Ron - Kodak guy

> 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.

But the original poster WANTS to! That's why he started the thread! How
is your rambling about it not being necessary to connect a camera to a
computer actually helping him?
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:36:26 +0000, Leigh Taylor wrote:

>> 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.
>
> But the original poster WANTS to! That's why he started the thread! How
> is your rambling about it not being necessary to connect a camera to a
> computer actually helping him?

Only in a fevered imagination can one see that the OP wants to
connect the camera to a computer. The OS requirement has more to do
with the computer being able to run the included software than to
being able to transfer pictures from the camera to the computer. In
fact, the OP's daughter's computer should have no problem
transferring pictures to her computer. Whether the camera can
connect and transfer files directly wasn't part of the original
question, and if it can't, no big deal. If the computer doesn't
already have a card reader, adding one won't cost very much.

He/she saw the OS requirement on the camera's box and *asked* if
it was correct. Most of the answers were pretty accurate. The OS
requirement is there *only* for those that want or need to use
Kodak's anemic software. If the OP has or can install a USB card
reader (and Win98SE is fully capable of doing that), then any of the
much better photo editors/organizers can be used, many of them free.

What help have *you* provided, other than saying

> You need to upgrade that machine. Welcome to the
> Microsoft money earning treadmill. Get your wallet out.

Didn't you read the OP, where it was plainly stated that there was
an inclination to return the camera rather than pay for an XP
upgrade that costs more than the camera? The truth is that the
daughter's computer is more than adequate as long as she doesn't
suddenly get a desire to install some software behemoths such as
Photoshop. Until 6 months ago I used a computer having less than
1/2 the memory and 1/4 the CPU power of her computer, and it ran
Win95, had no USB and still handled most of my photo editing and
printing chores since I got my first digital camera in early 2000.
The daughter doesn't even need to do *any* photo editing. Many
people don't print their own pictures, getting prints made at
Costco, Wal-Mart, Rite-Aid, Duane Reade, etc. The computer can then
be used mainly to organize photos and archive them onto CDs, etc.


[From a reply to Ron H.]
>> 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.
>
> So your advice to the original poster is that he not worry about the
> dated computer his daughter has got and just use the camera without a
> computer?

Neat twisting of words, but no, Ron did not say that a computer
should not be used. It was that in the worst case, a computer isn't
even needed, but his point one reply further up the thread spoke of
using a card reader. Not a card reader in Wal-Mart, but a card
reader connected to the OP's daughter's computer. If you're willing
to contribute 1/2 to 2/3 of the cost of upgrading the computer, say
so, and I'm sure that the OP will be willing to contact you. But if
not, what other cost effective solutions do you have? The OP
already has one, and that's to get or use a existing card reader,
and if one is needed, they are very inexpensive these days.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

ASAAR wrote:
<snip>

I tried to read your post and make sense of it, but your point is lost
in your attempts to shout me down with sometimes unrelated and sometimes
contradictory arguments.

The OP asked whether his daughter's unsupported computer is likely to
work with the packaged software and is prepared to take the camera back
and buy a different one if it won't. He clearly wants to be able to use
that computer with the camera. People going off on rants about how it
isn't necessary to have a computer isn't helping him make a decision.
Your pointless vitriol at me certainly isn't a helpful contribution.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:05:04 +0000, Leigh Taylor wrote:

> I tried to read your post and make sense of it, but your point is lost
> in your attempts to shout me down with sometimes unrelated and sometimes
> contradictory arguments.
>
> The OP asked whether his daughter's unsupported computer is likely to
> work with the packaged software and is prepared to take the camera back
> and buy a different one if it won't. He clearly wants to be able to use
> that computer with the camera. People going off on rants about how it
> isn't necessary to have a computer isn't helping him make a decision.
> Your pointless vitriol at me certainly isn't a helpful contribution.

Sad, sad. That you'd equate reasoning with trying to "shout you
down", and that you'd invent "vitriol" where it doesn't exist.
Thanks for so quickly identifying yourself as one who can't admit to
being wrong, and in doing so has to resort to fabrication.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor skrev:
AASAR:
> > ...that you'd invent "vitriol" where it doesn't exist.
> > Thanks for so quickly identifying yourself as one who can't admit to
> > being wrong, and in doing so has to resort to fabrication.
>
> Ah well, that gave me a good laugh.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=vitriol

Oh, my! You are really _that_ daft!

The best advice I can give you - quite sincerely and unpolemically - is
to stay out of Usenet arguments. in the future. Based on your
performance in this thread, the chances that you so much thicker than
your opponent that your postings will only serve to illustrate how
hopelessly behind your oppenent you are, are overwhelming, for any
given random opponent.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you are unintelligent. Stupidity and
intelligence are orthogonal traits, and it is possible to be very
stupid at almost any level of intelligence, save possibly the very
lowest. If the intellect is thought of as a toolbox, the unintelligent
person only has a few tools in it, which are rather low-capacity, at
that.

The stupid person, OTOH, possesses just as many tools in his box as
the next guy, sometimes even more. But when asked to drive a nail in a
plank, they - usually very proudly - produce the screwdriver, or
possibly even the handsaw, and start banging the nail with it.

And this is a pretty exact analogy to what you have been doing in this
thread.

Jan Böhme
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_ RemoveThis @_hotmail_._com> writes:

> 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.

Note, you can get a USB card reader for $10-20 and upload the pictures without
using the Kodak software.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews RemoveThis @the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:35:14 +0000, Leigh Taylor <jltaylor.TakeThisOut@uk.ibm.com>
wrote:

>> 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.
>
>So your advice to the original poster is that he not worry about the
>dated computer his daughter has got and just use the camera without a
>computer?

No; as others have pointed out, the advice is to buy a card reader and
get on with life.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:36:26 +0000, Leigh Taylor <jltaylor RemoveThis @uk.ibm.com>
wrote:

>> 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.
>
>But the original poster WANTS to! That's why he started the thread! How
>is your rambling about it not being necessary to connect a camera to a
>computer actually helping him?

Not everything someone wants to do is productive.
Many camera users are not aware that he software that comes with the
camera isn't the best way to manage the photos they take.
The idea that the camera must connect to the computer is common, and
wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

> ...that you'd invent "vitriol" where it doesn't exist.
> Thanks for so quickly identifying yourself as one who can't admit to
> being wrong, and in doing so has to resort to fabrication.

Ah well, that gave me a good laugh.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=vitriol
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:49:44 +0000, Leigh Taylor wrote:

>> ...that you'd invent "vitriol" where it doesn't exist.
> . . .
> Ah well, that gave me a good laugh.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=vitriol

Uh, not quite. I've long been aware of the word "vitriol". You
misunderstood again, but as long as you got a good laugh, chalk it
up to seasonal vitreous humor. It's probably not worth the effort
to go back to figure out what I meant, so just enjoy the holidays.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So your advice to the original poster is that he not worry about the
> dated computer his daughter has got and just use the camera without a
> computer?

No. My suggestion is that he enjoy the camera (as I am with my wife's
C743), and not worry about trying to use EasyShare, or the features it
cooperates with the C743 to provide, and do the same things other ways.
I doubt I will ever use the included cables to hook up directly to my
computers (even though all of them are capable of running the current
version of EasyShare), OR the one to connect to the TV. This in no way
renders the camera less useful, or less functional. For the price, it
is a rather amazing little camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But the original poster WANTS to! That's why he started the thread! How
> is your rambling about it not being necessary to connect a camera to a
> computer actually helping him?

He asked if the camera would WORK. It will! End of problem.
If he wants to connect it directly to the computer, and run EasyShare,
he needs a new OS, or a special driver. This doesn't affect the
operation of the camera at all.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy 

Leigh Taylor wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I tried to read your post and make sense of it, but your point is lost
> in your attempts to shout me down with sometimes unrelated and sometimes
> contradictory arguments.
>
> The OP asked whether his daughter's unsupported computer is likely to
> work with the packaged software and is prepared to take the camera back
> and buy a different one if it won't. He clearly wants to be able to use
> that computer with the camera. People going off on rants about how it
> isn't necessary to have a computer isn't helping him make a decision.
> Your pointless vitriol at me certainly isn't a helpful contribution.

YOUR vitriol is what is causing the problem. I gave the correct, and
detailed answer to the OP. That should end the thread.
 >> Stay informed about: Ron - Kodak guy