Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 January 8

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.

January 8

Does this exist yet?

Does anyone know if this device has been made yet?

This device would look like an external 2.5 inch hard drive. It would have a screen (maybe a 5 or 6 line LCD) and a few buttons on it (maybe 3). Using the buttons on it you choose the HDD mode, then plug it in to your computer. your computer installs it as a HDD. You copy a bunch of ISO's on to it. You unplug it, then using the buttons you choose one of the ISOs you just copied, then you plug it back in to your computer, your computer registers and installs it as a external USB CD/DVD ROM drive, with that ISO as the CD. Your BIOS would recognize it as a CD/DVD ROM drive and would be able to boot from it should you try. Should you put it in CDRW/DVDRW mode it would be installed as a DVD/CD-RW drive with a blank disk in it. Should you try to write anything to this device it would make a new ISO on the HDD with the contents of what was written. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much all of that can easily be done in software already. You can mount an ISO as a disk whether it is on an internal or external hard drive and you can boot from USB devices. The only benefit of such a device would be to boot a computer which doesn't have a boot from USB option, and since an external CD drive already does that just fine, why would anyone bother making a more complicated and no doubt more expensive alternative? Vespine (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For people with optical-drive-less laptops and want to reinstall their OS with an iso image? Engadget did an article on some Japanese device that can do what you want, maybe you can continue your research from there. --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a nay sayer, but the device you linked will definitely not do that either. It requires windows to mount the device, so the laptop won't be able to boot from it, so you won't be able to reinstall the OS from it. If you already have windows to "mount the device" you can just as easily mount the ISO from the desktop with software. It is assumed that hard disks can crash and fail in laptops so it's pretty much a requirement that the user can recover their OS after a failure. If there's no optical drive, there will be a boot from USB or some other method to get it recovered, without needing to buy a fancy "ISO mounting drive", or sending it back to the manufacturer. Even Apple lets you do this to their laptops and they are the kings of "no user serviceable parts inside" mentality. Vespine (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I trust Microsoft or not?

I am in possession of the CD, the Proof of License and Certificate of Authenticity for my copy of Windows XP. Is there an independent party who can verify that the CD, POL, COA and installation instruction guide came from Microsoft and are not counterfeit? Even if they are (genuine) Microsoft states that it will not return them to me. This sounds suspicious in absence of third party verification. Since I have the physical material I do not understand why Microsoft cannot disable the copy of windows that is running on another computer that only used my product code instead of disabling mine without forcing me to relinquish forever my CD, POL, COA and installation instruction manual, since it is the other copy with only the COA that has been pirated. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any independent party that can verify it - at least, not that Microsoft would trust. I don't see what you would be trusting Microsoft with, though - from what you describe they want to confiscate your copy of Windows whether it is genuine or not, so it doesn't matter if you trust them or not, you still don't want them to do that. It seems very odd to me, so I would suggest you re-read everything and make sure you have understood it correctly. If you have, then you may need to consult a lawyer... --Tango (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Microsoft is selling renting software with a requirement for activation and verification of valid Proof of License and Certificate of Authenticity by means of a product key that is not on the disk or part of the software but only part of the installation guide sticker label. Anyone can therefore copy the product key and use it with another disk. This is Microsoft's fault not the end user yet if this happens Microsoft demands that the end user return the CD, Proof of License and Certificate of Authorization without guaranteeing a replacement or refund even if all of it is genuine. Under such circumstances the end must ask whether or not they can trust Microsoft before doing business with Microsoft again. In other words what Microsoft is saying is that it is the customer's fault if Microsoft has done something wrong that allows its genuine software to be compromised before it reaches the end user, which according to Microsoft, then makes it okay to penalize the end user. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they have not licensed you the discs, they have licensed the key. Thus, if you choose to give away your key, that is wholly your problem. You can compare it to a credit card number. If you allow someone to copy your card number, they can essentially buy whatever they want over the internet, despite you being in possession of the card itself. The credit card company cannot stop just the other person using it; they have to stop the entire number, even though you are still in possession of the physical object. This isn't a failing of their's - you shouldn't have given away your number. Much the same is true with the software. Also keep in mind that it would be completely stupid to have the key locked to one disc - what if you lost or damaged it, or worse for them, pretended to lose of damage it, and then asked for a replacement full copy? It just wouldn't work. This way, they can (and usually do) just send you a new disc (minus key) for free, and you use the key you have.

It's entirely up to you whether you 'trust' Microsoft 'again' - it probably doesn't bother them very much either way. But if you have allowed your copy of Windows to be pirated, it would be pretty nice of them if they did just give you another one. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Microsoft gave away the key, not me. That is why I am asking the question. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft gave away the key to who? And when? If I guess correctly, you bought a Windows CD from a shady vendor, and when you installed it and tried to register it, the installer yelled at you about software piracy and disabled Windows on your machine, so now you're annoyed and/or angry. Am I right? If so, then I think your only recourse is to demand a refund from the vendor who sold you the Windows CD, or if he refuses and if you're in a jurisdiction like the USA that allows it, send the package back to the vendor and contact your credit card company and deny the charges on the grounds that you did not receive the goods that were promised (a working copy of Windows). Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I bought a copy of Windows XP from a vendor with a 100% rating of satisfaction where sale of pirated or counterfeit software is against the rules and not allowed. Microsoft gave away the product key by using a clear plastic wrapper to conceal the product key rather than one that was opaque. Even my bank is not illogical enough to blame me if it sends out my credit card in a clear plastic envelope and someone activates it without even opening the envelop before I even receive it in the mail. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. And when you contacted Microsoft they wanted you to just send in your disc, and I think you're right to be skeptical that you'll get anywhere with that. I think you need to get satisfaction from the vendor in this case. They sold you software that does not work. You don't need to reach any farther and think about why it doesn't work — you were sold nonworking software. If you live in the US or a country that has similar consumer protection laws, you have the right to receive the goods that were promised. Just return it to the vendor and get a refund. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not that simple. The software was purchased in Oct. and not opened until Christmas which exceeds the 45 day limit in which a complaint can be lodged. PayPal has accepted a complaint but gives the seller 45 days to respond. The seller can make the argument that will not refund him either if the software has been activated and that in reality it is Microsoft's responsibility to assure the product key can not be used until the package is opened and even then only in conjunction with the CD. The solution of course would be for Microsoft to have copy protected the CD like DVD's are protected but Microsoft started in the days of floppy disk when companies that used copy protection went out of business the next day and there may be other motive for Microsoft using activation and verification instead of copy protection which I dare not guess. Bottom line is Microsoft needs to look at my Proof of License and Certificate of Authenticity through a somewhat impartial third party like a bonding agency or the police and then deactivate the software that is running on the other computer which can not produce the Proof of License and Certificate of authenticity, provide me with temporary software until it can reimburse me from restitution paid by the seller and from now on use copy protection instead of activation and validation so the customer interests are protected as well. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious here. Microsoft aren't going to wait for some third party to 'verify' their software. In addition, there is no way of disabling a key for just one person/one computer - the key is either valid, or it's not. With regards to copy protection, do you even know what this is? It means you can't duplicate the CD image easily. This is totally irrelevant to Windows, because its basically possible to download the installation discs for free off the internet (most computer manufacturers will give you OEM discs for free, very easily) - they're licensing you the key. If you weren't aware, this is standard practise for all software as it's much faster and more efficient than other methods. Games that try and use overly aggressive disc checking copy protection suffer massive problems, take a look at SecuROM for examples. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft don't use a clear plastic wrapper/enabling anyone to view the key so your package has been tampered with. If it's an OEM version then the Windows disc comes in a DVD shaped case with the product key stuck to this. It is possible to see the product key through the case, however they don't sell it like this and it should be enclosed in a cardboard sleeve. The cardboard sleeve also has a seal on it (saying you agree to the OEM licence by breaking the seal) that has to be broken before you can retrieve the disc OR see the licence key. Likewise the retail version is similar, but that comes in an entire box that has to be opened before you can get to the code. No edition of Windows comes from Microsoft as you've described. ZX81 ^talk 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a DVD plastic box to me which by the way are used only for retail and retails trial discs. Check out [Redacted link to Ebay Seller. The Refdesk is not for defaming random ebay Sellers.]. What's more the boxed discs are not copy protected either and the key is stickered to the outside of the box. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact the seller? They may agree to exchange (and they can handle dealing with MS if needed). If they don't, you can be the guy that ruins that 100% positive feedback rating, and with good reason; they sold you a copy of XP that you can't use and refused to make it right. Otherwise, you'll have to trust Microsoft. They're not going to do some inane third party verification. If the seller won't exchange, your choices are to trust Microsoft (and have a chance of getting nothing) or do nothing (and guarantee you get nothing). Hell, if MS did rip you off (unlikely), you could always suggest taking them to small claims court. The cost to them to provide you a replacement copy is basically the cost of shipping; they've got no motive to cheat you. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing but it seems that not only can you not file a complaint after 45 days you can not post any feedback. All Microsoft has to do is verify the Proof of License and Certificate of Authenticity at one of there local offices or through any retailer they authorize without confiscating it since they already have control over it through their activation and verification process. If the POL and COA are ligit then all they have to do is to give me use of the product key and deny use of it to the guy who pirated the product key before the disk arrived at my door. One thing is for sure i won't be going near Windows 7 until this matter is settled to my satisfaction. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Have you contacted the vendor? What did they say? It sounds like you keep defending the vendor, whereas I think this responsibility lies on the vendor. If you can't file an eBay or PayPal complaint after 45 days, there are other measures you can threaten and then take: Register a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and definitely sue them in small claims court for the price paid plus your court fees. (You may be able to sue even an out-of-state vendor in small claims court, depending on the laws in your state, if you're in the US.) You did not receive the product you ordered from the vendor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At what point in the topic did you decide to jump in without reading all that was posted before? 71.100.3.13 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You should not bite people who are trying to help you. Not a single time in this thread have you actually stated that you did contact the vendor about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked for it in recent threads dealing with the same topic? 71.100.3.13 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because answerers here on the Refdesk are not supposed to have to be telepathic and know that you're expecting us to go and research all your past questions in order to answer this one. Now that you've said this, I went back and see that you have tried contacting the seller and have received no response. Time to do the next things I suggested: Sue them in small claims court. That's why small claims court exists. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)BTW, Microsoft cannot, to my knowledge, exercise per machine control over a license key. They'd revoke the key completely, and give you a new one. They want to collect the material to avoid the possibility that you might try to resell the deactivated product and key. Think of it like returning something to a retail store. If you claim you received a defective air conditioner and want to replace it within the "no questions asked" return period (usually a week to a month). While they may not demand evidence that it is broken, they will require you to return the old one before they give you a new one. This is basically the same situation; you could write down the license key and copy the CD, but they want the stuff that makes it appear legit, the POL and COA. Otherwise, one copy of XP could be sold on and on and on, with each buyer discovering it doesn't work and demanding that MS give them a free copy. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, to be fair to Microsoft, you haven't even given them a chance. You bought WinXP from a random internet user. Even with positive satisfaction, you can't be sure with eBay and need to verify the moment you receive the product; buyers rarely give negative feedback because the seller can nail them with bad feedback too. It's entirely possible that the key was already used to activate a copy of Windows; random internet people cannot be trusted. :-) As to your complaints over Microsoft not matching a key to a CD: You're making an unreasonable demand. CDs are pressed in bulk, it's not like writing to a CD-R in your disk drive. If Microsoft somehow linked each CD to a specific key, it would increase the cost of production drastically. And there are benefits to the existing functionality: If your disk is damaged, you can borrow a friend's and use your own key. In the scenario you describe, disk damage would mean you permanently lose access, or you need to ship your broken CD back and pay for them to ship you a new CD and key. I wouldn't go spouting off about boycotting Windows 7 because you had a bad experience on eBay. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if Microsoft confiscates after replacement but if they are not going to issue a replacement on one excuse or another that does not satisfy me, like whether the ink that is used to print the installation manual could not possibly from their printer, then Nada. As is there is no guarantee that I will recover what I paid or the use I paid for if I sent the disk to them and they decide to keep it even if it is legit. Again the bottom line is that Microsoft does not copy protect the product key which would prevent even the best counterfeit disc and manual and POL nd COA from ever having a chance and thereby cut off the counterfeiters once and for all instead of causing the end user nothing but loss and pain. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself, in essentially the same way, and it's no longer clear what you are asking for help with. Can you clarify the question you want us to answer? Thanks! Ale_Jrb^talk 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from anyone with the experience of sending a disc and the materials it came with back to Microsoft would help. In absence of that the question is then why doesn't Microsoft copy protect the discs it sells? 71.100.3.13 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ale jrb answered this above just now — some companies do this, but it does increase customer dissatisfaction based on discs that won't read properly; Microsoft has decided that this cost (including the cost of angry customers) is heavier than the cost of just dealing with stolen keys. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, I've never had to send a disc back to Microsoft, so I can't help you with that. I do know that I once lost my Windows XP disc, and Microsoft provided another one (without the key, obviously) for free, but I didn't have to send them anything for that.

For the second part, I can answer that one! :D As our article says, copy protection is a system to prevent the unauthorised copying of disks. This is most commonly used on games (and DVDs) and it aism to make it very tricky for people to use computer software to make, and then re-burn to a RW disk, an image of the disk. This is important in gaming, as the company that makes the game wants to force you to use a valid CD to install (and sometimes play) the game, as they don't use online software activation.

Online software activation is much more common for non-gaming software (Windows, Office, Adobe Suite, 3D software etc.) because it's more efficient for both the company producing the CDs, and the consumers. The idea is that, because what you are actually buying (just a key) is not linked to the disk itself, it doesn't matter whether you use the disk that came with the software, or a friend's disk, or a download off the internet. For example, a single disk could be used to install software on hundreds of computers, and then each one activated with its own key. Imagine if you had hundreds of unique disks, and you had to remember which one goes with which computer... Not good! It also makes it much easier for companies to distrubte replacement disks in the event they are damaged - they can rest assured that you won't be cheating them, because oyu only have one key (and thus one copy of the software). These advantages makes it a simple decision for most software companies to use activation wherever possible. Does that answer the question? Ale_Jrb^talk 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You bought a copy of Windows on ebay and it turned out to be pirated - that's what you get for not buying your software from a reputable vendor (a 100% rating on ebay doesn't make someone reputable). You could try taking (or threatening - that might be enough) legal action against the seller (consult a lawyer for details), but I'm not sure it's worth it - assuming you didn't pay much for it, then you are probably better off just writing it off as the cost of learning not to trust random people on ebay. --Tango (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But you see I am only learning now that the Proof of License and Certificate of Authenticity is a crock along with the CD Microsoft sends out, that the product key can be copied and used without them and that even a reliable retailer can sell me a Copy of Windows that won't pass the activation or validation process and that Microsoft will at its own discretion acknowledge the fact that by using this method a customer can be wrongfully deceived. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint is not reasonable. You could say the same thing about a book publisher that sells a Certificate of Authenticity that goes along with the seventh Harry Potter book, and the whole lot gets copied by a pirate, and then sold to you by a vendor on eBay. Is it the book publisher's fault? No, it's the pirate's fault for pirating it, and it's the vendor's fault for buying pirated software and reselling it. What Tango has pointed out is that your "reliable vendor" is not a reliable vendor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But only after the fact, which would not be possible with copy protected software. 71.100.3.13 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless for Microsoft to copy protect the actual discs as they make the disc images legally available to download to MSDN, Technet and volume licence customers. If they were to copy protect the OEM/Retail discs it wouldn't stop piracy at all as the pirates would simply use the non-copyprotected versions Microsoft make available ZX81 ^talk 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My dad is a big seller on eBay with 100%-positive feedback. If anyone complains to him, he refunds their money. That's how he got a 100% rating. So, I don't understand why you don't send the seller an e-mail instead of defaming him in public. Many eBay sellers are just reselling items they purchased elsewhere. They increase the price a bit on eBay to make a profit. So it may not even be his fault.--Drknkn (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely the OP's argument is with the person who sold them the copy of Windows XP. Leave the seller negative feedback and take it up with eBay to help you get a refund. As for Microsoft, they would rather you retuned the package to them to remove it from circulation. You might get a replacement if they find it really is a counterfeit copy (and not just a DVD-R for example), and they believe your story about you being duped into believing it was genuine. I imagine the last part will be the most difficult but I imagine Microsoft will say pretty much what everyone else is saying here. Astronaut (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of Microsoft, I can imagine 34 scenarios here.

• 1) If your copy isn't counterfeit, they will either sent it back, or issue a new copy. I would emphasise that I can't under any situation, particularly if you are in a developed country with decent consumer protection laws or a litigious one like the US, imagine they will take your genuine copy and refuse to either issue you a new copy or return your genuine copy and would need some very strong evidence for this. Of course, they may charge you for this similar to the way a company will charge you if you send a product back under warranty and it isn't faulty. I can imagine that they may refuse to actually issue you a new key if they think you intentionally gave your key away to countless people, in which case you'll be stuck with a useless key and perhaps having paid Microsoft to get back your COA etc you'll be rather miffed.

Also a charge may seem unfair if you just bought the product and it was supposed to be new however the problem is you bought this from an auction site. Here in NZ for example, the Consumer Guarantees Act means that both retailers and manufacturers are obligated to fix unresonable problems that occur (a simplification) and while it's usually recommend you approach the retailer first, it's not required. However this doesn't apply to goods sold at auction. If I bought an unopened new copy of Windows at a retailer I don't think it would be resonable if it didn't work because the key was already in use and I was expected to pay for it to be replaced. And if the retailer was no help, I would expect Microsoft to replace it at no cost other then for me shipping it to them and expect that this would be considered obligated under law. This wouldn't apply if I purchased it under auction however and I think you may have difficulty proving that the copy was genuinely new and unopened unless perhaps you have a video of you opening it with the details clearly visible. Worst case scenario, you may be stuck between a rock and a hard place if you don't have enough evidence the product was new and unopened for Microsoft, but also don't have enough evidence it wasn't for the person who sold it to you. If everyone agrees the product wasn't new and unopened, then I don't know if it would be considered resonable that you expect Microsoft to replace the CD key at no cost.

• 2) If your copy is pirated but doesn't seem counterfeit or they don't otherwise believe you're genuinely the victim of counterfeiting they are obviously not going to return a pirated copy and they're clearly not going to issue you a new copy if you're not a victim. However isn't exactly a big loss. If you have a pirated copy, then you have a pirated copy. If you wanted to use a pirated copy then there's no reason you have to use one some dodgy??? e-bay seller sent you, you might as well find your own. I.E. Sending Microsoft an item which is basically worth next to nothing isn't a big loss, and having them confiscate it isn't either. The only problem is you can't then take the matter up with the seller. However as with people above, I don't see any reason for you to send it to Microsoft first. You should take the matter up with the seller first and only if you don't get a satisfactory response then try the Microsoft route.
• 3) If your copy is counterfeit and Microsoft believes you are really an innocent victim then they will issue you a new copy free of charge or at most with a shipping fee. You should be glad of this since it isn't actually Microsoft's problem or fault that you were a victim of counterfeiting.
• 4) Belatedly it did occur to me that if they determine your copy is genuine but either stolen or should never have been sold to you there is perhaps a risk they will take it and refuse to return it or issue a replacement, but in that case they would at least be willing offer some letter confirm the copy you received was stolen or shouldn't have been sold to you which should enable you to take the matter up with the seller for selling you something they shouldn't have. I would suspect more likely they'll want to chase after the party themselves particularly if it was stolen but if the EULA you agreed to upon opening the software said it was only for the use of certain parties and also said if you weren't certain parties or didn't otherwise agree with the EULA you should return it for a full refund, then you may have to chase after the seller yourself. Of course if the seller also specified the conditions and you ignored them then your SOL.

Also one thing that isn't clear to me. I'm pretty sure Microsoft has plenty of guides for attempting to verify you have an authentic copy of WIndows, such as what material you should have, what holograms should be on the material, what should be visible in the holograms etc. Have you at least verified all these?

Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft does not provide a buyer with any means either before purchase of its software to verify the authenticity of the hologrammed CD, the Proof of License or the Certificate of Authenticity, the product key, the transaction trail from manufacture or whether the seller is authorized. Microsoft instead relies upon the product key that is usable by anyone and which is clearly visible on the software package to check its database to determine (1) if Microsoft issued the product key and if not (2) whether the product key has been used - two verifications it could provide to perspective buyers but which it does not. Microsoft thereby knowingly permits counterfeit copies of its software to be sold. 71.100.15.157 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What causes screen "tearing" in videogames?

What's the cause of screen tearing in PC and console games? It's usually the top half of the screen is a frame ahead or behind of the bottom half with a distinct line between the two. #REDIRECT --70.167.58.6 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Games typically draw a new frame on an invisible memory buffer and then flip that to being the one you actually see on screen. Ideally this is done during the vertical blanking interval, which avoids the tearing you're talking about. But doing this means the system has to wait until that time (at 50Hz, that's a wait of up to 20ms); some games are clever and can spend that time doing calculations for the next frame, but some can't, or don't, so this vsync delay is just a waste. Most games' configurations have a "wait for vsync" or similar option in their config screens. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Vertical Sync" can also be set to "force on" with the NVidia drivers, it wouldn't suprise me if ATI drivers offered a similar setting. This will lower your framerate, but it will solve the tearing problem. Life is full of difficult choices. APL (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's a sign of sloppy or lazy programming? It's not a hardware issue? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Auto password feature

I accidentally selected the option to have Firefox 3.5.7 remember my password for a site. Now I can't find how to cancel it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

edit->preferences->security->saved_passwords (hmm, preferences may be in tools rather than edit on windows, but i digest...) -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Tools->Options->Security->Saved Passwords

Find the entry you want to delete and remove it. You can also configure the list of sites for which you never want to remember a password at Tools->Options->Security->Exceptions. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank->you. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

What proportion of edits to Wikipedia are made by unregistered editors?  Skomorokh  20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at this a year or so ago, it was ~45,000 edits/day by IP's and 250,000/day total, in rough figures (for en:wiki only). I think those numbers would still hold. Franamax (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For my own edification, do you happen to have a count that splits by confirmed/autoconfirmed vs. everyone else? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(off topic) I'm going to have to stop sleeping and do a bit more editing! Anon IPs Rule! (so long as they're static IP's!) ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of dynamic ips myself.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing_frequency has some statistics, specifically Wikipedia:Editing_frequency/All_registered and Wikipedia:Editing_frequency/All_anons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My results for en:wiki on 2010-01-08, using my anonEdits tool, which should be considered suspect at all times. I don't see a way to use the API directly to get non-autoconfirmed status for a named user at the time of the edit. I was spot on with the IP edit count, but registered editor counts are below what I would have thought.

Spc	Anon	!anon	Bot	!bot	New Pgs
Main	42,228	88,775	8638	122,347	3064
All	45,387	136,179	20,836	-	9293

So I'm seeing: mainspace anon=42K/day, editor=83K/day and allspace anon=45K/day, editor=124K/day. Bot edits are on top of that, except bot-new-pages are around 500/day of the figures shown. Deletions and other log events not included. YMMV. Franamax (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful and interesting stuff Franamax, thanks! The namespace discrepancy clearly suggests that registered editors are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 6094 changes made by registered editors to User:-space pages does suggest a certain amount of shuffling of flowerpots in windowsills, yes. That's a novel concept you've got there: "one of the benefits of registering an account is that you will no longer be permitted to edit, thus strengthening the encyclopedia". :) Franamax (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Free or inexpensive web-based email server

Is there one such which enables the customer to substitute his own email@hisowndomain.com as his address on outgoing emails? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Gmail for Domains allows you to use gmail but with a domain you own (you register, and redirect the appropriate mail exchanger links in your domains DNS to google's server). That way you get the full gmail interface but with email to and from kittybrewster.com or whatever. Though I hate to shill for Google, it is frankly pretty darn good. I imagine some other web email providers will do the same. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, they used to call it "Gmail for domains", but now they market it as part of the Google Apps suite - [1]. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are probably others that will do this but as stated above, Google does it very well. Dismas|^(talk) 09:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft does, but unfortunately they don't allow IMAP although it seems they finally added POP. There are other alternatives like forwarding. Personally I choose Google Apps in the end after evaluating several options (Microsoft's lack of IMAP and I think at the time even POP killed it for me; forwarding still requires some other mail server and I expect many of them have less reliable mail servers). With both Microsoft and Google you also get other things if you want. E.g. with Google you get XMPP. In any case, if you choose something with IMAP support or at least some other way to download all your mail, and have your own domain then you should be able to do whatever you want. If you're no longer satisfied with your current provider, transfer all your mail to someone else and then move your hosting to the other service provider. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DVD Copying

I have been copying my DVD Collection to WMV Files on my computer using Corel DVD Copy 6. However for some reason it is not able to copy two episodes from one of my disks, so I got Xilisoft DVD Ripper Standard 5 instead which can copy those two episodes. For some reason I can't understand or fix the two programs make WMV files at different sizes (See Image — Corel on the left, Xilisoft on the right). Windows says they have the same height and width but clearly they are different sizes. What is causing the difference between the two files and is there a way to make the file on the right the same size as the file on the left? Thanks 86.45.182.233 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the file on the right is not complete at all—it is only 10 seconds, while the one on the left is 45 minutes long. That will account for a lot of it. (Is the Xilisoft one a demo? Normally they don't stop after 10 seconds.) In general, they also probably use different compression algorithms or settings, which will get you very different results. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The length has nothing to do with it. I set it at 10 seconds so I could see the results of changing the settings faster. I've changed things like the codec, aspect ratio and zoom all with no effect. Changing the Video Size does have an effect, but that doesn't explain the difference between the two files in the image. 86.45.182.233 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the length has a lot to do with that particular image... obviously that is why one is 1MB and the other is 555MB. Anyway, it sounds like one of them just encodes differently than the other. It's unclear to me how much of a difference between sizes you're talking about. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the video on the right being taller then the one on the left, not the file size. Windows says are the same height and width but clearly they are not. 86.45.182.233 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Never-mind, I've figured it out. It's an aspect ratio setting in the file. I'm using Windows Media Encoder to change it. 86.45.182.233 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay—I see what you are talking about, now ("size" is an ambiguous term, no?). Yes, it was the aspect ratio that's the problem, but I see you've figured it out! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)