August 8

so I installed linux on my PC, and when it loaded I realized there was no GUI...so I rebooted to try to get to GRUB to load XP, but nothing is showing up on my monitor now. I'm getting the no-signal after turning on/off the monitor, unplugging and replugging the power, unplugging and reinserting the data cable, all this and no-signal.

Even put in a Vista boot CD and nothing. Help please? Wikindeling (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Vista boot cd is messed up. Did you install from a LiveCD version of linux? Also, what distro did you install? Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No signal even on post? Try resecuring the video card (remove, reinsert)? 24.76.161.28 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i was ruined there, I left it be for an hour and then tried again and the screen pops up. Odd...I don't get it. electronics, for all their fundamental logic, are flaky. -wikindeling Wikindeling (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a norwood micro model#LM3020tv. My grandson pushed some buttons and now it flashed a series of colored screens over and over, when you press any button it say "self test mode". how can I get out of this mode.

please help zed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zexdarique (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried removing the power source for a few minutes? Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they tried this: [1], although I don't know if it has batteries that need to be removed, as well. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for a manual. Looks like Norwood was formerly a brand of CompUSA before they were liquidated. I don't see any support for Norwood on the new CompUSA site. This appears to be an OEM product, probably Chinese— it was made for CompUSA. Is there an FCC ID number on the back of th emonitor? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend is using windows 98. Can he enable unicode in 98? He has installed the fonts. what else should he do? Thank you. 124.43.53.96 (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hazy memory of 98 tells me that the simple answer would be no. Even if he's got the fonts needed for Korean, Chinese, Pali, etc., I don't think there's any way he can input in them. So just what is it that he wants to do? (If "all sorts of things", then he'd be better off using Win NT or a successor, or of course GNU/Linux.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can, actually. There is a special download from microsoft that enables even a 95 to have basic unicode, though you'd have to use firefox as internet explorer in those windows will still not be unicode compatable even after the update. 212.85.21.254 (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at this on an application-by-application basis. As far as I know (and contrary to what 212.85.21.254 wrote) Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office versions from the last decade have full international support on Windows 9x, including IMEs. Firefox should display international web pages, but I don't know whether it supports the IMEs. Most small apps won't support Unicode at all, and localized versions will probably display gibberish on screen. Also, last I checked, Windows 98 doesn't support filenames with characters outside your locale, and there's nothing any app can do to change that. -- BenRG (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there any way to get more than one line on the Firefox bookmarks toolbar? So far I can only have one line with a button at the end which shows a vertical list if there are too many items to fit on one line. Regards—Cyclonenim^T@lk? 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go here and install stylish (an excellent extension). After restarting Firefox click the "Load into Firefox button, and then press the save button. There'll then be two rows which will wrap automatically. (You actually inspired me to do it myself ;) ) -

ane 11:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Haha, thanks :) —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 11:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, where is this "Load into Firefox" button? Nevermind, it was the "Load into Stylish" button ;) Cheers again —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited a North Carolina realtor's website that, among other things, offers beach property for rent. On my PC (Intel Core Duo, 1.73Ghz, 2G RAM), the site takes literally minutes to load. On my wife's PC, which shares the same wireless internet connection, response from the same site is typical of most web sites. We're both using Windows XP, and we both use the same anti-everything package (ZoneAlarm Security Suite v 7). Her PC is a year or so newer than mine, but I doubt the processor is all that much different. I don't get anything like this sluggishness on other sites. Any suggestions for reasons why? (I tried bringing the site up just before I started writing this question, and even with the side trips to check my processor speed, the damned thing hasn't loaded yet...) I can paste in the site, but (a) didn't want to seem to spam and (b) figure it's problem my problem, not theirs. OtherDave (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the site, it is nearly impossible to do anything except make wild guesses about what the problem could be. --

™ 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And even seeing the site, there are really too many variables involved to properly troubleshoot the issue in this kind of venue. Oh, btw, 1 year can make a huge difference. See

WRE) 19:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I knew about the variables... it was just a shot in the dark, hoping for a likely quick suggestion. Ordinarily our two PCs perform sufficiently alike that I don't think that's the difference (though I could be wrong). This is http://www.bluewatergmac.com/ the site]. I'm not a hacker or someone who'd build a computer from scratch, but I have installed or replaced internal drives, memory (including SIPPs), and CPUs. OtherDave (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me (similar spec PC to yours) without Javascript it loads very fast (under a second) on Firefox 3.0.1 and Opera. With Javascript enabled Firefox loads it in about 7 seconds and Opera loads it twice as fast. Try using

Firebug (Firefox extension) to see what parts are taking time to load. However, I noticed that site's search function takes around 20 to 40 seconds and Opera's status bar shows me all the transfers were bandwidth limited by the site itself, sometimes down to 1100 bytes per second (compared to 50000 or so for wikipedia).-84user (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In not so long ago days, it used to be possible to click on Install missing plugins and install flash player as a non-admin on Mozilla Firefox on MS Windows XP. However, as I have lately seen, Firefox simply redirects to the Adobe website now. Is it still possible to install Adobe Flash for Firefox as a non-admin? If so, how? Our IT has already installed Adobe Flash for IE7 and I would hate to bug them repeatedly for such a trivial task (as I know it amounts to a lot when hundreds of people start calling them to install tens of plug ins for them). Kushal (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have this problem at school It took me a log time to find a workaround but I eventually found one out.

1. Download the latest Flash xpi.
2. Change its filetype to a zip file (thats all xpi files are), by renaming it.
3. Extract flashplayer.xpt and NPSWF32.dll to %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Plugins\.

Just restart Firefox and it should now work. -

ane 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Awesome dude. It worked flawlessly. (Just opened Youtube.com to confirm, had to reply to thank you before anything else) Thanks a lot. Kushal (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have other CD drives that had a dirty door-open switch but this drive has an optical switch I can't repair. Is the a setting in the registry that I can use to turn this off so the hard drive can be used again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.162.249 (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is handled by the drive firmware and there's nothing the OS can do about it. Even if there were a hacked firmware that ignored the switch, you wouldn't want it because the drive has no way besides the switch to know that the door is closed, and it would try to spin up the motor and turn on the laser with the door open or a disc partially inserted. I think your only choices are hacking the hardware (replacing the optical switch with a manually operated one, probably a bad idea if it's even possible) or getting a new drive. -- BenRG (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a walk-in store that carries a DVR which can record HD TV. I'd prefer one that can record 1080p at the full frame rate, but would also like to know about lesser versions. I have trouble finding this using the Internet because many say they "support" 1080p, but this could mean they downconvert and then store at a lower resolution and/or reduced frame rate. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no HDTV broadcasts in 1080p. --LarryMac | Talk 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there are TVs that support 1080p, so I'd like a DVR with the same capability for when 1080p is broadcast in the future. I'd also settle for 1080i support or less, if that's all I can get. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those broadcasts. But anyway, as far as I know, the only standalone DVR on the market now is the TiVoHD, which is widely available, but that requires cable service (and CableCards, won't work with a converter box). Dish and DirecTV have DVR offerings, but of course they're tied to satellite TV. And cable companies have their POS offerings. The other option I've often heard suggested is a DVD recorder with digital tuner, and I have read that Philips offers one with a hard drive. --LarryMac | Talk 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tuner card would work. Do any of those support full resolution/full frame rate recordings of 1080p or even 1080i or 720p ? StuRat (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Reference Desk Volunteers,

On the Wikipedia footnote pages for the Wikipedia entry about Scientology, one of the links leads to a page in Chinese. The page cannot be translated using Windows "translate this page" funtion (at least I haven't had any luck!). It is possible it is an error page because of the http 404 in with the Chinese text. I am a reference librarian and it is a patron who would like to know what the page says. "Microsoft" is the only word in English on the page. We attempted to contact the Taiwan government, but have had not response. Microsoft is unable to help us. We are hoping someone at this Wikipedia Reference Desk might be able to assist us by translating this page. The link/URL is: http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/22Religion.htm

If this posted twice, I apologize. First time...

CHB Library (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reference Librarian, Connecticut Library[reply]

Yes, it is a 404 error page. It says that the page cannot be found. However, archive.org has an old version of this page here. The page is predominantly in English, but there is some Chinese scattered here and there. bibliomaniac15 19:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a reliable, freeware *.doc to *.pdf format converter, or a way to do it using office XP or similar common programs. Thoughts? --Shaggorama (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My company has throughly tested and approved PrimoPDF for use by all our employees. Its kind of slow but there are good options. --mboverload@ 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PDFCreator should do the trick too, and its free. Kushal (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning: .doc files are extremely complex, and no there is no software out there other than MS Word which actually interprets it perfectly. I do believe the newest version of Office converts to PDF, though of course it isn't free. I also think Open Office also does it, though I'm not sure. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that PDFCreator just acts like a printer emulator and so thought there should be no problems with using it. I have not noticed any significant problems myself but thanks for the warning, Magog the Ogre. The OP will keep it in consideration when determining his expectation level should [s]he decide to use PDFCreator. Oh, by the way, MS Office 2007 exported PDF files are larger than usual and can usually be made smaller with third party software. Kushal (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I tend to use CutePDF Writer, which has always worked quickly and efficiently for me. And yeah, that's correct, Kushal; Word handles the original .doc file, it's just that the PDF converter catches the output instead of an actual printer. Personally, I've never encountered a situation where the PDF file doesn't look exactly the way it does in the original Word document, either with CutePDF or PDFCreator. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the programs of

Adobe CS3 is Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Professional. It can create PDF's from documents, webpages, images, etc. It's not free, but it's one of those common programs.  ARTYOM  22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not only not freeware, it's probably one of the most expensive options you can recommend for something as simple as printing to a PDF! Acrobat Professional is totally overkill for that sort of thing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that a lot of people installing common Adobe software (Photoshop, for example) only use the programs that they need, and never notice the other useful programs in the Adobe package that have been installed as well. I didn't notice that I had it myself for quite a while. Besides, Acrobat is probably the best software to use for creating PDF's, mainly because it's PDF file format creator's own product.  ARTYOM  02:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acrobat creates PDFs just like all of the other PDF-makers out there. Making a PDF from a Word file is not difficult; there is no reason to use Acrobat Professional unless you are going to really use the additional features it has. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice. Not only is it freeware, it's also open: free as in beer and speech. It's a huge, awkward program, so if you like MS Office you'll feel right at home! And you don't need a malware-prone OS to run it, either. -- Hoary (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, you made me smile when you described OpenOffice. Thanks. By the way, Microsoft Office is much bigger and much more clunkier than OpenOffice even though it does not have to have Java Runtime Environment baggage to carry. I think I still stand by my original conviction that if you just want to soft print PDF, PDFCreator is the way to go. Kushal (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]