Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> []
> > Hello, David:
> >
> > Oh, rest assured, I've been doing my fair share of relevant research.
> > I'm still somewhat undecided on my choice of Windows operating
> > systems, however. XP seems to be the safest bet, at the moment, but
> > Vista is the wave of the future, obviously.
> >
> > I'll likely pick XP and then "upgrade" to Vista, within the next few
> > years.
>
> A year ago I would have agreed. Today, I see few problems with Vista, and
> would no longer recommend people to start with XP. I'm not saying you
> shouldn't - simply that it wouldn't be my default recommendation.

Hello, David:

Food for thought, at least. Anyhow, which OS (XP or Vista) would be more
comfortable with 4GB (or above) of RAM, do you think?

> >> Suddenly everything seems squashed up in the top-left corner......
> >
> > Huh?
>
> When you run a program designed for 1024 x 768 or even 800 x 600 on your
> 1920 x 1200 display, it can look awfully small, and not fill the screen as
> it used to. That's all I meant.

All right, I concur.

> > 1920x1200 happens to be the X24WG's native resolution, which I'm
> > using, now. (Alas, text is a bit tiny, yet I can live with it.)
> >
>
> My 1200 pixels vertically is occupying 12 inches, and I'm using the
> default text size from Windows XP. I got my optician to optimise my
> "reading" glasses for computer screen, rather than book reading, use. No
> problems, and having all those spreadsheet rows visible at one is rather
> nice.
>
> Cheers,
> David

None of my eyeglasses are of the "reading" type, as I'm very nearsighted.
Still, I'm fine, and enjoy the widescreen experience, also.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
>
> In article <47CAB7B4.DA00B69E DeleteThis @concentric.net>, John Turco
> <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > Oh, rest assured, I've been doing my fair share of relevant research. I'm
> > still somewhat undecided on my choice of Windows operating systems, however.
> > XP seems to be the safest bet, at the moment, but Vista is the wave of the
> > future, obviously.
>
> Real men use OS X.

Hello, Russell:

If you say so, Mac.

> > I'll likely pick XP and then "upgrade" to Vista, within the next few years.
>
> Unless they do something to dramatically improve it, I wouldn't call
> Vista an upgrade. It's Me all over again.

Uh, that's why I'd put "upgrade" in quotation marks, before. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

tony cooper wrote:
[]
> Whoa, there. Corel and Adobe have programs that work with Vista.
> What I said was that *older* versions of Photoshop won't make the
> change. If you pay $600 or $800 for a program, you don't want to have
> to upgrade. I'm not talking about programs like Irfanview that are
> free downloads or ShipPlotter which is a US$50 program. My Adobe
> Photoshop is five years old, but it does everything I want it to do.
> I can upgrade to a CS version that will work on Vista, but I don't
> want to.

Tony,

I have some sympathy with you, although I would still ask what in the way
these earlier programs were coded prevents them running on Vista. Corel
did issue an update for one of their programs (Paint Shop Pro
V<something>) which made it Vista compatible.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Turco wrote:
[]
> Hello, David:
>
> So, the British GEC wasn't a subsidiary of the US-based General
> Electric Company, eh? (The latter >is< "even bigger than Kodak," most
> definitely.)
>
>> Digital not an industry giant? IIRC it was number two to IBM at one
>> time.
>
> DEC >was< "number two," once...which made IBM >the< kingpin of the
> computer business, of course.
>
> You have noticed that Intel hasn't muscled "Big Blue" out of existence
> (unlike the fate which befell DEC), have you not?
>
>> Do we shed tears for these companies any more? Are we happy with
>> what Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and the rest provide today?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>
> Shed no tears, for Kodak! It's going nowhere; furthermore, where
> would NASA's photographic capabilities be, without the assistance of
> the titan of Rochester, NY? <g>
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>

John, I don't see IBM/DEC and Intel as competing in the same space. Maybe
someone will take bets on how long older photographic companies will
survive. Nikon and Canon should be OK, and Panasonic are diverse enough.
Kodak needs to find a high-value item to market, I suspect.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:21:15 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>[]
>> Whoa, there. Corel and Adobe have programs that work with Vista.
>> What I said was that *older* versions of Photoshop won't make the
>> change. If you pay $600 or $800 for a program, you don't want to have
>> to upgrade. I'm not talking about programs like Irfanview that are
>> free downloads or ShipPlotter which is a US$50 program. My Adobe
>> Photoshop is five years old, but it does everything I want it to do.
>> I can upgrade to a CS version that will work on Vista, but I don't
>> want to.
>
>Tony,
>
>I have some sympathy with you, although I would still ask what in the way
>these earlier programs were coded prevents them running on Vista. Corel
>did issue an update for one of their programs (Paint Shop Pro
>V<something>) which made it Vista compatible.
>
You don't seem to understand that software like this came in versions.
Paint Shop Pro came out in 1992 as a free program from Jasc. Corel
purchased PSP in 2004 and charges for the program. PSP is now up to
version X2, which is the 12th version of the original.

Corel will support the previous version of anything they sell, but
will not support versions previous to the next-to-most-current. This
means they will offer a patch for version 11, but not for earlier
versions which may work very well for the users. The user either has
to pay for an update or find a different program.

Corel also purchased Word Perfect. I had to switch from Word Perfect
6.0, to Open Office because my version of Word Perfect would not run
on XP. It was designed for Windows 98.

The software people do not design things that are not compatible with
Vista or any other new OS. They can't predict what will be in a new
OS. Rather, Vista is designed so it is not compatible with some
extant software. Not deliberately, perhaps, but that's the result.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

Ï "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> Ýãñáøå óôï
ìÞíõìá news:LL6zj.17479$XI.16880@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> tony cooper wrote:
> []
> > Whoa, there. Corel and Adobe have programs that work with Vista.
> > What I said was that *older* versions of Photoshop won't make the
> > change. If you pay $600 or $800 for a program, you don't want to have
> > to upgrade. I'm not talking about programs like Irfanview that are
> > free downloads or ShipPlotter which is a US$50 program. My Adobe
> > Photoshop is five years old, but it does everything I want it to do.
> > I can upgrade to a CS version that will work on Vista, but I don't
> > want to.
>
> Tony,
>
> I have some sympathy with you, although I would still ask what in the way
> these earlier programs were coded prevents them running on Vista.
No idea, but eg my mother's vista laptop can't use the old Lexmark z605
printer, despite me downloading vista drivers from the lexmark website. She
bought a 53 euros HP 2460 Deskjet, problem solved. The old printer went to
my holiday house, which I am renting to german tourists.

>Corel
> did issue an update for one of their programs (Paint Shop Pro
> V<something>) which made it Vista compatible.
>
That doesn't always work; an old P1 computer with win98 SE couldn't "see" a
dialup modem that was specifically saying "Win 98" compatible and even had
special drivers. What in theory would work, in reality doesn't always.


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

tony cooper wrote:
[]
> You don't seem to understand that software like this came in versions.
> Paint Shop Pro came out in 1992 as a free program from Jasc. Corel
> purchased PSP in 2004 and charges for the program. PSP is now up to
> version X2, which is the 12th version of the original.
>
> Corel will support the previous version of anything they sell, but
> will not support versions previous to the next-to-most-current. This
> means they will offer a patch for version 11, but not for earlier
> versions which may work very well for the users. The user either has
> to pay for an update or find a different program.
>
> Corel also purchased Word Perfect. I had to switch from Word Perfect
> 6.0, to Open Office because my version of Word Perfect would not run
> on XP. It was designed for Windows 98.
>
> The software people do not design things that are not compatible with
> Vista or any other new OS. They can't predict what will be in a new
> OS. Rather, Vista is designed so it is not compatible with some
> extant software. Not deliberately, perhaps, but that's the result.

Tony, I'm asking the question in this case: what coding have these people
used which renders their software non-functional on Vista, when other
people's programs (designed even before Vista existed) continue to work?
We may never know the answer, but in future we may choose programs which
do not require expensive upgrades.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:55:41 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>[]
>> You don't seem to understand that software like this came in versions.
>> Paint Shop Pro came out in 1992 as a free program from Jasc. Corel
>> purchased PSP in 2004 and charges for the program. PSP is now up to
>> version X2, which is the 12th version of the original.
>>
>> Corel will support the previous version of anything they sell, but
>> will not support versions previous to the next-to-most-current. This
>> means they will offer a patch for version 11, but not for earlier
>> versions which may work very well for the users. The user either has
>> to pay for an update or find a different program.
>>
>> Corel also purchased Word Perfect. I had to switch from Word Perfect
>> 6.0, to Open Office because my version of Word Perfect would not run
>> on XP. It was designed for Windows 98.
>>
>> The software people do not design things that are not compatible with
>> Vista or any other new OS. They can't predict what will be in a new
>> OS. Rather, Vista is designed so it is not compatible with some
>> extant software. Not deliberately, perhaps, but that's the result.
>
>Tony, I'm asking the question in this case: what coding have these people
>used which renders their software non-functional on Vista,

I wouldn't have the slightest idea. I am not a programmer.

>when other
>people's programs (designed even before Vista existed) continue to work?
>We may never know the answer, but in future we may choose programs which
>do not require expensive upgrades.

How could I possibly do that? I would have to access to the source
code - which is proprietary in most programs - and to be able to read
the source code, and to be able to anticipate what new developments
there might be in future versions of OSs.

I have trouble enough predicting if a pair of trousers with 34 inch
waist will fit me in six months.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:55:41 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
>> Tony, I'm asking the question in this case: what coding have these
>> people used which renders their software non-functional on Vista,
>
> I wouldn't have the slightest idea. I am not a programmer.
>
>> when other
>> people's programs (designed even before Vista existed) continue to
>> work? We may never know the answer, but in future we may choose
>> programs which do not require expensive upgrades.
>
> How could I possibly do that? I would have to access to the source
> code - which is proprietary in most programs - and to be able to read
> the source code, and to be able to anticipate what new developments
> there might be in future versions of OSs.
>
> I have trouble enough predicting if a pair of trousers with 34 inch
> waist will fit me in six months.

That's why I said we may never know the answer, but occasionally we do.
We sometimes find that the programmers have deliberately bypassed the OS
to get some particular functionality, or deliberately exploited an error
in the OS. Correctly written programs, ones written within the rules of
Windows XP tend to work OK on Windows Vista. I remain unimpressed by
software which fails that test.

I was sorry to hear that your Lexmark drivers (IIRC) didn't work...

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:t90ar3hm4kp76ifbnbfubm40sto5dhhtn9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:24:05 GMT, "Jufi" <bowser.TakeThisOut@heart.com> wrote in
> <p44tj.4350$%x3.1322@trndny06>:
>
>>>>Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
>>>>opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.
>>>
>>> Most users I talk to find them more than satisfactory.
>>
>>I guess when I see the shooters along the sidelines of a football game
>>using
>>an EVF camera, I'll change my mind.
>
> If that was my profession (and my gear was all paid for), I might well
> too, but that's not the kind of photography I do.
>
>>Nearly worthless for action shooting.
>
> My FZ8 is terrific for action shooting.

Fabulous, how about posting some action shots then to show us just how good
it is!
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article
<47ce3f2d$0$23635$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D
<no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

> Fabulous, how about posting some action shots then to show us just how good
> it is!

Please NO!!

We've seen enough of Navas' mediocre photography.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> > You have noticed that Intel hasn't muscled "Big Blue" out of existence
> > (unlike the fate which befell DEC), have you not?
> >
> >> Do we shed tears for these companies any more? Are we happy with
> >> what Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and the rest provide today?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David
> >
> > Shed no tears, for Kodak! It's going nowhere; furthermore, where
> > would NASA's photographic capabilities be, without the assistance of
> > the titan of Rochester, NY? <g>
> >
>
> John, I don't see IBM/DEC and Intel as competing in the same space.

Hello, David:

Well, Intel did its part to hasten DEC's demise, according to this Wikipedia
article:

Wikipedia - Digital Equipment Corporation/Closing DEC's business
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation#Closing_DEC.27s_business>

"In May 1997, DEC sued Intel for allegedly infringing on its Alpha patents
in designing the Pentium chips. As part of a settlement, DEC's chip business
was sold to Intel. This included DEC's StrongARM implementation of the ARM
computer architecture, which Intel sold as the XScale processors commonly
used in Pocket PCs."

> Maybe someone will take bets on how long older photographic companies will
> survive. Nikon and Canon should be OK, and Panasonic are diverse enough.
> Kodak needs to find a high-value item to market, I suspect.
>
> Cheers,
> David

Kodak is a very "diverse" operation, actually. Not nearly as much as Panasonic
(or even Canon, perhaps), I grant you, but far more so, than Nikon ever was (or
could ever hope to be).


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net> wrote:
>David J Taylor wrote:

>> A year ago I would have agreed. Today, I see few problems with Vista, and
>> would no longer recommend people to start with XP. I'm not saying you
>> shouldn't - simply that it wouldn't be my default recommendation.
>
>Hello, David:
>
>Food for thought, at least. Anyhow, which OS (XP or Vista) would be more
>comfortable with 4GB (or above) of RAM, do you think?

I note that Apple is selling Macs with up to 32GB or RAM. Of course
they charge $9000+ for that much memory, but the OS copes without any
issues.

Gee, you could run six 4GB Windows virtual machines all at the same
time and still have 4GB of RAM for your Mac applications.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer.RemoveThis@sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss