Search Results

Search found 124483 results on 4980 pages for 'ubuntu one music store'.

Page 59/4980 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

  • Intel graphics Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS: does not detect second monitor

    - by user206551
    I have some problems to get the second monitor working on my Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS. If I click on the detect button it does not work. Info about my system: $uname -a Linux LabTop2 3.8.0-32-generic #47~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 2 16:22:28 UTC 2013 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux $cat /etc/*-release DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu DISTRIB_RELEASE=12.04 DISTRIB_CODENAME=precise DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS" NAME="Ubuntu" VERSION="12.04.3 LTS, Precise Pangolin" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu precise (12.04.3 LTS)" VERSION_ID="12.04" $lspci |grep VGA 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller (rev 09) $lsmod | grep video uvcvideo 72250 0 videobuf2_core 39385 1 uvcvideo videodev 96131 2 uvcvideo,videobuf2_core videobuf2_vmalloc 12920 1 uvcvideo videobuf2_memops 13042 1 videobuf2_vmalloc video 19116 1 i915 $xrandr -q xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default Screen 0: minimum 1366 x 768, current 1368 x 768, maximum 1368 x 768 default connected 1368x768+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1366x768 0.0 1368x768 0.0* Before upgrading the system, xrand -q showed my much more resolution options and the other monitor. I have tried to install intel-linux-graphics-installer but this version of ubuntu is not supported Any help will be apreciated!!

    Read the article

  • In-Store Innovations with Oracle Retail 14

    - by Marie-Christin Hansen-Oracle
    In this latest video from our demo series filmed at the 2014 NRF BIG Show in New York, Master Principal Consultant Rachel Staniland details innovations in Oracle Retail Stores Solutions. Oracle Retail Stores Solutions provide a brand platform and enable true multichannel retailing. The solution gives retailers improved visibility into store inventory, which both reduces store operating costs and improves the level of customer service offered in-store through store associates. In the below video, Rachel Staniland talks about Oracle Retail’s new tablet POS, coming out the Oracle Retail 14 release, as well innovations made across Store Inventory Management and Point-of-Service solutions. Access more information on Oracle Retail Stores Solutions.

    Read the article

  • ubuntu 12.10 installation failure

    - by Eidelmaim
    Here i am asking this question again because someone deemed it a duplicate to another topic which i over looked and NOTHING AT ALL in that topic pertained to my problem. If your going to close a topic believing it is a duplicate at least do somke reasearch into WHY you think its a duplicate and provide a like to a better source. How do i get past this installation username and password issue? I downloaded ubuntu 12.10 directly from Ubuntu.com and created a bootable USB with linuxlive. after loading the boot drive and ubuntu begins, it goes directly from the purple ubuntu startup screen directly to a black DOS like prompt asking for a ubuntu login. this is COMPLETLY before any installation -begins. i need some help with this. FYI : this is what it is saying after it goes to the login area in the DOS (Full black screen) like screen. Ubuntu 12.10 ubuntu tty1 ubuntu login: now i will provide a few images of the problem i am having. and because i DONT HAVE ANY OS on the computer BECAUSE ubuntu WONT go PAST this... i have to snap these pictuires with a cell phone and upload on another PC. these links are in chronological order from time of pressing power button to time i am presented with log in screen : image 1 image 2 can only post 2 links in messages... will post additional links in comments So, again... how do i get past this ? this is entireley before ubuntu is installed on my system. my PC specs... Homebuilt computer: Motherboard is a Asus Sabertooth x58 with a intel core i7 processor. Mushkin memory @ 12gbs. 4ea. Seagate 150gb hard drives. nvidia GTX 260 graphics card. i initially attempted to install to raid 5. failed. i broke down the raid and attempted to install to a single drive with all other drives disconnected from the PC. again, thanks in advanced for any assistance.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Install 11.10 doesn't recognize Windows 7 installation with new HDD

    - by arlendo
    Replaced my crashed HDD with a Seagate 2TB Sata (bought from a company who pulled it from a working computer, OS unknown) and did a fresh install of Windows 7. Windows shows 100MB boot partition (bootable NTFS) and 200GB Windows partition (NTFS), the rest is unallocated. Win7 Disk Management says the partitioning type is Master Boot Record. Win7 boots and runs fine. Ubuntu 11.10 Install procedes to Allocate Drive Space screen and should say This computer currently has Windows 7 on it. What would you like to do? Instead, it says something like Install doesn't detect any existing OS on this computer. When I click on Something else, the partition table shows only the unallocated space of 1.8TB. Ubuntu Disk Utility says Partitioning: Master Boot Record, but GParted Live says Partition Table: gpt. It was my original intention to have the Windows boot partition and application partition, then install Ubuntu 11.10 using boot, root, swap, and home partitions, and maybe another partition just for data (mostly photos). Currently, I would be happy if I could just get Ubuntu installed along with Win7. I am aware of the MBR limits of 3 Primary partitions and 1 Extended partition. I suspect that my new HDD is partitioned for GPT and that is why Ubuntu can't see the Win7 installation. Am I on the right track? I was going to use Windows Disk Management to convert GPT to MBR but I only have the one drive on my AMD-64 mini-computer and it says I have to empty the drive of all partitions before I can access the Convert command. And I can't find any bootable software that would allow me to do that conversion. Here is the result of sudo fdisk -l: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sda'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 224 heads, 19 sectors/track, 918004 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xd4a68c18 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 206848 419637247 209715200 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ Keep in mind that I'm a definite newbie to screwing around with the inner workings of Ubuntu. I previously had Ubuntu 10.04 running with Vista and I don't remember even having to partition anything that wasn't automatic in the install. Thanks for taking a look here. My Win7 is running fine but I miss my Ubuntu.

    Read the article

  • How can I play a DVD-A (DVD-Audio) disc?

    - by Marek Grzenkowicz
    I was able to play such a disc using VLC, but I am wondering if any music player supports the DVD-A format. UPDATE: I checked Rhythmbox and Banshee - I found no option like Play Disc or Open Disc, so I have no idea how I could even try to start playing a DVD-A disc. This has also nothing to do with missing plug-ins or codecs - the packages gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly, gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad and ubuntu-restricted-extras were installed on my machine before. I guess I am stuck with VLC (Totem shows a DVD menu, but then hangs). However, I am missing the regular music player experience - ability to change order of tracks, adding tracks to a playlist, listening only to selected tracks, etc. I found Idea #22415: Please add full support for DVD-Audio and LPCM at Ubuntu Brainstorm.

    Read the article

  • Login Fail - Google Music Manager

    - by TX-NY-CA
    This is on a Surface Pro. I have not installed a virtual machine. Here is Google's feedback on the error message I receive when attempting login: "Login failed. Could not identify your computer" error message If you're receiving a 'Login failed. Could not identify your computer.' error, we couldn’t identify your machine. Please note that at this time, virtual machines aren't supported by Google Play. If you're certain that you don't have a virtual machine, some users have reported that they were able to workaround the issue by disabling their network bridge." My ifconfig feedback, in case that's helpful: lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:80 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:80 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:6640 (6.6 KB) TX bytes:6640 (6.6 KB) mlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 60:45:bd:f9:04:c0 inet addr:10.129.116.166 Bcast:10.129.116.255 Mask:255.255.255.128 inet6 addr: fe80::6245:bdff:fef9:4c0/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:96714 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:73079 errors:13 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:117500998 (117.5 MB) TX bytes:9008106 (9.0 MB)

    Read the article

  • Unable to boot Windows after installing Ubuntu 12.04 - error: invalid efi file path

    - by user113350
    I have a Laptop (ASUS X310A, I installed Ubuntu 12.04 to be side by side with Windows 7 but I seem to have gotten a problem with booting Windows 7. I used the Boot Repair twice with no results. Boot-Repair info: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1417623/ The error I get when starting Windows 7 from GRUB is: error: invalid efi file path In Boot Manager or Menu, I have 3 options now: 2x for Ubuntu (maybe cause I did boot-repair twice) 1x Windows boot manager (If I boot this it opens "ASUS Preload Wizard", it gives me the option to re-install windows losing all previous data -) When I was making the partition before installing Ubuntu, I made the new partition by making sda4 smaller and adding ext4 mounted: "\" and adding a swap area. Installed it and it didn't work, nothing worked. So i booted Ubuntu from the USB again and deleted the partitions I made and decided to make sda3 smaller and making the partitions but this time it gave me the option that I could mount sda3 on "\windows" or "\dos" I ignored it and didn't choose neither because the I know that it doesn't need to be mounted and proceeded to create what is now sda7 (ext4) and sda8 (swap area). It still didn't work so I booted from USB and did the first boot-repair, so I was able to boot Ubuntu now but not windows, but when I did it through my USB I was not able to update boot-repair, so i decided to redo the boot-repair from Ubuntu running on the Hardisk (fully updated) and it still didn't work. In GRUB this is what i see (when booting using Ubuntu as first option in Boot Menu): Ubuntu, with Linux 3.2.0-29-generic Ubuntu, with Linux 3.2.0-29-generic (recovery mode) Windows UEFI loader Windows Boot UEFI bootx64.efi.bkp Windows 7 (loader) (on /dev/sda3) Windows Recovery Environment (loader) (on /dev/sda5) I tried all the ones starting with "Windows" they all don't work Please help, Many Thanks

    Read the article

  • cant connect to internet directly on ubuntu

    - by shubham
    I have dual booted machine windows 7 with ubuntu 12.10. I dont have direct internet access in ubuntu on wired network although direct connection works in windows7. I have to connect through a proxy on ubuntu, which works fine. This is not a ubuntu version related problem as i have been getting it from ubuntu 11.04. I want to know what difference is there in ubuntu and windows 7 which creates such results and how to fix it?

    Read the article

  • cant get ubuntu to work with windows 8

    - by John Mark High
    ive been trying to dual boot Ubuntu with windows 8 but so far I haven't been able too. the laptop im using is a HP Pavilion g6-2240sa pre-installed with windows 8. ive made the bootbale USB with Ubuntu 12.10, it installs but when I restart the computer boot straight into windows, no grub boot options. I can get into Ubuntu once by doing an advanced restart and booting from the Ubuntu partition. I can use Ubuntu fine but once I restart or shutdown, I do the advanced restart again and the Ubuntu partition is now gone and I have to reinstall. i used this tutorial to install Ubuntu, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNCSbTyUzoM After i have to reinstall and still no grub boot menu, i used the boot repair to re-install it. once i rebooted the computer it went straight to windows again and the Ubuntu partition was gone. can i dual boot windows 8 and unbuntu 12.10 with the grub so i can pick what OS to boot into when the computer is starting, and without the partition going AWOL???? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Server - fresh install - failed apt-get update

    - by user87227
    Good day and greetings to all, I just did a fresh installation of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS server without any issues. However, the apt-get update or aptitude update is giving the following errors: a. bzip2:(stdin) is not bzip2 file.ign for all lines plus the following errors : etched 3,582B in 0s (74.1kB/s) Reading package lists... W: A error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files will be used.GPG error: //security.ubuntu.com lucid-security Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 W: A error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files will be used.GPG error: //in.archive.ubuntu.com lucid Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 W: A error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files will be used.GPG error: in.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 W: Failed to fetch security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/lucid-security/Release W: Failed to fetch in.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/lucid/Release W: Failed to fetch in.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/lucid-updates/Release W: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead. Please guide in resolving this error. TIA Regards Venu

    Read the article

  • i cant use ubuntu software manager

    - by hossein
    It's the first time that I use ubuntu and I can't use the ubuntu software manager, when I type update codes in terminal it shows this error Reading package lists... Error! W: GPG error: http://ir.archive.ubuntu.com precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG 40976EAF437D05B5 Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key <[email protected]> E: Encountered a section with no Package: header E: Problem with MergeList /var/lib/apt/lists/ir.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_main_binary-i386_Packages E: The package lists or status file could not be parsed or opened.

    Read the article

  • How to install Ubuntu 13.10 on Hybrid Disk alongside Windows 8.1

    - by user205691
    I am having trouble installing Ubuntu 13.10 on HP Envy 4-1046tx ultrabook. When i bought this, it came with windows 7 pre-installed, but i upgraded it to 8 and now recently to 8.1. But somehow, i feel 8.1 is slower or something went wrong with the upgrade and made my system slow. I want to try Dual booting Ubuntu 13.10 with windows 8.1 The system recovery drive has windows 7 recovery files. SSD has 4GB allocated to windows 8 (i think for hibernation/rapid start). 25GB of SSD is free and i want to install ubuntu on this SSD pointing it to "/" I will also shrink the windows partition (the only other partition available apart from recovery & SSD) to free up 100GB and allocate this space to "/home" during ubuntu installation. I tried the above steps while on windows 8, but not successful. Ubuntu installation went fine, but the grub was not loaded. I tried to deploy linux via EasyBCD, but after that also, selecting linux in the boot would load grub on command prompt and do nothing. While ubuntu installation, i also deleted the raid drivers with sudo dmraid -rE, but still ubuntu didnt recognize my windows. I think i am missing some steps, so this time i want to do it right with proper info before starting the process. My requirements: dual boot Ubuntu with windows 8.1 c:\ shrinked windows with 300GB on sda1, 100GB for /home on sda1 & ubuntu installed on 25GB SSD volume sda2 (this is mSata i think) GRUB or EFI that helps me load both OS properly without breaking anything SWAP partition can be added if needed on sda1 (4gb?)? I have backed up my drive and have a 16GB usb3.0 with ubuntu loaded. I hope i have mentioned everything i need and know.. All i need now is some guidance and what to do right so that this installation goes as planned :)

    Read the article

  • All my Ubuntu VMs have apt-get update problems

    - by kashani
    I'm running Virtualbox 4.1 on an x86_64 Windows 7 host. I've got a collection of 12.04 and 10.04 LTS VMs I use to create debs for work. In the last week I started noticing problems on the 12.04 VMs. Tried the usual apt-get clean bit which didn't help. I rolled a new 11.10 VM for testing a Worpress upgrade. This VM has never been able to run apt-get update without errors. The interesting errors look like this: Get: 8 http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/main Translation-en_US [344 B] 14% [7 Sources 48686/877 kB 6%] [Waiting for headers]bzip2: (stdin) is not a bzip2 file. Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/restricted Translation-en Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/universe Translation-en 22% [7 Sources 127526/877 kB 15%] [Waiting for headers]/usr/bin/xz: (stdin): File format not recognized and ends with /usr/bin/xz: (stdin): File format not recognized Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/main Translation-en_US Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/main Translation-en_US Fetched 18.5 MB in 47s (392 kB/s) W: GPG error: http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric InRelease: File /var/lib/apt/lists/partial/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_oneiric_InRelease doesn't start with a clearsigned message W: GPG error: http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security InRelease: File /var/lib/apt/lists/partial/security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_oneiric-security_InRelease doesn't start with a clearsigned message xv-utils, lzma, etc are all installed. I've reinstalled the VM from scratch three times and up at the same point.

    Read the article

  • Terminator Skull Crafted from Dollar Store Parts [Video]

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Earlier this year we shared an Iron Man prop build made from Dollar Store parts. The same Dollar Store tinker is at it again, this time building a Terminator endoskull. James Bruton has a sort of mad tinker knack for finding odds and ends at the Dollar Store and mashing them together into novel creations. In the video below, he shows how he took a pile of random junk from the store (plastic bowls, cheap computer speakers, even the packaging the junk came in) and turned it into a surprisingly polished Terminator skull. Hit up the link below for the build in photo-tutorial format. Dollar Store Terminator Endoskull Build [via Make] How to Banish Duplicate Photos with VisiPic How to Make Your Laptop Choose a Wired Connection Instead of Wireless HTG Explains: What Is Two-Factor Authentication and Should I Be Using It?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu is booting on acer e1-510 laptop, but screen displays nothing

    - by user287602
    Tried loading ubuntu 12.04 (32-bit as well 64 bit) through bootable usb , on a brand new 64-bit acer E1-510 laptop. It shows the 'Try ubuntu without installing screen' and I selected that option. But instead of showing ubuntu's logo(which implies it is loading). I get a blank screen. The screen is on, but it shows nothing. I tried the same on an old model laptop acer aspire 5738 and it worked like a charm. However, I realized that Ubuntu is actually booting on E1-510 and only the display is not working. How did I arrive at this conclusion? When I select on 'Try ubuntu without installing screen', after about 8-10 seconds I see that the WiFi indicator light on the laptop panel switches on(just like when we boot up a Windows OS or even Ubuntu ). I got an idea that the system booted Ubuntu. To confirm this, I tried to adjust volume using keyboard shortcuts. Voila, I can hear the sound of adjusting volume! That means it has already booted Ubuntu. I confirmed this with another step. I pressed the power button once and after two seconds I pressed ENTER. It began the process of switching off and within 5 seconds the laptop was powered off. You may ask, Why is this a confirmation that Ubuntu has booted? This is because in Ubuntu when you press on power button, a dialog box opens with shut down, restart, suspend option- and the shut down option is already selected by default; so all I have to do is press ENTER to shut down. This again proved that Ubuntu was indeed up and running. Unlike previous 'AskUbunutu' posts about Acer e1-510, I must mention that my laptop came WITH the Legacy BIOS mode, so its not really a problem to boot ubuntu from a bootable pendrive. Only the screen is not working. In case you need to know, I am running Windows 7-Ultimate 64 bit on acer e1-510.

    Read the article

  • Migrate Rhythbox from one computer to another with different username

    - by deshmukh
    I want to migrate Rhythmbox from one computer to another. I have different usernames in both the computers. I will need to carry music files, covers, playcounts, ratings, playlists, etc. Merely copying music files and .local/share/rhythmbox does not work (I guess because Music locations are different on both the computers). What is the best way to achieve this? I will at least like to carry ratings and playlists.

    Read the article

  • Create option to load Ubuntu or Windows 7 at start-up

    - by AXK
    We have a new Dell Optiplex 790 desktop with Windows 7 and just installed Ubuntu 12.04 on it using a USB stick that was configured as a boot drive. We created a new partition for Ubuntu during installation using the partition editor that comes up during installation. Everything seems to have gone fine with the installation except that, unexpectedly, there is no option to boot up Ubuntu when the computer is started. We just start the computer and Windows starts up with no option to ever start Ubuntu. The only way we have gotten Ubuntu to start is by putting the USB stick used for installation back into the computer and having the computer boot from it. Then GRUB shows up and the Ubuntu OS that we installed starts up (rather than the live-CD version on the USB stick). Previous times we have installed Ubuntu, GRUB shows up when we start the computer and we can choose among the various OSes installed. Can anyone suggest what to do? We want to have the option to launch either Windows 7 or Ubuntu 12.04 when we start the computer, with the default being Windows 7. Right now there is no option and Windows 7 just starts the way it did before we installed Ubuntu. Note that if we hit F1 soon after starting the computer, we get some sort of Windows bootloader (not sure of exact name) but there is no option for Ubuntu; just Windows 7. Also note that if we hit the shift key soon after starting the computer, as some help pages have suggested, nothing happens (Windows 7 is loaded as usual). Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.10 wont boot

    - by John Mark High
    im new to using Ubuntu and just bought a HP Pavilion g6-2240sa with windows 8 pre installed. I made a bootable USB with Ubuntu on it and installed alsongside windows, for 2 days it worked fine, I got into Ubuntu by doing an advanced restart from windows 8 and then booting Ubuntu from the partition it made. When i did the advanced restart today there was only 1 HDD i could select ( there were 3 before windows, a restore partition that was already there when i got the computer and Ubuntu) so i booted from the USB again and re-installed Ubuntu. then did an advanced restart and the 3 partitions where there again, i booted from Ubuntu and now heres my problem. I get the Ubuntu background when its loading then its just a black screen with some writing, its not on long enough to read, then just a black screen with a white _ and the top left corner that does nothing, i have to restat the computer and it auto boots into windows 8. im a little confused as the first time i installed Ubuntu it worked fine until the partition dissaperd), the second time i installed i did everything the same except it found the old Ubuntu so i reinstalled it and now is donst work.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu install can't find hard drives

    - by Casey Hungler
    I recently got a Dell Inspiron Special Edition 7720 computer. I am trying to install Ubuntu along side Windows. When I use the WUBI installer, the installation of Ubuntu works as long as I do not boot into Windows; if I boot into Windows, when I go back into Ubuntu, I am given a variety of error messages which claim to have corrupt or missing kernel/root directory, etc. I have been working with this problem for about a week, and have reinstalled Ubuntu MANY times. So far, I have eliminated all of the following problems: Corrupt WUBI installation (Downloaded multiple times, used on other systems), I have tried using a CD and a flash drive, both of which work on other computers. I know that no program within Ubuntu is creating the problem. I know that others have successfully installed Ubuntu on a computer with my operating system (Windows 7 SP1). This is a much shortened version of the original question, which has been up for about 5 days, and included a more detailed description of the problem, but left everyone clueless as to the source of this problem. When I spoke with the Dell service technician who came over today to replace my keyboard, he suggested that the driver for my HDD was so new that it was not compatible with the current version of Ubuntu. His reasoning is as follows: 1) During an install from a flash drive or CD, where I am supposed to get the option to wipe my system or create a dual boot, I get a window that asks me to select a hard drive partition, but none are listed. 2) This model of computer was made public in June of this year, while Ubuntu was released in April Adopting this theory, it would seem to me that the WUBI install fails after booting into Windows because Ubuntu can no longer find the files that it needs to load. Does this theory seem at all plausible to anyone? I just want to install Ubuntu and have it stay on my computer. I don't care how I put it there, I just need it to work, so I would TRULY appreciate any advice or suggestions anyone could give. Thanks so much for your time and support!!!

    Read the article

  • How to completely remove Ubuntu?

    - by les02jen17
    I installed Ubuntu using Wubi installer, but I couldnt boot to it. So I uninstalled it on the Control Panel. Then I tried the full installation wherein it boots to the Ubuntu environment. After installing Ubuntu there, I couldnt boot to my Windows 7 anymore! So in an attempt to salvage the whole thing, I inserted the Ubuntu CD again and chose Erase Ubuntu and Reinstall. (I was wondering, why wasn't there an option to just "Erase Ubuntu"?) I did that though, and I got my Windows 7 back. But upon checking my drives via the "Create your own partition scheme" (not sure if it's the exact words) I saw that one of my partitions still has Ubuntu on it, and there's no way I can delete it if I don't overwrite another Ubuntu! I can't access that partition on windows 7 either! Need help!

    Read the article

  • Acer Aspire One -- strange battery problem, charges only up to ~90%

    - by houbysoft
    I have this strange problem on the acer aspire one d250. It happened already once before, stayed for about two weeks, and then "fixed itself". The problem is as follows: the battery can't seem to get fully charged; ie the indicator is stuck at about 90% (it's probably not a software problem -- I have ArchLinux and Windows 7 installed and both report exactly the same) and it never passes that value, but it still shows the status as "charging" (I tried everything I could think of -- leaving it charging for extremely long amounts of time, doing a few complete charge-recharge cycles, removing/reinserting the battery, cleaning the connectors, even updating the BIOS, etc., and nothing helped). Also, when it is getting charged, it charges pretty fast until about 70% and then progresses extremely slowly. The battery holds the charge that appears on the battery indicator normally. Just can't get the battery to charge fully -- I can't get it past the 90%. At first I thought this would be a simple battery failure (even if the computer is not that old, about 6-7 months), but as I mentioned it happened once before, and then one day it fixed itself. I tried contacting Acer about this, but the support was not helpful, completely stupid, it seemed like they used canned responses, the usual. Any thoughts on how to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Acer Aspire One -- strange battery problem, charges only up to ~90%

    - by houbysoft
    I have this strange problem on the acer aspire one d250. It happened already once before, stayed for about two weeks, and then "fixed itself". The problem is as follows: the battery can't seem to get fully charged; ie the indicator is stuck at about 90% (it's probably not a software problem -- I have ArchLinux and Windows 7 installed and both report exactly the same) and it never passes that value, but it still shows the status as "charging" (I tried everything I could think of -- leaving it charging for extremely long amounts of time, doing a few complete charge-recharge cycles, removing/reinserting the battery, cleaning the connectors, even updating the BIOS, etc., and nothing helped). Also, when it is getting charged, it charges pretty fast until about 70% and then progresses extremely slowly. The battery holds the charge that appears on the battery indicator normally. Just can't get the battery to charge fully -- I can't get it past the 90%. At first I thought this would be a simple battery failure (even if the computer is not that old, about 6-7 months), but as I mentioned it happened once before, and then one day it fixed itself. I tried contacting Acer about this, but the support was not helpful, completely stupid, it seemed like they used canned responses, the usual. Any thoughts on how to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Where to Store the Protection Trial Info for Software Protection Purpose

    - by Peter Lee
    It might be duplicate with other questions, but I swear that I googled a lot and search at StackOverflow.com a lot, and I cannot find the answer to my question: In a C#.Net application, where to store the protection trial info, such as Expiration Date, Number of Used Times? I understand that, all kinds of Software Protection strategies can be cracked by a sophiscated hacker (because they can almost always get around the expiration checking step). But what I'm now going to do is just to protect it in a reasonable manner that a "common"/"advanced" user cannot screw it up. OK, in order to proof that I have googled and searched a lot at StackOverflow.com, I'm listing all the possible strategies I got: 1. Registry Entry First, some users might not have the access to even read the Registry table. Second, if we put the Protection Trial Info in a Registry Entry, the user can always find it out where it is by comparing the differences before and after the software installation. They can just simply change it. OK, you might say that we should encrypt the Protection Trial Info, yes we can do that. But what if the user just change their system date before installing? OK, you might say that we should also put a last-used date, if something is wrong, the last-used date could work as a protection guide. But what if the user just uninstall the software and delete all Registry Entries related to this software, and then reinstall the software? I have no idea on how to deal with this. Please help. A Plain File First, there are some places to put the plain file: 2.a) a simple XML file under software installation path 2.b) configuration file Again, the user can just uninstall the software and remove these plain file(s), and reinstall the software. - The Software Itself If we put the protection trial info (Expiration Date, we cannot put Number of Used Times) in the software itself, it is still susceptible to the cases I mentioned above. Furthermore, it's not even cool to do so. - A Trial Product-Key It works like a licensing process, that is, we put the Trial info into an RSA-signed string. However, it requires too many steps for a user to have a try of using the software (they might lose patience): 4.a) The user downloads the software; 4.b) The user sends an email to request a Trial Product-Key by providing user name (or email) or hardware info; 4.c) The server receives the request, RSA-signs it and send back to the user; 4.d) The user can now use it under the condition of (Expiration Date & Number of Used Times). Now, the server has a record of the user's username or hardware info, so the user will be rejected to request a second trial. Is it legal to collection hardware info? In a word, the user has to do one more extra step (request a Trial Product Key) just for having a try of using the software, which is not cool (thinking myself as a user). NOTE: This question is not about the Licensing, instead, it's about where to store the TRIAL info. After the trial expires, the user should ask for a license (CD-Key/Product-Key). I'm going to use RSA signature (bound to User Hardware)

    Read the article

  • To File Share or to not File Share, that is the Question.

    To file share or to not file share, that is the question. The concept of the internet was developed in the 1960’s as a revolutionary idea to share information and data amongst a group of computers. The original concept was to allow universities and the United States Military share data for research and field operations. This network of computers was designed to provide redundant data storage and communications in case one or more locations were destroyed. Since the inception of the internet, people have attempted to use it for sharing data. As the Internet has evolved so did the users and the information they wanted to share. In today’s modern internet people can share information through various avenues, for example: websites, social networks, email, documents, executable files, data files and much more.  Unfortunately, as the internet and its users have grown, some industries have not paid attention. Currently, there are several industries that have really fallen behind in keeping up with current trends, and are severely paying the price for their lack of action. A current example of this is with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and file sharing. RIAA contends that customers who purchase music can only listen to the music and cannot share it with others. This can be seen when the RIAA sued Napster for distributing copyrighted music through a technology called file sharing. File sharing as defined by the Media Awareness Network is downloadable software that permits users to share music, video, image or book files directly with peers. Users of file sharing networks simply had to extract the music from a CD into a music compatible format. Typically most music files at that time where saved as MPEG file format. Once the users got music in this format it was very easy share their music with others. The big question now is who actually owns the music, does the music industry still retain the rights of the music regarding who has access to listen to it, or is it up to the owner of the music CD.  According to the First – Sale Doctrine, it is the right of the purchaser of the CD to decide who can access the information on the CD. In addition, the original owner looses all rights to the music once it has been sold.  The importance of defining who actually owns the music has a great impact on the future of the industry. If the industry is determined to be the actual owner of the music then anyone who has shared at least 1 fine with another is guilty of violating the copyright. However, if the owners of the CD are determined to be the owners of the music then the music industry will have to figure out some other way to protect their music so that it is more lucrative for them or they will go out of business. References: http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/special_initiatives/wa_resources/wa_shared/backgrounders/internet_glossary.cfm#F

    Read the article

  • The Windows Store... why did I sign up with this mess again?

    - by FransBouma
    Yesterday, Microsoft revealed that the Windows Store is now open to all developers in a wide range of countries and locations. For the people who think "wtf is the 'Windows Store'?", it's the central place where Windows 8 users will be able to find, download and purchase applications (or as we now have to say to not look like a computer illiterate: <accent style="Kentucky">aaaaappss</accent>) for Windows 8. As this is the store which is integrated into Windows 8, it's an interesting place for ISVs, as potential customers might very well look there first. This of course isn't true for all kinds of software, and developer tools in general aren't the kind of applications most users will download from the Windows store, but a presence there can't hurt. Now, this Windows Store hosts two kinds of applications: 'Metro-style' applications and 'Desktop' applications. The 'Metro-style' applications are applications created for the new 'Metro' UI which is present on Windows 8 desktop and Windows RT (the single color/big font fingerpaint-oriented UI). 'Desktop' applications are the applications we all run and use on Windows today. Our software are desktop applications. The Windows Store hosts all Metro-style applications locally in the store and handles the payment for these applications. This means you upload your application (sorry, 'app') to the store, jump through a lot of hoops, Microsoft verifies that your application is not violating a tremendous long list of rules and after everything is OK, it's published and hopefully you get customers and thus earn money. Money which Microsoft will pay you on a regular basis after customers buy your application. Desktop applications are not following this path however. Desktop applications aren't hosted by the Windows Store. Instead, the Windows Store more or less hosts a page with the application's information and where to get the goods. I.o.w.: it's nothing more than a product's Facebook page. Microsoft will simply redirect a visitor of the Windows Store to your website and the visitor will then use your site's system to purchase and download the application. This last bit of information is very important. So, this morning I started with fresh energy to register our company 'Solutions Design bv' at the Windows Store and our two applications, LLBLGen Pro and ORM Profiler. First I went to the Windows Store dashboard page. If you don't have an account, you have to log in or sign up if you don't have a live account. I signed in with my live account. After that, it greeted me with a page where I had to fill in a code which was mailed to me. My local mail server polls every several minutes for email so I had to kick it to get it immediately. I grabbed the code from the email and I was presented with a multi-step process to register myself as a company or as an individual. In red I was warned that this choice was permanent and not changeable. I chuckled: Microsoft apparently stores its data on paper, not in digital form. I chose 'company' and was presented with a lengthy form to fill out. On the form there were two strange remarks: Per company there can just be 1 (one, uno, not zero, not two or more) registered developer, and only that developer is able to upload stuff to the store. I have no idea how this works with large companies, oh the overhead nightmares... "Sorry, but John, our registered developer with the Windows Store is on holiday for 3 months, backpacking through Australia, no, he's not reachable at this point. M'yeah, sorry bud. Hey, did you fill in those TPS reports yesterday?" A separate Approver has to be specified, which has to be a different person than the registered developer. Apparently to Microsoft a company with just 1 person is not a company. Luckily we're with two people! *pfew*, dodged that one, otherwise I would be stuck forever: the choice I already made was not reversible! After I had filled out the form and it was all well and good and accepted by the Microsoft lackey who had to write it all down in some paper notebook ("Hey, be warned! It's a permanent choice! Written down in ink, can't be changed!"), I was presented with the question how I wanted to pay for all this. "Pay for what?" I wondered. Must be the paper they were scribbling the information on, I concluded. After all, there's a financial crisis going on! How could I forget! Silly me. "Ok fair enough". The price was 75 Euros, not the end of the world. I could only pay by credit card, so it was accepted quickly. Or so I thought. You see, Microsoft has a different idea about CC payments. In the normal world, you type in your CC number, some date, a name and a security code and that's it. But Microsoft wants to verify this even more. They want to make a verification purchase of a very small amount and are doing that with a special code in the description. You then have to type in that code in a special form in the Windows Store dashboard and after that you're verified. Of course they'll refund the small amount they pull from your card. Sounds simple, right? Well... no. The problem starts with the fact that I can't see the CC activity on some website: I have a bank issued CC card. I get the CC activity once a month on a piece of paper sent to me. The bank's online website doesn't show them. So it's possible I have to wait for this code till October 12th. One month. "So what, I'm not going to use it anyway, Desktop applications don't use the payment system", I thought. "Haha, you're so naive, dear developer!" Microsoft won't allow you to publish any applications till this verification is done. So no application publishing for a month. Wouldn't it be nice if things were, you know, digital, so things got done instantly? But of course, that lackey who scribbled everything in the Big Windows Store Registration Book isn't that quick. Can't blame him though. He's just doing his job. Now, after the payment was done, I was presented with a page which tells me Microsoft is going to use a third party company called 'Symantec', which will verify my identity again. The page explains to me that this could be done through email or phone and that they'll contact the Approver to verify my identity. "Phone?", I thought... that's a little drastic for a developer account to publish a single page of information about an external hosted software product, isn't it? On Facebook I just added a page, done. And paying you, Microsoft, took less information: you were happy to take my money before my identity was even 'verified' by this 3rd party's minions! "Double standards!", I roared. No-one cared. But it's the thought of getting it off your chest, you know. Luckily for me, everyone at Symantec was asleep when I was registering so they went for the fallback option in case phone calls were not possible: my Approver received an email. Imagine you have to explain the idiot web of security theater I was caught in to someone else who then has to reply a random person over the internet that I indeed was who I said I was. As she's a true sweetheart, she gave me the benefit of the doubt and assured that for now, I was who I said I was. Remember, this is for a desktop application, which is only a link to a website, some pictures and a piece of text. No file hosting, no payment processing, nothing, just a single page. Yeah, I also thought I was crazy. But we're not at the end of this quest yet. I clicked around in the confusing menus of the Windows Store dashboard and found the 'Desktop' section. I get a helpful screen with a warning in red that it can't find any certified 'apps'. True, I'm just getting started, buddy. I see a link: "Check the Windows apps you submitted for certification". Well, I haven't submitted anything, but let's see where it brings me. Oh the thrill of adventure! I click the link and I end up on this site: the hardware/desktop dashboard account registration. "Erm... but I just registered...", I mumbled to no-one in particular. Apparently for desktop registration / verification I have to register again, it tells me. But not only that, the desktop application has to be signed with a certificate. And not just some random el-cheapo certificate you can get at any mall's discount store. No, this certificate is special. It's precious. This certificate, the 'Microsoft Authenticode' Digital Certificate, is the only certificate that's acceptable, and jolly, it can be purchased from VeriSign for the price of only ... $99.-, but be quick, because this is a limited time offer! After that it's, I kid you not, $499.-. 500 dollars for a certificate to sign an executable. But, I do feel special, I got a special price. Only for me! I'm glowing. Not for long though. Here I started to wonder, what the benefit of it all was. I now again had to pay money for a shiny certificate which will add 'Solutions Design bv' to our installer as the publisher instead of 'unknown', while our customers download the file from our website. Not only that, but this was all about a Desktop application, which wasn't hosted by Microsoft. They only link to it. And make no mistake. These prices aren't single payments. Every year these have to be renewed. Like a membership of an exclusive club: you're special and privileged, but only if you cough up the dough. To give you an example how silly this all is: I added LLBLGen Pro and ORM Profiler to the Visual Studio Gallery some time ago. It's the same thing: it's a central place where one can find software which adds to / extends / works with Visual Studio. I could simply create the pages, add the information and they show up inside Visual Studio. No files are hosted at Microsoft, they're downloaded from our website. Exactly the same system. As I have to wait for the CC transcripts to arrive anyway, I can't proceed with publishing in this new shiny store. After the verification is complete I have to wait for verification of my software by Microsoft. Even Desktop applications need to be verified using a long list of rules which are mainly focused on Metro-style applications. Even while they're not hosted by Microsoft. I wonder what they'll find. "Your application wasn't approved. It violates rule 14 X sub D: it provides more value than our own competing framework". While I was writing this post, I tried to check something in the Windows Store Dashboard, to see whether I remembered it correctly. I was presented again with the question, after logging in with my live account, to enter the code that was just mailed to me. Not the previous code, a brand new one. Again I had to kick my mail server to pull the email to proceed. This was it. This 'experience' is so beyond miserable, I'm afraid I have to say goodbye for now to the 'Windows Store'. It's simply not worth my time. Now, about live accounts. You might know this: live accounts are tied to everything you do with Microsoft. So if you have an MSDN subscription, e.g. the one which costs over $5000.-, it's tied to this same live account. But the fun thing is, you can login with your live account to the MSDN subscriptions with just the account id and password. No additional code is mailed to you. While it gives you access to all Microsoft software available, including your licenses. Why the draconian security theater with this Windows Store, while all I want is to publish some desktop applications while on other Microsoft sites it's OK to simply sign in with your live account: no codes needed, no verification and no certificates? Microsoft, one thing you need with this store and that's: apps. Apps, apps, apps, apps, aaaaaaaaapps. Sorry, my bad, got carried away. I just can't stand the word 'app'. This store's shelves have to be filled to the brim with goods. But instead of being welcomed into the store with open arms, I have to fight an uphill battle with an endless list of rules and bullshit to earn the privilege to publish in this shiny store. As if I have to be thrilled to be one of the exclusive club called 'Windows Store Publishers'. As if Microsoft doesn't want it to succeed. Craig Stuntz sent me a link to an old blog post of his regarding code signing and uploading to Microsoft's old mobile store from back in the WinMo5 days: http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/2006/10/11/28357/. Good read and good background info about how little things changed over the years. I hope this helps Microsoft make things more clearer and smoother and also helps ISVs with their decision whether to go with the Windows Store scheme or ignore it. For now, I don't see the advantage of publishing there, especially not with the nonsense rules Microsoft cooked up. Perhaps it changes in the future, who knows.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >