Ron - Kodak guy

"J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote in message
news:emgj520biq@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> What "hype" was that? I don't recall any "hype" about 9x being bug-free
> or reliable. But it _was_ better than 3.x.
>

I do. I think even 95 was supposed to have built-in crash protection. I
know 98 was touted (at least in the beginning) as having it.

S
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:21:11 +0000, mrsgator88 wrote:

> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_.RemoveThis@_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
> news:MIEih.35961$cz.530665@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Just bought a C743 and got it home before noticing box says Windows 2000
>> SP4
>> & XP. NO 98SE etc.
>>
>> Is that correct?
>>
>> If so then I guess I have to decide if spending the money on XP to upgrade
>> my daughter's pc (PIII-733Mz-256Ram) is worth it given my inclination is
>> to
>> just return the camera instead and buy another product that does support
>> 98SE still. Geez, XP will cost more than the camera!!!
>>
>> Truthful Yes/No answer please appreciated.
>>
>>
>
> I'll answer this as a person who has 98se computers at work and home, and as
> someone who's used Kodak cameras.
>
> Don't use the Kodak software. Use a card reader.
>
> Consider using XP. Really I hated it, for many reasons and many of the same
> reasons you do. But it handles pictures so much better than 98se that all
> my picture work is done on an XP box now. There really is a difference.
> Good programs for offloading and managing pictures like Adobe Photoshop
> Album or Picasa probably only run on XP.
>
> I was forced into XP. My old laptop was a win95, and it finally needed
> replacing, and all that was available was XP. Then I got a miniDV
> camcorder, then a DVD burner. Had a lot of fun, then got a "real" digital
> camera a couple of years later. I use 98se as my main computer at work, and
> still use my 98se at home for DTP and many other things, but not

FWIW - last year about this time I found a slightly used gateway 2.0ghz P4
laptop for under $600 with no OS installed. Been running Ubuntu Linux on
it ever since and happy as a clam.

> photography.
>
> Cameras that support 98se will haunt you in other ways. These are likely
> older models. In digital photography older means slower, slower startup
> speeds, longer shutter lag, longer waits between shots. Better to get or
> keep a newer camera and just use the card reader.
>
> Check the Sunday papers. Practically every week you can find an XP computer
> with built-in card readers in front for $399 or less. Think of it as a
> photography workstation. The pictures download so much faster, there really
> is a difference. Get a KVM switch and you can switch between your regular
> computer and your XP computer using the same keyboard, video monitor, and
> mouse. KVM switches are under $20 on ebay. An if you're ever going to do
> video, forget 98se.
>
> Good Luck!
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

"mrsgator88" <nomospam.TakeThisOut@nomospam.com> wrote in message
news:DSRih.27133$Ga1.15116@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:emgj520biq@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> What "hype" was that? I don't recall any "hype" about 9x being bug-free
>> or reliable. But it _was_ better than 3.x.
>
> I do. I think even 95 was supposed to have built-in crash protection. I
> know 98 was touted (at least in the beginning) as having it.

Windows 95 did have tons of hype - even the Rolling Stones got in on the act
with their "Start Me Up" performance. And it lived up to the hype. It was
a vast improvement in several ways over 3.1, which was heavily DOS based.
For me personally this was important because it was the year that I made the
move from being a Mac developer to a Windows developer. Overall stability
was better in large measure because processes ran in their own address
space. This allowed larger programs as well as some crash protection,
though there were still some stability holes left that were plugged in the
NT 4.0, 2K, and XP code line. Plug and play began to arrive with 95, and
was solidly in place with windows 98.

For all the complaints here, IMHO Microsoft has an excellent job for their
legacy software.Many - not all - DOS programs from the 80's run with no
problems, including, yes, those that access serial and parallel i/o ports
that are now emulated using USB hardware. It's relatively easy, for
example, for a program like Curvemeister to support everything from windows
98 through XP, and Vista looks like it will be no problem. Although I
haven't tried it, I suspect that Photoshop 4.0, from the Windows 95 days (or
even 2.5 from the Windows 3 era) would run, native, on Vista.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:23:19 +0000, pjp wrote:

> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.DeleteThis@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:emf7nv$4tn$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>
>> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_.DeleteThis@_hotmail_._com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just bought a C743 and got it home before noticing box says Windows 2000
>> > SP4
>> > & XP. NO 98SE etc.
>> >
>> > Is that correct?
>> >
>> > If so then I guess I have to decide if spending the money on XP to
> upgrade
>> > my daughter's pc (PIII-733Mz-256Ram) is worth it given my inclination is
>> > to
>> > just return the camera instead and buy another product that does support
>> > 98SE still. Geez, XP will cost more than the camera!!!
>> >
>> > Truthful Yes/No answer please appreciated.
>>
>> You should say thank you to Kodak. The Windows 95 series of OSes are as
> bad
>> as everything the Mac crazies say about them, and the NT series are as
> good
>> as everything the Mac crazies say about Unix. Same ugly Windows face, but
>> under the hood, completely different.
>>
>> Friends don't let friends use Windows 95/98/ME/SE
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>
> I'll say thanks to Kodak when they decide to throw in the OS for free that
> they demand be used.
>
> BS - I have all told 7 pc's networked in house. All can run XP but I only
> have it installed on one of them AND it's not the one that anyone uses to
> connect to the net. XP's as much if not more of a pain in the ass as any MS
> OS. BTW - and there's nothing I can do under XP I can't also do under 98SE
> that I've found to date (except not run products that basically demand XP).
>
> My attitude is 'bunch of moronic robots, we should be demanding MS fix their
> damn buggy software by redesigning it

Uh, they did redesign it. Windows 2000/XP has an entirely different code
base from 9x. And you seem to be upsed that after their having done so
developers are developing for the new code base.

> and providing it gratis to those
> of us suckers enough to believe their hype in the first place.

What "hype" was that? I don't recall any "hype" about 9x being bug-free
or reliable. But it _was_ better than 3.x.

> Instead
> the add patch onto patch onto patch to mask/hide the flaws in their
> basic design then at some point call it a new version so they can do it
> all again'

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

> Try it before returning means have to wait till "the day" and open box etc.
> where-as I still have time to return and choose another if I find out answer
> soon enough. I expect the camera itself to work fine but I don't like the
> artificial limitation of needing the latest & greatest OS (cause it ain't).

I see your issue, but you can't get round the basic problem which is
that the PC your daughter has is really old. Latest and greatest isn't
required, but Win98 is 10 year old technology. Even Win2000 is 7 year
old technology. It's not unreasonable to say that a new product won't
work with something so old.

You should be able to persuade the camera to work, but it might not. You
certainly won't get support from Microsoft or Kodak if you can't get it
to work. If you take it back, the next camera you get probably won't
have Win98 support either, and nor will any modern software you buy,
like Photoshop CS. This trend will continue. OSs that old have fallen
off the support radar. You need to upgrade that machine. Welcome to the
Microsoft money earning treadmill. Get your wallet out.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor wrote:
>> Try it before returning means have to wait till "the day" and open box etc.
>> where-as I still have time to return and choose another if I find out answer
>> soon enough. I expect the camera itself to work fine but I don't like the
>> artificial limitation of needing the latest & greatest OS (cause it ain't).
>
> I see your issue, but you can't get round the basic problem which is
> that the PC your daughter has is really old. Latest and greatest isn't
> required, but Win98 is 10 year old technology. Even Win2000 is 7 year
> old technology. It's not unreasonable to say that a new product won't
> work with something so old.
>
> You should be able to persuade the camera to work, but it might not. You
> certainly won't get support from Microsoft or Kodak if you can't get it
> to work. If you take it back, the next camera you get probably won't
> have Win98 support either, and nor will any modern software you buy,
> like Photoshop CS. This trend will continue. OSs that old have fallen
> off the support radar. You need to upgrade that machine. Welcome to the
> Microsoft money earning treadmill. Get your wallet out.

Hey, the CAMERA will work exactly the same if you don't even HAVE a
computer. The included software Kodak EasyShare won't work, but from
experience, this is an ADVANTAGE as it is large, slow (especially on the
age machine described), and totally unnecessary.

Just make sure you can attach a USB card reader to the system, and take
the SD card out of the camera and use Windows Explorer to copy the files
to the HD, and whatever photo editor (irfanview, Picasa 2), to do the
display and editing.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

ray wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:21:11 +0000, mrsgator88 wrote:
>
>> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_.DeleteThis@_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
>> news:MIEih.35961$cz.530665@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>> Just bought a C743 and got it home before noticing box says Windows 2000
>>> SP4
>>> & XP. NO 98SE etc.
>>>
>>> Is that correct?
>>>
>>> If so then I guess I have to decide if spending the money on XP to upgrade
>>> my daughter's pc (PIII-733Mz-256Ram) is worth it given my inclination is
>>> to
>>> just return the camera instead and buy another product that does support
>>> 98SE still. Geez, XP will cost more than the camera!!!
>>>
>>> Truthful Yes/No answer please appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>> I'll answer this as a person who has 98se computers at work and home, and as
>> someone who's used Kodak cameras.
>>
>> Don't use the Kodak software. Use a card reader.
>>
>> Consider using XP. Really I hated it, for many reasons and many of the same
>> reasons you do. But it handles pictures so much better than 98se that all
>> my picture work is done on an XP box now. There really is a difference.
>> Good programs for offloading and managing pictures like Adobe Photoshop
>> Album or Picasa probably only run on XP.
>>
>> I was forced into XP. My old laptop was a win95, and it finally needed
>> replacing, and all that was available was XP. Then I got a miniDV
>> camcorder, then a DVD burner. Had a lot of fun, then got a "real" digital
>> camera a couple of years later. I use 98se as my main computer at work, and
>> still use my 98se at home for DTP and many other things, but not
>
> FWIW - last year about this time I found a slightly used gateway 2.0ghz P4
> laptop for under $600 with no OS installed. Been running Ubuntu Linux on
> it ever since and happy as a clam.
>

Well, that should be easy. Clams aren't a very high form of life. Just
sit around opening and closing one shell, and eating anything organic
that wanders in. Grin.


>> photography.
>>
>> Cameras that support 98se will haunt you in other ways. These are likely
>> older models. In digital photography older means slower, slower startup
>> speeds, longer shutter lag, longer waits between shots. Better to get or
>> keep a newer camera and just use the card reader.
>>
>> Check the Sunday papers. Practically every week you can find an XP computer
>> with built-in card readers in front for $399 or less. Think of it as a
>> photography workstation. The pictures download so much faster, there really
>> is a difference. Get a KVM switch and you can switch between your regular
>> computer and your XP computer using the same keyboard, video monitor, and
>> mouse. KVM switches are under $20 on ebay. An if you're ever going to do
>> video, forget 98se.
>>
>> Good Luck!
>
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Rob-L wrote:
> Upgrade, you have an operating system that is almost 9 years old. That
> being said, I can't really see why 98 wouldn't work for transferring files
> off of the camera, but you may have issues running the bundled software.
>
> Rob-L
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
>
The camera uses Pictbridge protocol, which is probably NOT supported by
any driver for Win98 (but could be). It probably wouldn't attach
without a special driver.
Kodak EasyShare software, as included with the camera, needs a
WinNT/2k/XP OS.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:38:34 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:21:11 +0000, mrsgator88 wrote:
>>
>>> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_ RemoveThis @_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
>>> news:MIEih.35961$cz.530665@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>> Just bought a C743 and got it home before noticing box says Windows 2000
>>>> SP4
>>>> & XP. NO 98SE etc.
>>>>
>>>> Is that correct?
>>>>
>>>> If so then I guess I have to decide if spending the money on XP to upgrade
>>>> my daughter's pc (PIII-733Mz-256Ram) is worth it given my inclination is
>>>> to
>>>> just return the camera instead and buy another product that does support
>>>> 98SE still. Geez, XP will cost more than the camera!!!
>>>>
>>>> Truthful Yes/No answer please appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'll answer this as a person who has 98se computers at work and home, and as
>>> someone who's used Kodak cameras.
>>>
>>> Don't use the Kodak software. Use a card reader.
>>>
>>> Consider using XP. Really I hated it, for many reasons and many of the same
>>> reasons you do. But it handles pictures so much better than 98se that all
>>> my picture work is done on an XP box now. There really is a difference.
>>> Good programs for offloading and managing pictures like Adobe Photoshop
>>> Album or Picasa probably only run on XP.
>>>
>>> I was forced into XP. My old laptop was a win95, and it finally needed
>>> replacing, and all that was available was XP. Then I got a miniDV
>>> camcorder, then a DVD burner. Had a lot of fun, then got a "real" digital
>>> camera a couple of years later. I use 98se as my main computer at work, and
>>> still use my 98se at home for DTP and many other things, but not
>>
>> FWIW - last year about this time I found a slightly used gateway 2.0ghz P4
>> laptop for under $600 with no OS installed. Been running Ubuntu Linux on
>> it ever since and happy as a clam.
>>
>
> Well, that should be easy. Clams aren't a very high form of life. Just
> sit around opening and closing one shell, and eating anything organic
> that wanders in. Grin.

They also don't expend much time or effort fending off malware
infestations and are rarely exploited. Grin. Grin.

>
>
>>> photography.
>>>
>>> Cameras that support 98se will haunt you in other ways. These are likely
>>> older models. In digital photography older means slower, slower startup
>>> speeds, longer shutter lag, longer waits between shots. Better to get or
>>> keep a newer camera and just use the card reader.
>>>
>>> Check the Sunday papers. Practically every week you can find an XP computer
>>> with built-in card readers in front for $399 or less. Think of it as a
>>> photography workstation. The pictures download so much faster, there really
>>> is a difference. Get a KVM switch and you can switch between your regular
>>> computer and your XP computer using the same keyboard, video monitor, and
>>> mouse. KVM switches are under $20 on ebay. An if you're ever going to do
>>> video, forget 98se.
>>>
>>> Good Luck!
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

pjp wrote:
> The redesign required (in my mind) is to basically go back and create a DOS
> 32/64 bit multi-tasking OS and then add GUI etc. etc. onto it ALL as
> separate individual "tasks" rather than the behemoth they currently use.

That's exactly how Linux and OSX work.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

>> You should be able to persuade the camera to work, but it might not. You
>> certainly won't get support from Microsoft or Kodak if you can't get it
>> to work. If you take it back, the next camera you get probably won't
>> have Win98 support either, and nor will any modern software you buy,
>> like Photoshop CS. This trend will continue. OSs that old have fallen
>> off the support radar. You need to upgrade that machine. Welcome to the
>> Microsoft money earning treadmill. Get your wallet out.
>
> Hey, the CAMERA will work exactly the same if you don't even HAVE a
> computer.

No it won't. It won't be able to upload the images from it's memory card
to a computer if it's not connected to a computer.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:54:32 -0700, ray wrote:

>> Well, that should be easy. Clams aren't a very high form of life. Just
>> sit around opening and closing one shell, and eating anything organic
>> that wanders in. Grin.
>
> They also don't expend much time or effort fending off malware
> infestations and are rarely exploited. Grin. Grin.

Credit evolution for providing them with a useful and protective C
shell.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

pjp

according to this product specs .. it works w/win98

see this site


http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/details.aspx?view=info&itemid=297406...roductS

if this is the same camera.. c743

by the way my initials are pjp also

paul



"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_.RemoveThis@_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
news:erMih.36127$cz.532552@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:emfceu$63v$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>
>> "Louise Bremner" <trap_for_junk_mail.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > David J. Littleboy <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Friends don't let friends use Windows 95/98/ME/SE
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, clients forced me to buy it, as the only way I could
>> > find
>> > to produce files that their computers could read....
>>
>> What are you doing that requires Windows 95/98/ME/SE that can't be done
>> on
>> XP???
>>
>
> Any "older" software that accesses various IO ports comes to mind, e.g.
> even
> old comm programs like Procomm will work in a window under 9X but won't
> under NT/XP.
>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy