Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2008 March 19

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 19

Margin text

How does one place text in the margin of a document in Word 2007 or OOo 2.3? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Word 2007, go to Insert>Text Box>Simple Text Box. Type away, reposition in margin, and rotate if necessary. Mac Davis (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Top or bottom margins you can use headers. In Word 07 you can just double click in the top/bottom margin to open the header/footer editing view.. I forget how in previous Offices :D\=< (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

View>Header and Footer. Once it's inserted, you can double click to edit it. --jjron (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vista

I don't know much about computers, just as an FYI. So, I read today an article with the headline "Major Windows Vista Update Available Today". This is the article: http://www.switched.com/2008/03/18/major-vista-update-available-today/ [1]. So, is this something that I have to actually go out and purchase? Or is this one of those downloads that I get for free on the Microsoft web site? I assumed it was the latter. And there was nothing on the Microsoft web site that seemed in any way relevant to this. Does anyone know what this is all about? The article that I referenced above also says "If you're a Vista user and are ready to take the plunge, you can head on over to Microsoft's site to start your downloading." And when you click the link, it just brings you to an Amazon.com web page where, I guess, they are selling (and I can buy) this product. What's up? Any one know? Thanks. PS --- I already have Vista on my computer. Which I guess is (now) the "old Vista"? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

You do not have to purchase service packs. They figure if you bought Vista, then you deserve to be able to get patches and servicing for free. If you activate Vista's automatic updating, it should ask you pretty soon if you want to updated Vista. Mac Davis (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

SP1 won't be rolled out via automatic update until next month. This page contains some links to the Service Pack on the Windows Download and Windows Update sites. Our Windows Vista article contains some information about what is contained in this update. --LarryMac | Talk 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is some danger is being an early-adopter of major updates. Typically Service Packs that upgrade the entire Windows OS have required a few rounds of bug patching before they worked smoothly on all configurations. Usually it is good to wait a week or two before upgrading to them, so that the really awful and really obvious bugs get squashed, which is probably why they aren't rolled out automatically for a month or so. This is the issue behind the "ready to take the plunge" rhetoric—it's not always a great idea to be first in line for a major overhaul. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen, Captain Red Desk. Kushal 15:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just so I understand. This product has been created to patch / fix bugs / improve the Vista that is already in my computer. If I want to spend money and buy it at a store, I can do so right now. If I want to get it free at the Microsoft web site (which I am entitled to a free update), then I have to wait a month or so until M.S. decides to post the free download. Is this the long and short of the matter? Thanks. Furthermore, why would M.S. make it available (for purchase) at a store ... yet wait a month for free downloads to its already established users? I mean, if "bugs" exist in the purchase product - they don't care? But - they do care about those same bugs showing up in the free download? I'm confused. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

You don't have to buy a service pack - you can update to it from the website for free; this is, however, usually a bad idea until it has gone through testing and fixing (more so than when it's very new). When the linked article discusses retail versions of it, it means that if someone went to a shop and bought Vista (to upgrade XP, for example), it would already have SP1 installed. Of course, if you really do want it, just download it. But I'd advise that you simply wait until Vista wants to update itself - they do have a reason for not doing it automatically straight away. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are confused, so some of your questions don't apply. You can't buy SP1 by itself at a store*. What you can buy is a full Vista installation that is built with all the SP1 fixes included. You don't need that. You can get SP1 yourself right this very instant at the Microsoft website (as noted in my previous reply), but it won't be "pushed" via Automatic Update until next month. The recommendation of the good Captain, as well as many others, is to wait a few days or a week so that any major problems and/or incompatibilities (that for some reason were not uncovered during the extensive beta test period) can be uncovered by some other sucker lucky user. --LarryMac | Talk 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Makes sense now. Thanks for the input. LarryMac was especially helpful --- thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

ipod

what is the basic principle of working of ipods (i.e. storage princple,coversion of digital data in sound wave etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.240.23 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at iPod? I see some technical details in there. Friday (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They're certainly not worth as much as they cost. ipods are no more than small hard hard drives with a little processor (running some proprietary interface code, which can be replaced with a free alternative) and a tiny low-res screen. Shuffles are even less- little flash drives with little enough storage to convince you it's still 2000, with a little integrated controller and an embedded mp3/mpeg4 decoder chip. I could build my own Shuffle with 10 times the Flash storage for a quarter of the price. But yeah that's basically how music players work- songs are stored in Flash memory and read either through an embedded chip or software running on a processor, then sent to the headphone jack through another integrated circuit just like the integrated sound card on a mainboard. :D\=< (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody hates Apple. Well warrented, in my opinion. But they have some merits. I can't name any, but I'm sure they are there somewhere. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.[2] :)

On a side note, I'd be much happier if it was still 2000. On a not-side note, I don't know much about iPods, because I would own one over my dead body, but here is my understanding. When you hook up the thing it uses "iTunes" to transfer music over to it. "iTunes" converts all the song files names into 4-letter filenames and puts them into hidden folders named in an FXX convention (where XX is any 2 digit number, starting with 00). The iPod storage is just a regular hard drive formatted the way the operating system is. Playing the files is straight-forward, it does it just like a PC, in fact it is a small PC of sorts. As for how digital data is converted to sound, see Digital-to-analog_conversion.206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, also this is what it looks like right before that final analog conversion step :D\=< (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Process Sniping Program

My friend is crazy for TF2 after I bought her Orange Box, and never stops playing it. But what angers her all the time is the fact that she has to close 30 different running processes in order for the game to run smoothly. I was wondering if there was perhaps some sort of program that lets you select what processes you want to be left running and then smites all the others. Naturally, I'm talking about Windows XP here. I've already done everything I could with msconfig and the Start-up folder, but stuff just pops up naturally while using the PC. I just want to automate the process of closing processes, which is something I do once in a while as well. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What processes specifically are the problem, and why? Simply by being active on the system a process consumes very little resource (most of its memory gets swapped out, and if it's not actually running then it's not consuming CPU time and thus not slowing anything down. Windows (and other full-featured OSes) typically run dozens of processes for their own purposes (most of which are idle most of the time) and can run hundreds of well behaved processes if need be. If you have specific concerns about specific processes demonstrably (over)using resources, that's someting to address on a per-process (or per-application) basis; mass slaying of processes won't be productive. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is really the question. What's popping up? Why? The answer is not to try and shut down processes that start up (which could lead to system instability by itself), but to figure out why they're popping up in the first place and disabling them. Sounds like malware to me, or at least over-active taskbar processes. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found that a lot of Windows processes are superfluous, and I can have a stable system with only 5 processes running. As for my friend's computer, she has an iPod, a graphics tablet, a printer, and other things that add background processes which aren't needed at the moment, as well as 20 icons in her system tray for various programs and other crap. When someone else is using the PC these icons are needed (apparently) and so I didn't remove them. The whole family shares one account for some bizarre reason as well. Mainly the reason I am asking about such a program's existance is out of curiousity, but also to address this problem more easily solved by formatting and re-installing Windows (I even donated an extra hard-drive for back-up proposes, which is yet to be used). Not to be condesending, but their computer is a lot like their home - there is junk everywhere but they are too used to it (and it is too far gone) for them to do anything about it. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

5 user processes, yes. But check "Show processes from all users" and remove your foot from your mouth. Anyway I don't see what the big deal is. Windows isn't doing anything and is stripped to the bone, but I have dozens of user processes running. I have the memory and the cores to run them. utorrent, winamp, Steam, ati drivers, sound card drivers, the UltraMon taskbar process, my thinkpad hard drive shock detection driver, google talk, winRAR, firefox.. these are things I do want running right now and I'm not going to kill them just to have a snappier machine that's doing nothing. :D\=< (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A girl playing tf2? <coma> :D\=< (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not cracking everybody up. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading xkcd because of that comic. This is the internet, I can say what I want and I don't have to be terrified of some guy breaking down my door. That's the point. Randall can say what he wants too I guess but I don't have to read. :D\=< (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you thought the point of the comic was that there would literally be someone breaking down your door, you missed the entire point of the comic. Which is kind of sad. The point is, to put it bluntly, you're acting like a fool (I'd use stronger language, but I know how touchy people get on here). If that's not really what you like coming across as, then you might think about amending your behavior. If you don't mind being thought of as a fool, then just keep going ahead in your boring sexist nerd-geek fashion. Lord knows you'll fit in just fine with the mediocre majority. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should reread the comic. Some guy breaks down his door, forbids him from using the internet for a year, threatens him, then has his computer destroyed, just for something he said. The kid in the comic can say whatever he wants on his IRC server and seems to get along fine until some guy is offended and resorts to violence. If I want to titsorgtfo then I can, I have nothing to prove to you. Think I'm a fool or whatever if you want, it's none of your business :D\=< (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A.) Her computer ain't as powerful as yours.

B.) My foot is perpetually in my mouth.

C.) There's more gals playing TF2 than most people realize.

Anywho, here is a better explanation. There is only one user account on the computer in question. This computer is used by five people and perhaps a cat. Each person has their own processes that they like to always keep running, but my friend doesn't want to close them all manually. Instead, she wants to kill them all in one shot and just restart the PC when someone else wants it (thus restoring the processes). Her sister would like the same (she plays WoW). I'd rather not get into an arguement over whether this would improve performance or not, I'm just asking if there is a program that will do such a task. Just giving everyone a user account if out of the question because everyone's files are intermingled in the most chaotic system I've ever seen - it would take hours to separate it all and allocate it to the proper accounts. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a program that does this for WinXP, and it's very easy to use. It's reached from the main "Start button", at the very bottom where it says "Log off". Using this program takes a little bit of set up, but your friend can have her very own account that only runs the processes she wants. To quote another editor's tag, think outside your box. -SandyJax (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, or said in a non-sarcastic bent: if it's a question of multiple people having too many processes, create a new account used JUST for gaming. Then log out of everything else and log into that when you want the stripped down account. That's a lot safer than trying to have a program go through and kill processes at will. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The point here, OP, is that you are asking for a program that manages your computer and the programs installed for you. Uh, that's what the Operating System is for. As several here have tried to point out, WinXP has a very powerful tool for doing what you want. Use it. As the good Captain says, if it's too hard to give everyone their own account, then simply create ONE clean account, and use it for gaming. -SandyJax (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a good idea, Captain. I always seem to unconsiously go for the most drawn-out and difficult solutions to problems. I'll tell her about this the first chance I get. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

computer power (cpu)

Clearly there will always be someone who needs more processing power, but in terms of desktops surely there must be a point at which no more is needed. Q. Are we there yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.183.180 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away", which is to say that as processing power increases, software developers will be comfortable writing more and more demanding applications. An example of this is the growth in the amount of higher-level functionality that is interpreted on the fly rather than compiled into a machine-friendly format. --Sean 21:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A great example is the memory-hogging, CPU-draining Windows Vista. Useight (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a terrible example, it doesn't use much more memory (except for Aero, which consumes less memory than other compositing window managers like Compiz, but is of course still a hog) and if you disable search indexing and other garbage, performance is much improved over XP. The only real criticism that can be levelled against vista is its bloat- the install is huge. A better example would be the black hole of CPU power that is Java :D\=< (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're always defending Vista. If I disable all those things you mention, it turns into XP. So I might as well use XP since it takes up less space. Yes, space is very important to me. One of the reasons I don't have Firefox is because it would take up more space than just having IE6. (Another reason is that I hate tabbed browsing). It's kind of weird that I be a space saver, because my PC has 1.1TB of storage, but I like it as empty as possible. Useight (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's not doing you any good at all if it's sitting there empty. :D\=< (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you like to make sure a computer is using all of its potential. That is a very interesting philosophy. But that makes sense. Useight's situation is like buying a bunch of warehouses so you can store nothing in them but marvel at their emptiness. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're not running Windows Vista, we've been there for a few years now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll ever truly be there (except in the sense that we don't really need any processing power at all -- we got along for centuries without computers). How much processing power (or other computing resource) you want depends on what you're going to do with it. And peoples' expectation for that changes with time. Various features of the system (graphical user interface, internet) were not considered "necessary" once upon a time (and the demands they put on a system were once pretty serious) but now they are. Who knows what will be discovered invented next? I will note that CPU power is not the most important aspect of performance for common tasks. I doubt it has been in a long, long time (pretty much since the mainframe era). Disk drive latency and network bandwidth are probably bigger deals. -- Why Not A Duck 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the application, obviously. You don't need much CPU power to download your next data set, and you don't need any network bandwidth or much drive latency to do processing on chunks of it. Rich AJAX applications require everything except low drive latency. Video games require raw CPU power as well as a performance drive. :D\=< (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There will always be a need for more computing power. Looking at the very expensive time being overbooked in supercomputing centres all over the world should give you a hint. The world doesn't need another shortsighted statement "640K should be enough for anybody" courtesy a certain Mr Bill Gates. Looking ahead, the need for miniturization in CPU's is almost as important - for example in nanotechnology you would want as powerful a CPU as you can get if nanites are injected into your bloodstream to kill mutating viruses - you would not want these nanites to zap the wrong organisms. Looking forward to space travel and eventually starships, the faster the computers in these things the better. Look at all the Star Trek technology - these would not be possible without superfast parallel CPU's. I would imagine teleporting a human would take an immense amount of CPU and memory. A lot of this technology is becoming reality because of advancements in computing. Hail to the scientists of the world! Sandman30s (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My favorite shortsighted statement is Einstein's "What will that tiny country do with an electric computer?".

To be fair, the question was specifically about desktop computers. However, in today's world people use their "desktop" computers for many different things - I do mathematical computations, some volunteer it for scientific projects like Folding@Home, some do audio and video processing, some play bleeding-edge games, and so on. I doubt it will be easy to find anyone that can't benefit from more processing power.

However, I don't think this kind of "heavy" computations is where desktop computers have the greatest need to improve. My main concern is that mundane everyday operations you do with your computer don't happen instantaneously. Whether it is waiting for a program or web page to load, or even shorter waits working within a program, the seconds add up to consume a significant amount of the user's time. Sometimes more CPU can help, but the most pressing issues in this regard is the speeds of hard drives and network connections. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies, yes I was specifically talking about CPU's : network and storage connections are the big ones that need improvement. Just to give some context to my question - I was wondering if 'the home computer' would ever evolve into a known fixed tech spec piece of elec goods, and be sold in a way similar to CD players or TV's - it's getting there - but not quite yet.83.100.183.180 (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If Apple had it their way, there would be just one configuration of computers, and everyone would use the same computer, until Apple would release a newer product. Horror of horrors, would Apple even release a newer product at all? Kushal 05:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) My prediction is no, we are not there yet. I doubt we will ever be there. Take a look at a particular website. CAUTION: May have traces of politics. Manufactured in a facility that also makes ... Kushal 05:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you check that link - it didn't seem to make sense - seemed to be some generic useless webpage? Did I miss something.

Personally I think it's partly to do with having separate companies producing software and hardware - combine the businesses of both of these and stagnation would soon follow. Hurray!87.102.16.238 (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I lold at her prattling. First blatant factual error is around 2:00, see Military budget of the United States and note that it's definitely not 50% of 2.90 trillion USD. :D\=< (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

She probably meant to say 15%. I see this went over some heads - anyone who thinks this eye-opener is "useless" needs to do some serious reflection. (Okay, maybe she exaggerated a little, but the point remains).

I'll dumb the connection to this discussion down a little bit - microprocessor developers will continue to create more and more powerful processors, and people will continue to consume them, not necessarily because we objectively need it, but because the economy is designed to promote consumerism. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It must be me (sorry Kushal) - I already knew we were throwing stuff away. That page is just more opium for the masses. Pass the blame - apparently some 'fat guy with a cigar and a dollar on his t-shirt' is to blame.. No - you get what you want - this woman is directly responsible for this, she can't pass the buck. That's my rant.87.102.16.238 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That is her message. The sad state of affairs we are in is a direct result of the decisions each and every one of us little guys makes when we vote with our wallets. You can't blame evil for being evil, we can only blame ourselves for giving them such power. If you think she was trying to "pass the buck" then you completely didn't get it. The difference is that she (apparently, I don't know her personally) is trying to correct her wrong ways and to convince others to do the same.

Knowing that we throw stuff away is one thing, understanding the dynamics creating and created by consumerism is another. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully she might change her views on incinerators. Trying to get a recycling plant for my city has proved difficult Thermal depolymerization Gasification etc were all rejected, leaving waste to heat as the only viable option (cost). Where were the 'greens' when all this was happening - they are very vocal on 'consume less' but try to put forward a solution that includes building a very big factory that most likely won't win any beauty prizes, and will cost a bit to build and they dissapear like mice. Waste exists and will continue to do so in large quantities as long as we live in cities. I found her incinerator=bad argument most annoying. 87.102.16.238 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to make heads or tails of your argument. She was pretty clear about recycling not being the ultimate answer, so what's with the fuss about them not fighting for a recycling plant in your city?

She wasn't comparing incinerators with other waste management methods, but rather with having less waste to manage in the first place as a result of changed consumption habits.

The "our planet and our society are going down the drain and there's nothing we can do about it" argument is especially annoying. Yes, there will be waste, but there's also a lot we can do to significantly reduce it - for example, here are that site's suggestions. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be dead before it's a serious problem. Hope for some miracle technology to solve all our problems and when nothing appears, what are they going to do dig me up and yell at me? :D\=< (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a story about how European companies collect electronic waste in their countries and then "export" it to some small African country where most of it would be burned off in open fires... untreated! I don't know if computers manufactured today got rid of the poisons but those computers being burned right now have mercury and lead and phosphorus and what not in them.

I wish to stay away from the politics in this issue but some people. including me, believe that pollution that happens in one country does affect other countries as well.^{[original research]} Therefore, the dump that gets burned in an African country will, in the long (or maybe loooooong) run affect the countries that exported it in the first place. Kushal 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes EEC directives require certain methods of disposal of electronic waste -unscrupulous companies dealt with the problem by shipping the waste to places without that legislation (ie do it cheaply). I suppose this relates the the linked articles point about people should be paying for disposal of waste not just production. Please start a new discussion. This page is almost falling off the edge of the world.!87.102.16.238 (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why

I think computers are awesome do you J713 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, and i'm sure pretty much everyone who is answering you will say they are impressive - they must (at the least) like them enough to A) use them and B) Use them enough to become a person who helps others on a somewhat low-visited series of reference desks. Oh and they are awesome because of the amazing power they provide for computation, transfer of information, organisation, automation of repetitive actions etc. etc. 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO the most awesome aspect of computing is the precision and control you have.. anything that goes wrong is a direct consequence of what you programmed it to do. Also it's amazing how complex computing problems can become, and if you can juggle them in your head, it's fun! :D\=< (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ITT: The Hacker Manifesto. Mac Davis (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I like them for the gaming. Useight (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you ashamed replying to the hacker manifesto with lol vidya? There are better criticisms- that it's technocratic or elitist for one, that it's riddled with unneccessary threats and unrealistic ideals. But it's undeniably a powerful piece of literature that a lot of people adore. :D\=< (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, I like.83.100.183.180 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mac>Linux

Hi, how can I get Linux to run on my mac? – i123Pie _bio^contribs 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What kind of Mac is it? --Spoon! (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Open up Disk Utility in Applications>Utilities, click on your boot drive, and add a partition. It's a good idea to back up your important data as a precaution. After you create a second partition, take a Linux install disk, shut down your computer, and turn it on holding down the option key on your keyboard, select the Linux install disk to boot from. Make sure you install Linux into the Linux partition, not the Mac OS X one. Mac Davis (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, err. Where can I find one for PowerPC? I can hardly find any in google. – i123Pie

_bio^contribs 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this page[3]. What type of computer do you have? If you are running anything under Leopard, you won't be able to use Disk Utility to repartition your hard drive without erasing it. Mac Davis (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already have a spare portion as I had Mac classic support. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 17:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good! Download and burn the disk image to a CD. In disk utility, you can click on the CD, and then the restore tab, and browse for the source image, and then the destination. Burn! Mac Davis (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Problemo, I don't have a cd wrighter, that works. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 08:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I used my windows pc to write it onto a dvd but my mac won't detect the dvd. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 11:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Find a Linux distribution you would like to use, and that will work on your Mac. If you have an Intel based Mac you probably have a lot more choices than if you have a PowerPC based Mac. Whatever Linux distribution you pick, their website should probably have instructions for installing it. Read through those instructions make sure you understand them, and make sure they're something you're willing to do. (If you want your Mac to still be able to run Mac OS, the install process has to take care of this.) (Please note: None of the four Linux systems I've had was a Mac, and none of the three Macs I've had has run Linux.) -- Why Not A Duck 23:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)