April 25 Information

Terminology question.

The 1st is like my school e-mail or Facebook, I login at home. Then stayed logged in, and go to school computer, login at school. Then logout at school. But doing so, doesn't log me out at home. So come back home, refresh the page, and still logged in. So, you could be logged in multiple places, and no way to know how many other places you're logged in, unless you're a server admin.

And the 2nd, is where you can only be logged in at 1 place at a time. And here, we may have 2 more types: 1 where it automatically logs you off the 1st place you logged in, or, it may complain, and force-log off the 1st after a period of idle time. Thanks. 67.175.224.138 ( talk) 11:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC). reply

Access to a service in a client-server system is commonly referred to as a "session." In the first example, you have a "multi-session" service. A single user can open multiple sessions. In the second example, you have a "single session" service. A single user can only one and only one session. That terminology is common in servers where services are set up to be single or multi sessions. In desktop computers, it isn't as common. However, I have seen the single/multi session option for remote desktop service. 68.115.219.139 ( talk) 12:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't get your last statement on "in desktop computers, it isn't as common." Of what relevance is it if the users accesses the session from a desktop computer, laptop, or smartphone? 67.175.224.138 ( talk) 12:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC). reply

You misinterpreted it. *ON* desktop computers it is less common. *ON* cell phones and tablets, it rarely exists. *ON* those devices, you usually have one user logged in and only one user logged in. I did not claim that when using a desktop computer, servers behave differently. I claimed that desktop computers are usually single-user-at-a-time systems. I also noted that when using remote desktop services, you can have two users actively using Windows. But, that is more an exception than a rule. 68.115.219.139 ( talk) 16:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I have a Samsung Galaxy 7 smartphone, which has the Android operating system. Is there a way that is independent of the automobile manufacturer that I can have the phone take over the audio display in my car via Bluetooth? Or is this a feature of the software in the car, in which case I have to get the instructions on how to do this from the dealer? I have seen this done from an iPhone in other cars, but I have not seen it done from an Android, so I don’t know whether this was a feature of the iPhone or a feature of the car audio display. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I have been car shopping. What I have seen is some cars let my wife's iPhone take over the car's media interface. Others let my LG (android) take it over. So, some are Apple. Some are Android. I haven't seen any that are both. The higher end cars let you pick. Example: The Infiniti dealer specifically asked if we would be wanting Apple or Android. The Dodge dealer said it can only do Android. So, my vote for a Challenger got shot down. 64.53.18.247 ( talk) 21:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

One clarification is in order. I can use Bluetooth and Spotify to play music through the car radio, and to give me audio directions from Google maps, which interrupt the music. So I can do some Bluetooth from the Android. The question is whether I can take over the console display. Also, can I display the Google Map navigation on the console display? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The answer was referring to Android Auto, which allows your phone to use the car's multimedia display. Some manufacturers include Android Auto. Some include Apple CarPlay, which does the same thing, but with iPhone. Luxury vehicles often let you choose. All of them have bluetooth capability, which has different levels of functionality depending on exactly what is implemented. So, you can use an android phone with a CarPlay system. It just won't be as effective. You can use an iPhone with an Android Auto system. Again, it won't be as effective. What many people want is seamless navigation. You need to match the system for that. If you have Android Auto, you need an android phone. If you have Apple CarPlay, you need an iPhone. 68.115.219.139 ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I have a Samsung Galaxy 7 smartphone, which has the Android operating system. I am running Spotify to play a selected PlayList of music on the car audio. I want to send a text message, which means that I need to open the messaging app. If Spotify is displayed, is there a way that I can minimize it without closing it? If I close it, it turns off the audio, which I don’t want. (If I can use the screen of the audio device in the car, then I can use its console, but that is not this question.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I am using a Dell desktop computer and Word with Office 365. I have a very large number of Word documents open, because I don’t close documents after I open them. I print some of them to a locally connected printer. At some point, printing stops. The print jobs are shown as Spooling. I can’t cancel them. What I can do is that I can kill Word from the Task Manager or the Resource Monitor. The stuck print jobs go away. I can then resume printing. Is there a specific limit that I am exceeding, or is this just something that occasionally happens? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

What printer is it? It's possible that the large number of word documents and/or a long print queue is causing the printer and/or printer drive to glitch out, Windows does weird shit when too many processes or programs are running at once. I'd say...try not to open or print a lot of things before they're actually completed. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 19:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Rob3512 - Well, the printer is a Brother 2360. I am not trying to print multiple pages at once. I am waiting for a page to print before printing another page from another document. I am opening a lot of Word documents, because I am not bothering to close them, just counting on Windows to manage memory. It isn't the print queue that is glitching out. If the problem is indeed due to my opening too many Word documents at once, then I am satisfied just to kill Word and relaunch it when the printer stops. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Is there any reason that I can’t put an Access database (*.mdb or *.accdb) on an insertable drive, and then click on it to launch Access to view and maintain the database?

Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I can't think of any reason, unless the database is larger than the space on the drive. If the E: drive is a memory stick then it might have less free memory than it reports. What goes wrong when you try it? Dbfirs 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Performance will be abyssmal.

It would be better if you follow the basic Access design technique and split the database file in two. A shard of the data goes onto the "data" volume and the rest of it (stored queries, forms, reports, code, scratch tables, and invisible temporary tables which Access generates) are all held on the local "code" volume instead. The two are linked by using Access' linked tables (which can also be created dynamically by VBA code, if the path to the data volume can change).

But on the whole, performance is likely to be awful. USB3 to a magnetic drive or SSD might be OK, but USB sticks and SD cards won't be. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

There is a case where it will won't be bad... If the USB drive is pulled into a memory cache, then the memory cache is used. Accessing a memory cache is fast - faster than accessing an internal drive. The kicker is that it will take longer than normal to load because it has to copy to cache. You also MUST perform a proper eject to write changes to the USB drive. Unfortunately, we have no way to know how his USB driver is set up. So, we can't make a claim about speed. 64.53.18.247 ( talk) 21:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Andy Dingley - I don't understand what the point is to splitting the database into shards, but then I didn't explain what the size of the database is. The database has approximately 100 addresses at present and approximately 400 mail records at present. Maybe you thought I had a medium-sized database. Someone is going to ask me why I am using an Access database for something that is small enough that I could use an Excel spreadsheet. There are three reasons. First, Access supports a real one-to-many relationship. Second, I am using the Report capability of Access to print mailing labels. Third, I am a retired database engineer and I like Access. Performance isn't an issue. It isn't a shared database or anything like that. It is a personal database. I just want to keep track of my correspondence and print mailing labels. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

A single shard of the whole database (i.e. all rows) is still a shard. But the point here is to keep the Access scratch tables on a local, high-performance filesystem. Even if you move the data onto some lower-performance device, because you need to have it removable. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

IMO the performance won't be that bad if we're talking about an SSD. Sure USB 3 and variants, even when devices use UAS isn't likely to be as good as SATA let alone NVME or fibre channel. Still, it's not that limiting, and I suspect a decent USB 3 SSD performs far better than even a SATA or some fancier interface hard disk in every area that matters to an Access database. And I'm sure some people are still running their Access databases on hard disks, and if we go back 10 years, a lot more. A USB key, I agree would be a bad idea unless the database is primarily being used from memory. Even USB 3 keys tend the be fairly crap. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply