HotSync: Bluetooth or cable - which is faster

Similar Questions

• "Windows Media Center cannot detect the IR control cables, which are necessary to control the set-top box. Fixing parts IR that supports the IR control cables and then try again. IR HARDWARE NOT FOUND ".

  Original title: when setting up Windows Media Center, I get the error message: "IR hardware not detected".

  I have an internal TV Tuner that has been installed by HP, when I bought recently a "computer build-your-own." (According to the control panel Device Manager, my tuner is a Win TV HVR 1290, made by Hauppauge). The computer came with Windows 7. While installing Windows Media Center, after setting up the TV Signal (on channel 3) I am able to see a video thumbnail on my computer screen. I am also able to change the channel using my remote control U-Verse (not the Windows remote control supplied with the computer). So far so good! I then hit next and get the following message: "Windows Media Center cannot detect the IR control cables, which are necessary to control the set-top box. Fixing parts IR that supports the IR control cables and then try again. IR HARDWARE NOT FOUND ".  After you receive this message, the installation procedure is completed. I called HP that support intalled the tuner. They had not the slightest idea what to do. I then called Hauppage customer (manufacturer of TV Tuner). They said that I need to plug one end of the IR Blaster cable that shipped with the computer in a slot in the back of my computer (they told me which slot). They said so to run the IR all the way cable to my cable box and the other end of the cable to my cable box of band. They said it was necessary to be able to use my Microsoft Remote to instruct the box to change channels (cable IR stuck on the box). I told her that I did not use the Microsoft Remote, I could change the channel with my U-verse remote (that I preferred to use anyway). He said that it took the cable on the band decoder in order to remove the error message and the installation of Windows Media Center. I then called U-Verse technical adapter who informed me of their set-top boxes (made by Cisco Systems) do not have the ability to receive signals IR IR Blaster cable (or any othe IR signal source). Microsoft is apparently not understand how U-Verse set-top boxes are designed to work and sells a product incompatible remote control/IR. My question is this: How do I set up Windows Media Center, in order to avoid getting the error message "IR hardware not detected" when you install Windows Media Center and just use the remote control of the U-Verse that I prefer to use in the first place. Once understand you this point, please send the information to HP, At & T U-Verse and others. Thank you.

  Ron, I have something for you!

  and for all the people who have this problem :)

  Hi, I had the time of IR not detected in Windows 7 Ultimate with a TV wonder 650 card and a box of digital adapter from Verizon for my PC... Go on the road to installation and after the Media Center channel search, choose manual configuration. Choose the aerial signal (I aso picked after this analog) l. After he sought more, he finds no channels.  Do not be afraid. Just accept it and go to the main settings page in the Mediacenter. If I remember correctly, then select TV Guide. Choose Add channel. I added the channel 3.

  Since my Verizon box has no IR for the computer, I added the channel 3 for the media Center and I change the channels with my Verizon remote. All my stations in the Verizon box go to Channel 3.

  The story here is so, for some reason any Windows detects that only my box channel signal TV and you must manually configure the media center on the air, then go to settings and add the channel you want in the guide.

  Why the guide TV control which channel you can tune is beyond me, but the scanner locks all channels, it does not detect. they must be added manually in the guide.

  My TV works and looks okay now.

  It actually works!

  the only problem is that it is not in HD

  but there is something

  
  

• ETG vs. insert add in parallel (which is faster)?

  Hi all
  
  The oracle is 11.2.0.3 on a linux machine.
  
  I would like to know what the most rapid between the ETG and insert add in parallel (not index).
  
  ----------------
  
  case A: ETG
  
  create table table_a nologging Parallels 32
  as
  Select / * + full (t) parallel (32 t) * / *.
  of table_b t;
  
  case B: table_a was established in nologgig mode without index.
  
  Insert / * + full (t) parallel (32 t) * / into table_a
  Select / * + full (b) parallel (32B) * / *.
  of table_b b;
  
  -----------------------
  
  As far as I know, both use "direct path write."
  According to my experience, both show similar performance.
  
  I would like to hear your experience which is faster in general and in THEORY.
  
  Thanks in advance.
  Best regards.

  >
  I would like to know what the most rapid between the ETG and insert add in parallel (not index).
  . . .
  in my test case, the two sql show similar performance.
  >
  How do you know? You don't post any case INSERT ADD then why don't test you what you posted and we seek clarification?

• Which is faster or =

  Hello
  
  There are millions of records from a table and have to perform multiple filtering on the same column, which is faster
  
  table.column_name = 10
  or
  table.column_name = 20
  or
  table.column_name = 30
  or
  table.column_name = 40
  
  or+_
  
  table.column_name in (10,20,30,40)
  
  Thank you
  Vijay
  
  Published by: jvjmohan on January 11, 2011 02:42

  Hello

  There is so much difference in the two operators. in the case AND the requirements of thre must pass, only then you will get the output and there a lot of conditions

  In operator, it will not compare an object to another... What ever is in the requirement, it will give the result.

  IN operator within complexity... it will be faster.

• Which is faster; Count (1) or count (*)?

  We are in discussions Friday afternoon here on Monday...
  And we wonder:
  
  Which is faster; Count (1) or count (*)?
  but above all:
  
  WHY?

  In reality, there is no difference. There is a thread on the topic AskTom.

  Given that a common urban myth that COUNT (1) is more efficient, using COUNT (*) is usually preferred just from the aesthetic point of view.

  Justin

• Problems HotSync - Bluetooth option missing in connections

  After installing Windows 7 RC, 64-bit, I had to HotSync my Tungsten E2 with Bluetooth, rather than use the cable.  I bought and installed an Azio Bluetooth dongle (and included the Toshiba Bluetooth software) without a hitch. However, when I created my HotSync options I found that I couldn't choose Bluetooth because the option was not simply present on HotSync Manager/connections.  VERY frustrating.

  Buried deep in a another thread on this forum was the solution: go to control panel | Programs, remove the Bluetooth drivers and restart.  The device is installed with the Windows drivers again.  As if by magic, the Bluetooth option appeared on the HotSync Manager Connections window and everything was good.

  Of course, some computers come with the included Bluetooth option.  For those with x 64 Windows AND have the third-party Bluetooth drivers (other than Windows) AND are having HotSync problems because there is no way to activate the Bluetooth option, the hotfix may be similar - uninstall the drivers and use the native Windows drivers instead.

  I suspect that this issue can come down more, that those who do not always have HotSynced with Bluetooth is now required to do it because they are moved to x 64 Vista or Windows 7.  Palm does not have this problem on one of their pages to support - that I could find.

  YES!  It worked for me: "buried deep in a another thread on this forum was the solution: go to control panel | Programs, remove the Bluetooth drivers and restart.  The device is installed with the Windows drivers again.  As if by magic, the Bluetooth option appeared on the HotSync Manager Connections window and everything was good."

  THANK YOU SO MUCH!

• Initialize controls/indicators: invoke node-local variables Vales. Which is faster?

  Hi all

  I would like to get the opinion of the people. This thought just happened for me while I was reading some materials the other day.

  And I have not found any topic which talks specifically about speed after searching the forum.

  It is faster to initialize your controls/indicators using Invoke node OR write directly to the initial value of your local variables?

  From my experience (not large), I have always used the invoke node to initialize controls or indicators.

  But when I but this question, I did a simple reference point and it seems the local variable approach is faster, especially

  If you have the large number of orders/lights to initialize.

  Am I missing something here? The invoke node running something that writing a value of local variable would not do?

  I thought since you need to set the initial state by default for the node to invoke anyway, why not just write the desired initial value

  your local variables?

  I would appreciate if someone can express his own opinion based on their experience and knowledge.

  Thank you ~ ~

  I may need another Cup of coffee this morning, you are in fact callling the reset by default on each individual control.  My last despises, it is that you use the default method Vals.Reinitialize VI all failing.  It will probably be a bit faster than the method on individual controls.  Still not instant, if.

  Are a few msec is worth to you?  If so and you consider the local path, my advice is to group as many controls as possible into clusters for minimize you headaches.

• Which is faster a bit manipulation to the table or image using the vision

  I have to perform an operation on an image.  It involves the calculation of the new locations for the pixels for each pixel of the image.  Which is the fastest way to do it.  Manipulate the pixels as elements of the array for loops, or manipulate the pixels of an image using vision tools?

  Thank you.

  Hello

  If you can use vision tools to make the manipulation of pixels, it is much faster.

  Vladimir

• Unable to connect the mouse Bluetooth, "network cable unplugged".

  Reformat my drive c:, Sony Vaio VGN SZ1VP Windows XP pro. Upgrade to SP3.
  Impossible to get Sony Bluetooth mouse works!. Have uninstalled and reinstalled Toshiba Bluetooth stack.  He sees the mouse but gives the error "failed to detect the service."  Also in network connections is to show "unplugged network cable."
  The mouse worked fine before reformatting. Help

  Axe79

  Installed the drivers from the Chipset (manufacturer disk) after you reformatted? Check out this link below and see if it helps you with your problem.

  http://support.Microsoft.com/kb/811798

• Which is faster - IN or EXISTS?

  Hello
  
  I have a small doubt... Please advise me... !!
  
  Exist is more IN more rapid because IN does not use the index at the time of the recovery but Exist uses Index at the time of extraction.
  
  
  My question is... If there is no index on the table... then there is what will do? that time is faster IN or Exists?
  
  see you soon
  Prabhu

  I'm not sure I understand your last post. If you want to "specific information", which sounds like you want to have a reasonable understanding detailed how Oracle manages the two different buildings, and when one might be preferred over the other. If you don't want 'bulky info', however, which makes it sound like you don't want details. So I'm a bit confused.

  If you don't want details, the answer is "it depends." For a given query, either IN or EXISTS may be more effective or that there may be no difference. In general, if the outer query returns a large number of lines and the inner query returns a small number of lines, IN would be probably more effective. If the outer query returns a small number of lines and the inner query returns a large number of lines, EXISTS would probably be more effective. In addition, it is potentially to try all variations and examine query plans if you are particularly concerned about performance.

  If you don't want details, read discussions of Tom.

  Justin

• NiMax tasks vs tasks created in the code which is faster?

  I'm curious as to which is better to use, tasks created in NiMax or tasks created in the code? If I acquire 8 analog channels, there is a downside to create tasks in NiMax speed? I know there is less code involved but what about the time it takes for labview read the configuration file that contains the tasks that are defined in NiMax? There is a significant advantage in the code?

  Thank you

  Bryan

  BryanSw wrote:

  I'm curious as to which is better to use, tasks created in NiMax or tasks created in the code? If I acquire 8 analog channels, there is a downside to create tasks in NiMax speed? I know there is less code involved but what about the time it takes for labview read the configuration file that contains the tasks that are defined in NiMax? There is a significant advantage in the code?

  Thank you

  Bryan

  I'd go with the third Option (which is the one I use) - set the task in the project.  First of all, define the task in MAX, make sure it does what you want and you are happy with it.  Then go into project, New, DAQmx task, and once again, to register in the project.  Use one in the project, which "lives" with the project and not with MAX.  If you need to change a parameter at run time, it is a great time to get some code...

  Bob Schor

• Which is faster in performance

  Hi all
  
  I have a partition on the table according to the 5 data sources, i.e. the partition list. Table has about 100 KB of data.
  
  gives better performance?
  
  Select * from tab1 where source = 2;
  
  or
  
  Select * from tab1 partition (sr2);
  
  Please suggest. As I need to use in queries using several of these tables.
  
  Thank you
  VJ

  jvjmohan wrote:

  I have a partition on the table according to the 5 data sources, i.e. the partition list. Table has about 100 KB of data.
  gives better performance?
  Select * from tab1 where source = 2;
  or
  Select * from tab1 partition (sr2);

  Both are the same - a FTS of the contents of a single partition (assuming I read your comparison properly).

  The problem with the 2nd approach is that uses a static reference to the partition. This cannot be a binding parameter. So let's say you have a 100 sheet music - there will be a 100 sliders in the shared pool for research as follows:
  Select * from tab1 partition (sr1)
  Select * from tab1 partition (sr2)
  ..
  Select * from tab1 partition (sr100)

  This is problematic. In PL/SQL (or), this means having to use dynamic SQL to create an SQL statement with the reference to the correct partition.

  If the criteria of the partition is used, a single SQL cursor is necessary in the shared pool:
  Select * from tab1 where source =: 1

  And this slider can be used for all partitions of the table - as the value bound to the variable in the cursor, allows CBO to determine which partition to use (called partition size).

  In General - by specifying a name of partition in the SQL query is incorrect. Lack of technique use perspective. And also bad from a data modeling perspective. Application code does give not record the database indexes to use for a selectSQL names. So why and then specify the name of a partition in a SQL Select ?

  Inner layer of abstraction between database objects (indexes, partitions, constraints, etc.) and application SQL code, keep intact.

• Which is faster?

  I have a scénarion where I received a comment to replace the sliders of the Varray
  
  Who is the fastest between the slider and VArray? and why?

  What you have shown with this pseudo-code is a process loop nested within PL/SQL.

  In SQL, this is called a nested loops join. A loop through the primary table (external) and for each row in this table, hit the secondary table (inside).

  So, if the loop of the outer table has a 1000 lines, it means an iterations of the loop of 1000. For each iteration, it means release of another cursor on the secondary table - essentially running a 1000 SQL selects on this internal table.

  This is not suitable. Even if that SQL Select intern takes only a 100ms, each row of the outer table means that another 100ms is added to the total operating time. So performance wise, this structure is only a sensible approach when the outer loop table translates into a limited number of lines and therefore a limited number of iterations of the loop and a limited number of select on the inner table.

  The problem you have is therefore not a problem of the use of the wrong structure coding as do not use VARRAYs (never forget the fact that a VARRAY and a cursor are totally different things).

  The problem you have is a design problem. This approach to data processing through nested loops IS slow and IMPOSSIBLE to scale.

  This is why the SQL engine uses not only the treatment of nested loop. It also has the transformation of hash join, merge join transformation and a bunch of other sophisticated algorithms.

  And it is also why it is best to NOT code in PL/SQL nested loops, because the SQL engine has more algorithms in its arsenal to address this problem using a primitive nested loop.

  The design approach you should consider must be based SQL. For example

  // condition 1
  open cursor for
  select
    *
  from outer_table,
       inner_table1  // inner table for condition 1 data
  where outer_table.columns meet condition 1  // apply condition 1
  and outer_table.columns equals inner_table1.colums // join data
  
  // condition 2
  open cursor for
  select
    *
  from outer_table,
       inner_table2 // inner table for condition 1 data
  where outer_table.columns meet condition 2  // apply condition 2
  and outer_table.columns equals inner_table2.colums // join data
  
  etc.
  

• The CARS performance bottleneck will be the shared disk storage?

  Hi all
  I'm studying CARS and I am concerned about the bottleneck of CARS I/O performance.
  If I have 10 knots and they use the same disk storage to contain the data, then
  they're going to do i/o on the disk at the same time.
  Maybe we got more latency...
  
  Will it be a performance problem?
  
  How RAC does not solve this kind of problem?
  
  Thank you.

  All 10 nodes connected with storage shared by FIBRE cable which give faster latency also all nodes interconnection must be a GIGABIT switch. This option two is going to solve the problem of slow disk i/o.

  Concerning
  Asif Kabir

• Bluetooth/Hotspot tethering without cable does not work

  Hello world

  We have a weird put in place where Bluetooth does not (entirely).

  iPhone is last 9.3.3

  OSX is 10.11.4

  Setting up Personal Hotspot on the iPhone and then connecting via Wi - Fi laptop does not work. Error message "Unable to connect" standard and suggestion of using Wi - Fi diagnostics (also does not help).

  Go to Bluetooth prefs on OSX and the connection it does not work. Matching does not work, but we CAN see the iPhone. The WiFi scanner captures also the iPhone.

  If connect us the iPhone via the cable and then put in place a personal Hotspot, it does not.

  Surfing on the web, everything works. Disconnect the cable, and it stops again.

  I succeeded in pairing my iPhone to the laptop, so it seems apparent to another iPhone. I'm leaving work via cable uses a direct route via the cable which is a different connection method than live bluetooth signal?

  We have removed the Bluetooth of OSX preferences > no change.

  Reset us the iOS network settings > no change.

  Any ideas?

  Best regards, F.

  Have you looked at these?

  Share your Internet connection with Personal Hotspot - Apple Support

  iOS: System requirements for Personal Hotspot - Apple Support

  Get help with Personal Hotspot iOS - Apple Support

  Barry