August 9

I've been hired to repair a Compaq 1540DM laptop manufactured around 1995. It boots, checks its memory ("32768 KB OK") and then starts beeping, like this: "beep [pause] beep beep [pause] beep beep beep." I looked in the Compaq troubleshooting manual and it doesn't mention that beep sequence.

When I first started on it, it gave an error about there being a non-system disk and asking me to remove it and to press any key. I downloaded a program to reset the BIOS and set up the system from HP. It booted into setup from those floppies, but they didn't fix the problem. I also have some Windows 3.0 floppies, but it said that they weren't system disks, either. So, I tried an MS-DOS boot floppy, but it froze at the end of the memory check. Now, it doesn't give any errors, even without disks in the drive. It just freezes and beeps after the memory check. I can't even reset the BIOS now. Does anyone know what the problem could be?

Here are the beeps. Sorry about the background noise:

IIRC Compaq use a series of "beep codes" to indicate various BIOS fault conditions. If it's not in the manual, a google search might help, but it depends on what BIOS you have. Astronaut (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual. Has some bleep codes, but not this one. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bought a pack of 10

Also, what happens if I re-record the pictures over the discs? Is the old data simply wiped out or is it still somehow available there? If I re-record the disc with less data than previously, does the extraneous old data stay there, or get erased, reverting that part of the disc's physical surface to "shiny"? JIP | Talk 11:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disks hold roughly 4.7

gibibytes. The abbreviation "GB" is commonly used for both. If you're getting I/O errors, it's likely the disks are defective. There's huge variation in the quality of recordable DVDs, and the higher quality disks aren't widely sold (because they're more expensive, and most people care more about price). It's also possible your drive is broken, or doesn't like that brand of disk. I'm having trouble understanding the questions in the second paragraph—do you want the data to be erased or to remain available? In principle one could erase and rewrite only the inner part of a disk, but in practice no one does it and there's no software to support it. -- BenRG (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I want the data to be erased. I want it to be exactly as if the previous data wasn't ever written there in the first place, only the current data. JIP | Talk 12:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what will happen, or what should happen—if the disks really are defective I suppose the erasure process could fail part way through. In practice it doesn't matter since when you rewrite the disk you'll write a new file list which won't reference the outer edge of the disk anyway, regardless of whether there's anything left over there. I would worry somewhat about the unreadable region creeping inward in the long term, but as long as the disks are only for backup and you test them every couple of months it should be fine. -- BenRG (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently got a Lexmark Inkjet printer (also a scanner and photocopier). However, in all my glory, I do not have the USB cable for it. I looked at its connector and it looked like a standard port. I looked up RadioShack's website and it was USD thirty something. Newegg had one for USD 11.98 including shipping. Am I missing something here? Is there a lot of difference in these cables? Where could I find a good deal on USB cables? Please let me know. Kushal (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$1.95 from Amazon.com. I think thats the cable your looking for - a USB A - B -

ane 13:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Radioshack, Officemax, etc., sell them at extremely high prices for no reason other than the fact that non-techies don't know where to buy them cheaper (and techies usually have a dozen extra ones at home anyway)—it's pure profit for them. So buy them online. The quality will be identical. The only variable aspect (other than the specifics of the cable connectors, of which there is a tiny variety), is the length. Make sure you don't buy a 20ft long one if what you really need is 3ft, or vice versa. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks just like what I want. The price is not expensive at USD 4.95 (USD 2.00 + USD 2.95 shipping). Thanks to both of you. I will need to think how long a cable I will need. hmm ... Kushal (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you are, but in the U.S. you can get them at any big box store (Wal-Mart, etc) and many discount stores (Big Lots, etc). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in continental USA. Thanks for the tip, Gadget850. I will look for it at our local Wal-Mart. If Walmart can match Amazon's price of USD 4.95, I'm sold. Kushal (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WalMart.com sells it one for about nine dollars. Kushal (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a dollar store (such as a 99 Cents Only Stores) in your area, check there. I often see them for a buck. Bunthorne (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I don't think my local dollar store carries any electronics but it is surely worth a try. Kushal (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very thankful to everyone who have contributed here so far. Just to be sure, here is a picture of the port. Does it take the USB A - B cable? How many types are there? Is it possible that I order something online that is not the right size? Thanks a lot once again. Kushal (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like. See this diagram. (A is the side that plugs into your computer.) APL (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear,
There have been great answers to some questions down here so I have faith someone might be able to help.
I forgot a website I used to know for looking up mobile, land-line telecommunication information - with just three letters or so - all kind of mobile phone network.
For instance, if a phone number is typed in website's search box, the result generated brings up the the telecommunication's name, if the number checked is real or not and other helpful infos.
Expecting to read from my Internet hero. King^Sol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.208.2 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

411.com seems to fit the bill for US numbers — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are they equivalent? or is one better/weaker than the other?--Loopy76 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the

ane 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

See also Pentium D, Intel Core, and Intel Core 2. Kushal (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentium 4 and Core 2 are very different designs and they can't be easily compared, but most people think the Core 2 is a better design. The Pentium 4 (NetBurst) came out back when Intel was still marketing chips based on clock speed, and it was designed primarily to have high clock speeds and only secondarily to perform well. A Core 2 Solo at 2 GHz will probably outperform a Pentium 4 at 4 GHz on "most things". The effect of having a second core (Core 2 Duo) depends on whether your software is designed to benefit from it. A dual core won't be twice as fast except for embarrassingly parallel tasks, and for many things it may be scarcely faster at all. The other thing to keep in mind is that all modern CPUs are more than fast enough for typical tasks, and have been for many years. You might be better off getting a cheaper processor and spending the money you save on more RAM or a faster hard drive or a better monitor or a more ergonomic keyboard and mouse. If you have special computing needs (e.g. you're a cutting-edge gamer or you do a lot of video encoding or scientific number crunching) then you should find a web community devoted to that kind of thing and look at their benchmarks and recommendations. -- BenRG (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concisely: Core 2 Duos are faster, cooler, use less electricity, and have 2 cores. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are Computer-games like "Pharaoh", "Zeus - Master of Olympus" and "Emperor - Rise of the middle kingdom" likely to fare on my computer??? they are a bit old games, released in around 2000.

My computer has :

- WINDOWS VISTA basic - Intel core 2 duo - Ati radeon graphics (I take it that's the graphic card even though I'm not too knowledgeable about these things...)

It ought to be said that a similar game like "Caesar III" (an old favourite of mine released in 1998 meant for only windows 95 and windows 98) didn't work on my previous computer with Windows-XP.

I want to order one or two of these games mentioned and play on my vista computer, but I'm unsure if it's wise buying.. maybe I risk buying games I can't run on my more modern computer.

So anyone who is more knowledgable about system requirements and such for games, I would appreciate hearing some thought and opinions.

Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.184.147 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista won't run 16 bit software on the 64 bit version. Coolotter88 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them apart from Emperor will work on both 32bit and 64bit Vista. -

ane 18:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand the 16, 32, 64 bit thingy... I don't know what bit I have, or how to adjust it if possible. But I know then that there is a chance it might work. Besides, on Amazon I found versions playable at XP, and I know that most games playable on xp is playable on Vista too. So thanks:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.184.147 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista can play some of the older games. For Dos games there is a program called

something that can run programs. For 16bit games you simply need to right click over the icon of the program start go to properties and look for something called Compatibility. From there you can change it to emulate all the way down to Windows 95. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If you don't understand 16/32/64 bit, why don't you read up on it? You'll understand things advice like you get here much easier when you read on new topics. 78.144.189.229 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh runs of Vista, lest I've been hallucinating. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello Wikipedians, I'd be wowed if you knew of a way to link to youtube videos, beginning at a specific moment of the video other than the start.... I've already tried looking around on youtube help and google but can't find an answer... thanks!!! (I mean in a easy-to-use way... like typing a bit of code into the URL of a youtube webpage) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.196.180 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's officially possible.89.242.131.11 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that it's possible at this time. —Kal ^(talk) 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was SATA only invented/implemented recently? Why did I have to suffer through all that bullcrap with 2 inch wide, hard to manipulate and butt-ugly PATA cables? --mboverload@ 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because only recently we achieved the technology to have it. Serial transmission was known to be more noise-resistant for a long time, due to

Serial ATA, is that it transmits only a single bit/baud per cycle or pulse, while parallel transmissions (like Parallel ATA

) transmits many bits (16 for PATA) per cycle or pulse, many times more bandwidth with the same clock in the circuitry.

Advances in

Firewire

and other serial transmission technologies pushed the I/O processor clock and the throughput of serial transmissions, while the hard-disk itself (physically) didn't achieve the same raise in throughput. So now it makes more sense to use a serial transmission, since is actually faster than the read/write throughput of the hard-disk.

The same story is valid for

PCI-e

.

--Juliano (T) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, I think it was the wide-spread implementation of the

WRE) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

SATA predates PCI-e, so this can't be true. There are many SATA motherboards that have no PCI-e interfaces. They are unrelated, except that both share the same idea of dropping parallel communication in favor of a serial one. Perhaps in a near future we will see serial communication with memory modules and multiprocessor buses too. This will reduce a lot the size of motherboards.

--Juliano (T) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I download this, can I use it to make my USB drive boot Xubuntu 8.04.1? Thanks in advance, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Xubuntu should work. --mboverload@ 05:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]