function" in a couple of places on the web. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't it used to be called the 'Slider bar' in XP? Was that the same thing? Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What screen resolution can an AMD B170 display card display ?

It has an S-Video and DVI output, but I can't use either, as my monitors have only VGA and HDMI inputs. So, I'm wondering if I should bother getting a converter cable. Currently, I'm not using the graphics card and just using the VGA output on the motherboard, which gives me decent 1920x1080 output (it says it supports 1920x1200, but not with my monitor). This is on an old Dell OptiPlex 360, but I could put the graphics card in a newer PC if it's worth it. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_HD_2000_series#Other_features 89.120.104.138 (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do you know the B170 is part of that series ? StuRat (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/221/radeon-hd-2350-pro : see Board Number under Board Design. 89.120.104.138 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are big and small devices all becoming computers?

It seems that mobile phones, TVs, tablets, laptops, and desktops are different variants of a computer. Even cars resemble computers. What's the deal with transforming everything into a personal computer? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not just TVs and cars, but fridges, central heating, and even the lock on your front door. See Embedded system and Internet of things (and maybe Home automation). Why? Because we can, and because some people will pay for the enhancement. Dbfirs 13:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, many consumers like more features and options. It's also increasing because computers become cheaper, smaller and more powerful. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What is interesting is that "things that resemble computers" is a small subset of "things that are computers". For example, the keyboard you are typing on contains a small computer. If it is a Ducky keyboard (also known (by me) as "the best keyboard money can buy"^{[Citation Needed]}) is has a ARM Cortex-M microcontroller in it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still awed and confused that each connector on my USB-C cable is Turing-complete, and the wire itself constitutes a networked cluster of vector-processing supercomputers. Thunderbolt™ 3: The USB-C That Does it All, a video from Intel, introduces the technology... You haven't really arrived into the 21st century until you've used a debug cable to debug the software that runs on another cable. Nimur (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Notably it's often cheaper to buy a computer-on-a-chip than to have a custom design. This means that computers are now suitable for relatively simple devices. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC).

Also, integrated circuit chips have no moving parts. Moving parts fail. Take something as simple as a light switch. If the switch was a chip controlled by a signal or sensor, the rate of failure would be spectacularly low. Standard flip switches degrade over time - a little every time you switch it on or off. So, failure is relatively much higher. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a great observation, but a couple of corollaries: solid-state parts can fail - everything from tin whiskers to dielectric breakdown to ion drift to transient or soft-errors caused by particle-strikes ... here's a good presentation from Panasonic Semiconductors on failure modes of solid-state electronics: Failure Mechanism of Semiconductor Devices. Almost all experts will readily admit that the statistical incident rate is dramatically lower, by orders of magnitude, compared to mechanical failures in mechanical devices; but when they fail, the mode of failure in a solid-state semiconductor device can be much less intuitive and more catastrophic.

And this says nothing of the immense potential for design-defects: large scale integration makes it economically cheap to implement extraordinarily complicated designs in hardware and software, increasing the potential for a complex design-error to sneak in. If we consider the total failure rate of the system as a whole, I can truthfully say that my software-controlled light switch fails a lot more often than my mechanical light-switch - the software does not break because it gets "worn out" nor because the metal fatigues, but the software breaks because it is designed incorrectly, and that kind of defective design is encouraged by economic conditions that favor billion-transistor devices and feature-rich software. Bugs emerge from, and hide amongst, this complexity... this pathology inverts our expectations about failure rate, and presents us with a meta-problem that many smart people call the "software crisis" - "Instead of finding out how to cope with the effects of such combinational explosions, it is much more effective to prevent the combinatorial explosion from occurring in the first place." (EWD1012).

Failure analysis, as it pertains to systems engineering, must account for such factors: they are as sinister as any material defect and can have equally-severe impact on the end-user. Nimur (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I live in a home built in the 1920's, and the only light switches to ever have failed are circular dimmer switches. On the other hand, electronic devices rarely seem to last more than a decade or two, and often fail in just a few years. For example, the power window switch on my 2008 car has failed. Also, don't most electronics have mechanical components ? On a computer, even if you have an SSD instead of a hard drive and use flash drives instead of CDs, there is still the power button, keyboard keys, cooling fans, etc. My laptop failed when the cables at the hinge broke from the opening and closing cycles. So, you end up with a device with the weaknesses of both electronics (like being destroyed by power surges and sparks) and mechanical systems.

Another reliability problem with electronics is miniaturization, which can lead to microscopic flaws or even hits from gamma rays causing total failure. If mechanical systems were miniaturized to the same degree, than it would be a problem there, too. And many solid state devices have rather limited lifespans, like batteries (even rechargeable) and solar panels. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To address cars as an example, computers can help to increase safety, convenience, and (fuel) efficiency. Alcherin (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And the additional of graphical user interfaces to things that already contained 'computers' (in the technical sense of the word, not the laymen's 'personal computer') further allows individuals to interact with and control the computer systems already present. Alcherin (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Although it is considerably different from Internet-of-Things gimmicks, automobiles have contained "onboard computers" for at least thirty years for the tuning of combustion parameters, see engine control unit. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe there are two trends here:

1) There are genuine reasons to make SOME devices electronic. A scientific calculator is far better than a slide rule, for example.

2) There's also a fad of putting electronics into all sorts of things that don't really need it. I believe the Apple Watch is a prime example of this. The added electronics don't allow it to do much better at the core function of a watch, which is telling the time. Indeed, before there were electronics we had mechanical watches that could tell the time, date, phases of the moon, set alarms, had stopwatches, etc. The new features that have been added to the Apple Watch are already on smart phones, which presumably their owners also carry, so I don't really see the benefit of the Apple Phone, other than just as a status symbol. So, this "fad" portion may never go mainstream, and just remain a cult phenomenon. Another example is internet-enabled refrigerators, which are supposed to reorder food when you run low. Sounds good, but that requires keeping each food item in a designated place, paying more for food deliveries versus shopping yourself, telling the system when you need more of an item for an upcoming meal or change your food preferences, periodically upgrading the software, etc. And it seems doubtful it will keep track of your entire grocery list, such as items not stored in the fridge. So, probably not a mainstream concept. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Keymapping in vi

I'm trying to set up a keybind in my .vimrc to give me a split screen with scrolling thus:

:nnoremap <f5> <C-W>vgg<Esc>:set scrollbind<CR><C-W>1Lzt<Esc>:set scrollbind<CR>

using the suggestion from Stackoverflow (which works manually).

It seems that at least the first scrollbind and the Lzt fail.

Any ideas?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC).