A thread for boring computer questions.

actually i don't rc. should be pretty easy

hm alright.

installing new RAM in a PB G4 is pretty straightforward: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=95132

buy the parts from crucial. this thing will point you in the right direction: http://www.crucial.com/store/listmodel.aspx?pl=PowerBook&mfgr=Apple&cat=RAM

do that, then wipe and reinstall. it will go like the clappers.

it's worth nothing however that RAM prices for PBs are currently rather high because nobody makes DDR RAM anymore. that said, you can probably buy whatever's cheapest at the moment and it'll downclock automatically.

this seems to be the cheapest deal going right now. however there's one review saying it didn't work too well in their powerbook, and pny is kind of a budget brand.

otherwise, this seems to be the best option if you don't mind paying a little more. crucial is a very big deal in the ram business and you won't go wrong with em imo.

if you have a 12" buy 1 stick, otherwise buy 2 sticks for maximum benefit.

when creating smart playlists in itunes, is there a way to make the criteria default to album rather than artist?

also on macbooks F7 is the displays button; where is the displays button on the normal apple keyboard?

Say you've got two PDFs exported from InDesign. One has ten grayscale images, the other has ten color images of the same pixel dimensions. You export them using the same preset, "Smallest File Size." Why would the grayscale PDF file size be 3x larger?

are the grayscale and colour images different sizes (in bytes) as JPGs/in photoshop, etc.?

the greyscale will be indexed and lossless, the jpeg will be lossy.

The images in both documents are native Photoshop files, no lossy file formats used in my ID documents. The color images are CMYK.

So, yeah, the images have different file sizes -- the color images are bigger. Yet in the PDFs generated out of these documents, the grayscale is bigger.

okay nothing to do with your questions but what is happening with this threads layout? after a certain post it turns the whole background grey (i'm on the black css option)

Which post? Likely there's script injection there that's fucking with the stylesheet.

this one :

geek check: I'm using DHTML to position stuff on a website (in divs, with position:absolute), and can't resolve some Netscape 4.x issues. I *have* to fix them, lots of users on campus here are still running the old browsers.

1) The "background-color:white" property for a center
is not understood by the browser. I don't know how to fix it! Something with tags? I have tried, and no luck. Is there a hack?
2) When there is a lot of content in the center
, the browser scrunches it all up so that it prints over itself ! What to do?

― daria g, Wednesday, 16 April 2003 00:29 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Is it still happening?

(There was a rogue "<div>" tag in that post that was throwing off the formatting of the page.)

hmm yes i can still the effect. normally i see seperate grey boxes for each post over a darker grey background. but now i see all the post boxes against the same grey background.

i took a grab:

http://www.mullsports.com/images/ilxpage.jpg

lol there was more than one <div> in that post

is it still happening?

fixed ! you the man

yay! Now about my PDFs.

lol, sorry dude

yeah I can't help you there

Unless maybe the bit fidelity on the greyscale images is larger than the color ones? That seems far-fetched and likely entirely made up but I don't know where else to start looking.

gaaahh...

OK, went in and looked at the compression settings for PDF export, problem solved (after idly wondering about it for a couple of years).

do you want your grayscale pdfs to be 3x bigger than colour pdfs: y/n?

haha, always remember to make sure the "grayscale is hueg" option is turned off

caek -- definitely no.

This will make a portion of my job much easier.

what the fuck is the point of RAR? seriously

could be wrong but i think it's always had better self-checking / integrity features than ZIP, especially for multipart archivess

yeah, it does multipart, which used to be a big deal when stuff was distributed on usenet and/or people had slow/unstable connections.
also if you are any one part, the magic .par file does some stuff involving check digits will allow you to unrar anyway. also, i think it supported password protection before zip.

basically though, it's a completely pointless holdover from dialup days that "scene" people still like for some reason.

also if you are ~missing~ any one part

RAR manages non-Latin characters correctly, ZIP does not.

it's not pointless at all today, especially considering that every free file host has a file size limit, ahem.

and even without .par (which is an awesome thing), you can still extract individual files even if the archive is corrupted - .zip was pretty bad with this

it's not pointless at all today, especially considering that every free file host has a file size limit, ahem.

ah yes, was thinking of people who use multipart on bittorrent, which is pointless, but yeah, that makes sense.

i haven't seen a .par for years.

wth stylesheet is that ste? my eyes!

RAR manages non-Latin characters correctly, ZIP does not.

Yeah this is U+K.

what setting did you change to fix the PDF problem? I see smallest size is set to downsample color images to 100dpi and grayscale to 150dpi.

In any case, a good trick is to open PDFs in Preview (if on a Mac) and save them again, it strips the file of some extraneous Adobe bullshit that Adobe keeps in the file even when saving to "smallest size".

I set the downsampling numbers for gray to be the same as for color, and got the fix I was looking for. The files I create in "Smallest File Size" are very rough proofs for advertisers; I may set the downsampling for color and gray images even lower, but maybe not. That one change was v. helpful.

I usually change all the settings to downsample to 125 for anything over 125 when I'm making a lo-res PDF for approval purposes. I also sometimes pump up the JPG quality to make it better. And if you haven't played with it, Acrobat itself has a lot of features for lowering the resolution of a PDF, so don't have to keep making new ones.

In any case, a good trick is to open PDFs in Preview (if on a Mac) and save them again, it strips the file of some extraneous Adobe bullshit that Adobe keeps in the file even when saving to "smallest size".

there's an app for that: http://www.panic.com/blog/2010/02/shrinkit-1-0/ (10.6+ only)

yeah, I was going to mention it but I couldn't remember what it was called! I'm still on 10.5 at work though.

me too. 10.5 for all time.

I have a long history of frustration with extraneous data in adobe files, when Illustrator CS eps files would be placed in quark and bring in all kinds of color swatches that where in the file's palette but not actually used in the artwork. Very sloppy. And being the neat-freak that I am, I'd have to go digging through placed logos and art looking for what was causing these color swatches to appear in Quark.

Now there's a new problem with color swatches getting stuck in InDesign. You can even delete all placed art and these swatches stay there, you "select all unused" and InDesign correctly highlights the swatch as unused...but you can't trash it. The only solution is to create an EPS or PDF file with that color, place it into InDesign, then delete it. Fun times. It's making me less anal about making sure the swatches palette only contains actual colors actually used in the artwork.

it's not letting me password protect my airport express network wtf

anyone ever heard of this happening?

HALP I have a bunch of webpages with audio and video clips embedded with JW Player, and I need to bypass this stupid flash thing and get the media onto my computer. Isn't there a greasemonkey script for this? HALP

a quick look at JW page seems to suggest that the urls for the actual content might be available in the page source.

(failing that, you must've uploaded them in the first place, just use filezilla or something and download them)

post a url, and we'll take a look.

Oh they're not MY webpages; it's for an online course I'm taking, and the instructor wants us to watch all of this shit while we're logged in, but my internet connection's wonky and I hate the interface and it'd be tons easier if I could just watch them locally. I have found urls in the source before but there's tons and tons of them on the page and I was just hoping for an easier way than trawling through tons of source code. Alas.

Have you tried using Firefox and one of those video downloader add-ons that grab FLVs and movies off YouTube and other sites?

Day and a half late, but multipart in torrents drives me nuts, especially when it is 10 .rars of 12 .zips of an iso (I have seen this! on a tracker whose rules prohibited it being shared unzipped, even)

This is kind of not relevant in the days of mp3/flac and jpeg but .rar used to be a lot better than zips at squeezing uncompressed image or audio data down.

The zip compression algorithm is pretty old now, interested to see if any better universal methods crop up, or if we've reached a sort of minimum and it's all down to format-specific tinkering now, or if people are just not interested in minute improvements in compression any more now hard disks are into the terabytes and everyone has broadband

there are mathematically superior algorithms like bzip, but, yeah, i don't think there's a crying need for a better one-size-fits-all losless compression. all the energy is going into lossy compression, esp. on video.