Search Results

Search found 9608 results on 385 pages for 'flash drives'.

Page 52/385 | < Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >

  • How to read using C++ (C#) sound stream sent by flash?

    - by Oleg
    Hello. I need to read sound stream sent by flash audio in my C++ application (C++ is not a real limitation, it may be C# or any other desktop language). Now flash app sends audio to another flash app but I need to receive the same audio by desktop application. So, is there a standard or best way how to do it? Thank you for your answers.

    Read the article

  • Why Flash can't be rendered in a Windows Service?

    - by Leonid
    I'm trying to solve a similar problem as was described here - to create a Windows Service for taking snapshots of rich webpages (html+js+flash) and saving them to a PDF file. The bundle Firefox+cmdlnprint did the trick for me. I wrote a simple program running as a service that invokes Firefox to make a PDF. All seems well, the PDF gets created, but Flash is completely missing. Although, when started not as a service, Flash renders just fine. Can anyone shed a light on what blocks Flash from rendering and if there's a workaround? thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I embed a flash movie in a zend view programmatically?

    - by curro
    I have tried to embed a flash movie in a zend view using the htmlFlash helper. In theory you only have to pass the movie path to the htmlFlash helper in a phtml view: echo $this-htmlFlash('/path/to/myMovie.swf'); And the framework will generate the html code in the html page: <object data="/path/to/flash.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab"> </object> However, I have done so and the code doesn't appear on the source code. Has anyone had this problem? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Which Ubuntu-like Linux OSs work well on a flash drive?

    - by Evan Kroske
    I want a Linux OS that I can load on a flash drive, but I don't want to relearn an entire operating system. I want to know which tiny Linux installations are most like Ubuntu. For example, I'd like to use the apt-get package manager, the Gedit text editor, and the bash shell. I'd like to use something that's already popular, stable, and highly compatible, but it needs to fit comfortably in one gig of my four-gig flash drive (just the essentials; I'll use the remaining three gigs to store installed programs and files). I have no preference for window managers; I just want something small and fast that works like Ubuntu. What is the most popular Ubuntu-like OS that can be easily run on a thumb drive? Edit: I'm not sure I understand how this works. I don't to use a USB drive as a LiveCD; I want to plug in a USB stick and use the computer as if it was my own. In other words, I want to be able to install programs on the drive on one computer and use them on another. Do any of these OSs let me do that? Please forgive my ignorance.

    Read the article

  • What is the best hosting option for Flash web-widget?

    - by par
    Our Flash web-widget has got highly popular. It is downloaded around 100,000 times per day. And that is the problem. Our server bandwidth is too narrow to deliver the widget to the clients fast. The widget is loaded very slow. Probably 20 times slower than before (at peak times). Probably I have choosen not the right hoster for my task - delivering 1 MB Flash widget to 100,000 users per day. What is the best hosting solution in my case? I'm not good at server administration so forgive me if I sound naive. The details are the following. Our hoster options: -Dedicated server, Ubuntu -10 Mbit Connection -monthly bandwidth limit: 2000 GB Widget size is 1 MB. The widget consists of the main SWF and a number of loaded SWF and data files. This is a part of Apache Status report taken right now ---- Server uptime: 1 hour 2 minutes 38 seconds Total accesses: 74865 - Total Traffic: 5.8 GB CPU Usage: u28 s7.78 cu0 cs0 - .952% CPU load 19.9 requests/sec - 1.6 MB/second - 81.1 kB/request 200 requests currently being processed, 0 idle workers WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWCWWWW WWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWCWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCWCWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWCW WWWWWWWW........................................................ ----

    Read the article

  • AMD E1-1200 Slow?

    - by Tim Rijckaert
    I recently installed Ubuntu 12.04 32bit with Gnome 3 on a Toshiba 850D-104 for a friend of mine. This friend only surfs the web, checks for emails and plays online flash games a lot I was chocked to see that the laptop was rather sluggish. I mean you get what you pay for, with this kind of processor (AMD E1-1200, dual-core 1.4Ghz), but it's a bit too much! It takes 10 seconds to just open up Chromium (1 tab!) not to mention when he plays a flash-game it's stuttery and becomes unplayable. What can I do? I already tried Lubuntu, but it's not that much faster. I checked the resources and the ram is only 300Mb from the 6Gig installed? The Graphics card is a AMD HD Radeon 7310 (and the FGLRX-driver is installed) Any solutions for a sluggish Flash experience on Ubuntu? Thanks

    Read the article

  • "cannot receive new filesystem stream: invalid backup stream" error when unpacking flash archive on solaris 10

    - by Bovril
    I've searched around but i'm having no luck with some peculiar behavior with a flash archive. I'm using HP Server Automation 9.14 to deploy the OS. I'm creating a Solaris 10 flash archive to create a snapshot default build in our environment. I create the flash archive with # flar create -c -S -n g8-solaris10-u10 g8-solaris10-u10.flar It seems to create the file without any problems (exit status 0). When deploying to a new system (same hardware), it extracts to a point and then bails. The last error in the log I can see is Extracted 2047.00 MB ( 82% of 2488.98 MB archive) ERROR: Could not read file (172.27.118.100:/media/opsware/sunos/flar/g8-solaris10-u10.flar ERROR: Errors occurred during the extraction of flash archive. The file /tmp/flash_errors contains the list of errors encountered ERROR: Could not extract Flash archive ERROR: Flash installation failed The error log contained the following message cannot receive new filesystem stream: invalid backup stream A previous version of this flash archive (1.8gb) worked ok, so I suspect size may be a factor. The source system (the one the flash archive is an image of) is an HP BL460C GEN8 some more info below. OS version Info # uname -a SunOS testhostname 5.10 Generic_147441-01 i86pc i386 i86pc # who -r . run-level 3 Oct 15 08:15 3 0 S disks # echo | format Searching for disks...done AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c0t0d0 <DEFAULT cyl 17841 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63> /pci@0,0/pci8086,3c06@2,2/pci103c,3355@0/sd@0,0 Specify disk (enter its number): Specify disk (enter its number): zpools # zpool list NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CAP HEALTH ALTROOT rpool 136G 24.6G 111G 18% ONLINE - Zones # zoneadm list -cv ID NAME STATUS PATH BRAND IP 0 global running / native shared The file size of 2047 seems suspiciously close to 2048, which is concerning. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Rendering performance in FlasCC + UDK when compared to Stage3d and UDK on Windows?

    - by Arthur Wulf White
    Adobe recently released the Flash C++ Compiler, which UDK uses to target Flash Player. Developers can now access UDK for browser applications. Does this mean greater performance than using a Stage3D engine (Away3D 4) and how much of a noticeable difference in performance would it make in rendering speeds? Is there any benchmark you could propose that would allow to compare them fairly? I am asking this to help myself understand the consequences in performance for deciding to use UDK in a browser based game. I would also like to know how it compares with UDK running natively in Windows? I am not asking which technology to use or which is better. Only interested in optimizing rendering speed in a 3d browser game with flash.

    Read the article

  • FlasCC requirements and limitations?

    - by Arthur Wulf White
    It is now available for download. It says you need twice* as many bits as I have. Why would you need more bits to compile code? Does that mean you need more bits to run flash games writtes with flasCC Did anyone try it out and happens to know the answers? http://gaming.adobe.com/technologies/flascc/ Minimum system requirements Flash Player 11 or higher Flex SDK 4.6 or higher Java Virtual Machine (64-bit) Windows Microsoft® Windows® 7 (64-bit edition) Cygwin (included) *This is meant as a joke. however I do own a 32-bit laptop and I am wondering why you need 64-bit. Afaik - You only need 64-bit if you want to run a system that has more than 4gigs of memory. Why would any flash game require more than 4 gigs of memory. The only system that is 64-bits and does not have 4gigs of memory that I can quickly recall is that hilarious Nintendo that came ages ago with a Motorola CPU.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu on a USB

    - by Sander de Lange
    I was just wondering if anyone had a good experience with Ubuntu on a flash drive... I'm installing it right now. I formatted my 16GB flash drive to Ext2 because the default file system is ext4 but that one is journaled and USB flash drives do not like journaling. I want to use this to learn Java and Ubuntu seems to be a great OS for this. I (obviously) have USB 2.0 ports where I will put the USB in. How is the boot time of Ubuntu on a USB?

    Read the article

  • Disable auto-mount for particular partitions on usb drives

    - by nealmcb
    I have a big USB disk with 3 partitions: one for backup and two other bootable ones for installing and testing new distros. I want the backup partition automounted on boot. But I don't want the two test partitions automounted. Despite my use of "noauto" in /etc/fstab, something (gnome?) seems to be mounting them when I plug the drive it. LABEL=mybook /srv/backup ext4 defaults 0 2 LABEL=mybook-root /media/mybook-root ext4 user,noauto 0 2 LABEL=mybook-spare /media/mybook-spare ext4 user,noauto 0 2 In previous Ubuntu distributions it seems that it was possible to configure gnome so it would avoid mounting particular partitions on removable drives like USB: gnome-mount --write-settings --mount-options noauto --device /dev/sda1 This is no longer available in Lucid (when did it go away?) Is there another way to do this now?

    Read the article

  • How to Forward Local Drives to Remote Machines Using Remote Desktop

    - by Taylor Gibb
    Have you ever had a file on a flash drive that you needed to use on a machine that is situated in another building or even halfway across the world? You can do that by plugging it into your local machine and then forwarding the drive through your remote session to that machine. Here’s how to do it. Press the Windows Key and R to bring up a run box, and type mstsc to launch the Remote Desktop Connection Dialog, or you can just search for Remote Desktop in the Start Menu. Click on the arrow next to options to see some of the more advanced options. How to Make the Kindle Fire Silk Browser *Actually* Fast! Amazon’s New Kindle Fire Tablet: the How-To Geek Review HTG Explains: How Hackers Take Over Web Sites with SQL Injection / DDoS

    Read the article

  • I don't have permission to access other drives

    - by mcjohnalds45
    After messing with the user accounts & names, I found I can't access my external drives without using sudo. So when I access one normally with cd "/media/john/FreeAgent Drive" I receive bash: cd: /media/john/FreeAgent Drive: Permission denied However, using sudo: sudo cd /media/john sudo ls -l It gives: drwx------ 1 john john 20480 Sep 24 10:45 FreeAgent Drive/ And id returns uid=1003(john) gid=1003(john) groups=1003(john), ... So I'm interpreting this is as "you are john, only john can access this drive, however, you cannot access this drive." I have tried sudo chown john:john "FreeAgent Drive" and sudo chmod o+rw "john/FreeAgent Drive"but I still can't access it.

    Read the article

  • Install failing new hard drives

    - by John
    I'm trying to install Ubuntu server 12.04 on my new hard drives but it seems to fail. Once past the option menu where is asked the partition to install the OS on, goes into a hold and no progress is shown afterwards. The hard disk I'm trying to install it on is: Western Digital WD20EARX The installation process hangs around 'installing core packages/installing the base system' . The CD comes through the test with being valid/ok. any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Question regarding drives

    - by user205934
    I am a new Ubuntu user who has spent a lot of time on Windows. A very common practice for me on Windows was making two drives, C: and D: , storing installs/files in C:, and I used D: for backup or if I downloaded something that I wanted to save, I saved in D: When installing Ubuntu, it asked me if I wanted to replace Windows 7. I thought it would install Ubuntu on C: but instead it used the whole partition, nevertheless I recovered my backup using testdisk. What I wanted to do was to create a similar backup drive on Linux too. My current partition table: sda 8:0 0 232.9G 0 disk +-sda1 8:1 0 230.9G 0 part / +-sda2 8:2 0 1K 0 part +-sda5 8:5 0 2G 0 part [SWAP] sr0 11:0 1 1024M 0 rom So should I use Gparted to create another sda3 and store my important data on that? Also my current sda2 is listed as an extended partition, should I delete it? It's a very small partition, just 1K.

    Read the article

  • SATA 300 mobo and drives but only connected at SATA 150

    - by Shevek
    I have an Abit AB9 QuadGT motherboard which supports SATA 300 drives Connected to it I have a Kingston SSDNow V Series 64GB as boot drive and a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 as a data drive. I also have 2 x Optiarc AD-7170S DVD burners attached by SATA Both SSD and HDD are SATA 300 and the optical drives are SATA 150 I have just run CrystalDiskInfo and this is reporting that both SSD and HDD are connected at SATA 150, not SATA 300. I have the BIOS set up to use SATA drives in IDE mode. So a few questions: Is CrystalDiskInfo reporting correctly? Are the optical drives causing the SSD & HDD to connect at the slower rate? Is there any setting to force the SSD & HDD to use SATA 300? I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate

    Read the article

  • Internal drives vs USB-3 with external SSD or eSata with External SSD

    - by normstorm
    I have a need to carry VMWare Virtual Machines with me for work. These are very large files (each VM is 20GB or more) and I carry around about 40 to 50 VM's to simulate different software configurations for different client needs. Key: they won't fit on the internal hard drive of my current laptop. I currently execute the VM's from an external 7200RPM 2.5" USB-2 drive. I keep copies of the VM's on other 5400 external USB-2 drives. The VM's work from this drive, but they are slow, costing me much time and frustration. It can take upwards of 30 minutes just to make a copy of one of the VM's. They can take upwards of 10-15 minutes to fully launch and then they operate sluggishly. I am buying a new laptop (Core I7, 8GB RAM and other high-end specs). I intend to buy an SSD for the O/S volume (C:). This SSD will not be large enough to hold the VM's. I have always wanted a second internal hard drive to operate the VM's. To have two hard drives, though, I am finding that I will have to go to a 17" laptop which would be bulky/heavy. I am instead considering purchasing a 15" laptop with either an eSATA port or USB-3 ports and then purchasing two external drives. One of the drives might be an external SSD (maybe OCX brand) for operating the VM's and the other a 7400RPM 1TB hard drive for carrying around the VM's not currently in use. The question is which options would give me the biggest bang for the buck and the weight: 1) 2nd Internal SSD hard drive. This would mean buying a 17" laptop with two drive "bays". The first bay would hold an SSD drive for the C: drive. I would leave the first bay empty from the manufacture and then purchase/install an aftermarket SSD drive. This second SSD drive would have to be very large (256 GB), which would be expensive. I would still also need another external hard drive for carrying around the VM's not in use. 2) 2nd internal hard drive - 7400 RPM. Again, a 17" laptop would be required, but there are models available with on SSD drive for the C: drive and a second 7200 RPM hard drives. The second drive could probably be large enough to hold the VM's in use as well as those not in use. But would it be fast enough to drive the VM's? 3) USB-3 with External SSD. I could buy a 15" laptop with an SSD drive for the C: drive and a second hard drive for general files. I would operate the VM's from an external USB-3 SSD drive and have a third USB-3 external 7200 RPM drive for holding the VM's not in use. 4) eSATA with External SSD. Ditto, just eSATA instead of USB-3 5) USB-3 with External 7400 RPM drive. Ditto, but the drive running the VM's would be USB-3 attached 7400 RPM drives rather than SSD. 6) eSATA with External 7400 RPM drive. Dittor, but the drive running the VM's would be eSATA attached 7400 RPM drives rather than SSD. Any thoughts on this and any creative solutions?

    Read the article

  • SCSI drives not showing up in Linux CentOS 4

    - by Mohammad
    So I have a poweredge 6650 with Perc 3 installed. on the first channel of raid controller I have 2x 73gb configured in raid 1. On the second channel I have two 300GB drives that are stand alone. The two 300gb drives do not show up in linux, (no /dev/sdb*)... Can perc 3 support non-raid and raid drives combined? Is there any settings I may be missing? Thanks in advance :)

    Read the article

  • Browsing mapped network drives in Aptana Studio - Windows 7

    - by Marco
    I've recently started using Windows 7 (64-bit) at work, but after installing Aptana like usual, and mapping my network folders like I always have, Aptana shows the mapped drives, but with a red X on the drive icon. Using the native windows explorer I can browse the drives fine, and I don't need to login. If it matters the mapped drives are hosted on both Windows and Linux servers. Any ideas on what to do? My googling is drawing blanks.

    Read the article

  • Failures when copying between two external drives on the same controller

    - by Krzysztof Kosinski
    I'm encountering a weird problem which is present both on Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.04, on two different machines. When trying to copy between two external drives connected to the same USB controller, the transfer will randomly hang at some random time (after copying 300MB, 1GB, 10GB - it doesn't appear to depend on the dataset being copied). The hang appears to happen faster in 10.04. It appears to happen slower if both drives are connected to a hub. If the drives are connected to 2 distinct physical ports on the machine, the hang will be very fast. Hangs cannot be reproduced if: Data is copied from the first external drive to an internal drive, then to the second external drive Drives are connected to different USB controllers, for example the first one is connected to the built-in controller and the second one via an external PCMCIA controller. lspci says the first machine has an Intel ICH9 USB controller, the second an Intel ICH4. Is this a hardware problem, a kernel problem or a software issue? I used Nautilus when copying the files.

    Read the article

  • Why are my hard drives failing?

    - by WishCow
    I have a small Ubuntu server running at home, with 2 HDDs. There are two software raids (raid1) on the disks, managed by mdadm, which I believe is irrelevant, but mentioning it anyway. Both of the HDDs are Western Digital, and have been used for around 2 years, when one of them started making clicking noises, and died. I figured that maybe it's natural after 2 years, so I bought a new one, and resynced the raid arrays. After about a month, the other drive also died. I didn't get suspicious, since both drives have been bought at the same time, it's not that surprising to see both of them near each other, so I bought another one. So far, 2 old drives failed, and 2 brand new in the system. After one month, one of the new drives died. This is when it started getting suspicious. Since the PC was put together from some really old parts (think AthlonXP), I figured that maybe the motherboard's SATA controller is the culprit. Of course you can't switch parts easily in an old PC like this, so I bought a whole system, new MB, new CPU, new RAM. Took the just failed drive back, since it was under warranty, and got it replaced. So it is up to 2 failed drives from the old ones, and 1 failed drive from the new ones. No problems, for 1 month. After that errors were creeping up again in /var/log/messages, and mdadm was reporting raid array failures. I started tearing my hair out. Everything is new in the system, it's up to the third brand new HDD, it's simply not possible that all of the new drives that I bought were faulty. Let's see what is still common... the cables. Okay, long shot, let's replace the SATA cables. Take HDD back, smile to the guy at the counter and say that I'm really unlucky. He replaces the HDD. I come home, one month passes and one of HDDs fails, again. I'm not joking. Two of the brand new HDDs have failed. Maybe it's a bug in the OS. Let's see what the manufacturer's testing tool says. Download testing tool, burn it to a CD, reboot, leave HDD testing overnight. Test says that the drive is faulty, and I should back up everything, if I still can. I don't know what's happening, but it does not look like a software problem, something is definitely thrashing the HDDs. I should mention now, that the whole system is in a shoebox. Since there are a load of "build your own ikea case" stuff, I thought there shouldn't be any problems throwing the thing in a box, and stuffing it away somewhere. The box is well ventilated, but I thought that just maybe the drives were overheating. There is no other possible answer to this. So I took the HDD back, and got it replaced (for the 3rd time), and bought HDD coolers. And just now, I have heard the sound of doom. click click whizzzzzzzzz. SSH into the box: You have new mail! mail r 1 DegradedArrayEvent on /dev/md0 ... dmesg output: [47128.000051] ata3: lost interrupt (Status 0x50) [47128.000097] end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 58588863 [47128.000134] md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0 [48043.976054] ata3: lost interrupt (Status 0x50) [48043.976086] ata3.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen [48043.976132] ata3.00: cmd c8/00:18:bf:40:52/00:00:00:00:00/e1 tag 0 dma 12288 in [48043.976135] res 40/00:00:00:4f:c2/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout) [48043.976208] ata3.00: status: { DRDY } [48043.976241] ata3: soft resetting link [48044.148446] ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133 [48044.148457] ata3.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0 [48044.148477] ata3: EH complete Recap: No possibility of overheating 6 drives have failed, 4 of those have been brand new. I'm not sure now that the original two have been faulty, or suffered the same thing that the new ones. There is nothing common in the system, apart from the OS which is Ubuntu Karmic now (started with Jaunty). New MB, new CPU, new RAM, new SATA cables. No, the little holes on the HDD are not covered I'm crying. Really. I don't have the face to return to the store now, it's not possible for 4 drives to fail under 4 months. A few ideas that I have been thinking: Is it possible that I fuck up something when I partition and resync the drives? Can it be so bad that it physicaly wrecks the drive? (since the vendor supplied tool says that the drive is damaged) I do the partitoning with fdisk, and use the same block size for the raid1 partitions (I check the exact block sizes with fdisk -lu) Is it possible that the linux kernel or mdadm, or something is not compatible with this exact brand of HDDs, and thrashes them? Is it possible that it may be the shoebox? Try placing it somewhere else? It's under a shelf now, so humidity is not a problem either. Is it possible that a normal PC case will solve my problem (I'm going to shoot myself then)? I will get a picture tomorrow. Am I just simply cursed? Any help or speculation is greatly appreciated. Edit: The power strip is guarded against overvoltage. Edit2: I have moved inbetween these 4 months, so the possibility of the cause being "dirty" electricity in both places, is very low. Edit3: I have checked the voltages in the BIOS (couldn't borrow a multimeter), and they are all seem correct, the biggest discrepancy is in the 12V, because it's supplying 11.3. Should I be worried about that? Edit4: I put my desktop PC's PSU into the server. The BIOS reported much more accurate voltage readings, and also it has successfully rebuilt the raid1 array, which took some 3-4 hours, so I feel a little positive now. Will get a new PSU tomorrow to test with that. Also, attaching the picture about the box: (disregard the 3rd drive)

    Read the article

  • Building a PC, advice on SSD/Hybrid Hard Drives

    - by Jamie Hartnoll
    I am looking at building a new PC, it's mainly for office (graphics heavy) use and programming. Looking for good performance with opening and closing programs and files as well as a fast boot. I plan to have 3 primary hard drives Windows 7 Programs (photoshop etc) Current Files (There'll also be a large storage capacity back up drive, but this will be the Seagate drive I already have.) So, my question is, looking at standard "old fashioned" hard drives and SSD drives, obviously there's a massive price difference. I have been looking at drives like this: http://www.ebuyer.com/268693-corsair-120gb-force-3-ssd-cssd-f120gb3-bk-cssd-f120gb3-bk and this: http://www.ebuyer.com/321969-momentus-xt-750gb-sata-2-5in-7200rpm-hybrid-8gb-ssd-in-st750lx003 Having no experience of using either I don't know what's the most efficient thing to go for. Clearly the SSD will have better performance, but: If, for example, I had an SSD for Windows (say about 100gB), that would clearly give me the boot speed I want, then I guess my real questions are: If I were to buy one more SSD, would it give the greatest improvement on standard performance if used to store programs, or currently used files? Given that the OS is on an SSD, should I not bother with the 3 drives and instead, partition that Hybrid drive to store programs and currently used files on it? Obviously, option two is cheaper and option one could cause me storage issues, but that's when I can dump files I am not currently using onto another drive. Any, I am open to suggestions... so what do you suggest?!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >