Ron - Kodak guy

ray wrote:
> 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.
>
You don't call being dug up and cooked, and eaten as 'being exploited'???
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote in message
news:psedneVXtrnCcRHYnZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@giganews.com...
[re happy clams]
> You don't call being dug up and cooked, and eaten as 'being exploited'???

LOL - that's a good one, Ron, and certainly the particular clams affected by
this would agree, were they able to talk. Personally, I one reason I think
clams are thought of as happy because they seem to be smiling when viewed
from above.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
 >> 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.
> Cramming everything into the OS with API calls spread across god knows how
> many dll's etc. etc. is to my mind why they have such a problem with it as
> it's now designed, e.g. one thing screws and it reboot time.
>

>
>

Hummm. Over the time I have been using XP, I have had less reboots for
'unplanned reasons' than I can count on the fingers of one hand. At
least 2 of those were due to my own ignorance during the early days of
using XP. Personally, I don't think that is bad for an OS that runs
24/7, and is heavily used for running beta software, and trying new
things. Normally, XP here is rebooted monthly when the batch of program
patches from MS comes out. The other chief cause of reboots is problems
with the cable connection which can require a shutdown and reboot to
satisfy the cable company troubleshooting process. So, somehow this
structure seems to work pretty reliably.
Sure beats the 1 to 3 reboots/day with Win98SE!
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor wrote:
>>> 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.

Sure it can. Ever hear of a card reader? My camera is connected to the
computer through its dock, but I more often transfer pictures via the
card reader as this is faster, and I don't have to use Kodak's software.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

>>> 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.
>
> Sure it can. Ever hear of a card reader? My camera is connected to the
> computer through its dock, but I more often transfer pictures via the
> card reader as this is faster, and I don't have to use Kodak's software.

And what do you do with the card reader if you "don't even HAVE a
computer"? (Your words.)
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:52:27 +0000, Leigh Taylor <jltaylor.RemoveThis@uk.ibm.com>
wrote:

>>>> 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.
>>
>> Sure it can. Ever hear of a card reader? My camera is connected to the
>> computer through its dock, but I more often transfer pictures via the
>> card reader as this is faster, and I don't have to use Kodak's software.
>
>And what do you do with the card reader if you "don't even HAVE a
>computer"? (Your words.)

Not having a computer will not alter the camera's functioning in any
way.
Having a computer will certainly help the user see the images, but it
will not stop the camera from taking the images.
When you take digital photos, do you always have a computer attached
to it? I don't.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> 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. Cramming everything into the OS with API calls
> spread across god knows how many dll's etc. etc. is to my mind why
> they have such a problem with it as it's now designed, e.g. one thing
> screws and it reboot time.

pjp,

I suggest you read about how Windows NT/2000/XP etc. is actually
structured. Windows Internals 4th Edition would be a good starting point:

http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/6710.aspx

A number of .exe and .dll files would required to support just the sort of
individual tasks you propose. So do you want one big file doing
everything or many small ones?

Your suggestion about the robustness of Windows XP does not tally with my
own experience - here it's more reliable then the hardware on which it
runs. That's not to say there isn't some poorly written application
software and device drivers out there....

David
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:37:47 +0000, 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.

So you'd favor layering everything and trying to make it work together
instead of designing it from the ground up as an integrated whole?

> Cramming everything into the OS with API calls spread across god knows
> how many dll's etc. etc. is to my mind why they have such a problem with
> it as it's now designed, e.g. one thing screws and it reboot time.

You don't use XP do you? "one thing screws and it's reboot time" may be
true but it's been a long time since that "one thing" has "screwed" on
any of my systems.

Linux is designed the way you want. And guess what, it's no easier to
program for X than it is for Windows, and the performance of the GUI is
relatively poor.

> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:emgj520biq@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:23:19 +0000, pjp wrote:
>>
>> > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:emf7nv$4tn$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>> >>
>> >> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_.RemoveThis@_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)

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

> Not having a computer will not alter the camera's functioning in any
> way.
> Having a computer will certainly help the user see the images, but it
> will not stop the camera from taking the images.

You're being very clever, splitting hairs and stuff, but this thread is
about real world advice for a real world problem. The whole digital
camera experience, from shutter release to finished image, will not be
identical with and without a computer.

> When you take digital photos, do you always have a computer attached
> to it? I don't.

Not always, no. But this thread is about someone who has a very dated
computer which likely is going to produce problems with his chosen
camera. If your recommendation is that he just throw the computer out on
the basis that it'll make no difference to the use of the camera, just
come out and say it. Then the OP can be advised to ignore you.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:47:05 +0000, Leigh Taylor <jltaylor RemoveThis @uk.ibm.com>
wrote:

>> Not having a computer will not alter the camera's functioning in any
>> way.
>> Having a computer will certainly help the user see the images, but it
>> will not stop the camera from taking the images.
>
>You're being very clever, splitting hairs and stuff, but this thread is
>about real world advice for a real world problem. The whole digital
>camera experience, from shutter release to finished image, will not be
>identical with and without a computer.
>
>> When you take digital photos, do you always have a computer attached
>> to it? I don't.
>
>Not always, no. But this thread is about someone who has a very dated
>computer which likely is going to produce problems with his chosen
>camera. If your recommendation is that he just throw the computer out on
>the basis that it'll make no difference to the use of the camera, just
>come out and say it. Then the OP can be advised to ignore you.

Not at all.
The point is and this has been pointed out several times, it is not
necessary to connect the camera to a computer.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> Sure it can. Ever hear of a card reader? My camera is connected to the
>> computer through its dock, but I more often transfer pictures via the
>> card reader as this is faster, and I don't have to use Kodak's software.
>
> And what do you do with the card reader if you "don't even HAVE a
> computer"? (Your words.)

The camera STILL works. If you don't have a computer, then you take the
flash card out, take it to Wal-Mart, or just about any 1hr film printer,
and have it printed. A camera takes PICTURES, it really isn't about
transfers, or driving printers, or making albums, or emailing the pictures.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor wrote:
>> Not having a computer will not alter the camera's functioning in any
>> way.
>> Having a computer will certainly help the user see the images, but it
>> will not stop the camera from taking the images.
>
> You're being very clever, splitting hairs and stuff, but this thread is
> about real world advice for a real world problem. The whole digital
> camera experience, from shutter release to finished image, will not be
> identical with and without a computer.
>
>> When you take digital photos, do you always have a computer attached
>> to it? I don't.
>
> Not always, no. But this thread is about someone who has a very dated
> computer which likely is going to produce problems with his chosen
> camera. If your recommendation is that he just throw the computer out on
> the basis that it'll make no difference to the use of the camera, just
> come out and say it. Then the OP can be advised to ignore you.

NO, it will NOT. The only limitation is that it won't have some of the
features provided by the EasyShare software, which isn't the best of the
batch even for such applications.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

pjp 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.


Hello, PJP:

After a longhold out, I finally made the decision to move up to Windows
XP, recently. (Haven't done it, yet, but I've already bought a cheap
OEM XP installation CD, off eBay.)

I'd simply become disillusioned, at seeing so little new hardware and
software supporting Windows Millennium. It was time to upgrade my lowly,
home-built PIII 1050MHz box, in order to keep it remotely competitive
with today's multi-GHz monsters.

Besides, as my Kodak P850 digicam has a RAW shooting mode, XP will allow
me to take full advantage of it, at last. (RAW images can't be opened or
edited, in the WinME, or below, versions of EasyShare.)

In your particular case - as the C743 lacks RAW capability, to begin
with - there's no real need to install any of Kodak's programs. You
could quickly and easily upload pictures to your computer, using an
inexpensive memory card reader/writer.

Then, you'd be able to do with them as you wish, in the graphics
application of your choice; I favor Paint Shop Pro, personally.

Good luck!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy