Argh!!! Kodak software crap!!!

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by pjp, Jan 11, 2007.

  1. pjp

    ASAAR Guest

    Then there's the OP's credibility to consider. As already
    mentioned, some or all of the friends may even already have card
    readers built into their computers - even if they don't own cameras.
    It's been a while since I've seen computers offered for sale that
    didn't include them. Considering how the OP has responded so far, I
    wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't fabricated part of his story in
    order to bolster his case. And what is his purpose, to give out
    copies of his photos or simply to show them? If the latter, he
    could simply connect the camera's video out to his friend's TV,
    which would be a solution even for friends that don't own computers.
    But I think that you're right, the name of his game is "complain".
    ASAAR, Jan 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. pjp

    Paul Allen Guest

    I was talking about the software, which is most assuredly proprietary.
    PictBridge, on the other hand is a CIPA standard. In order to get a
    copy of the standard, you must pay 50,000 yen (or become a member of
    CIPA) and sign a non-disclosure agreement. For you, me, and the OP,
    the difference between that and "proprietary" is not worth pursuing.
    You left out a better solution: that Kodak actually implement USB
    Mass Storage in the camera. Given the constraint that the camera
    doesn't support a normal interface, carrying a card reader around
    is probably a reasonable plan. I don't imagine the OP's going to
    be happy about that, since he's the one that's got to go buy a
    gizmo to patch a deficiency in his camera.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Jan 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. pjp

    Jim Guest

    On 2007-01-11 11:11:36 -0500, "pjp"
    <[email protected]_hotmail_._com> said:

    There are somethings going on in the world to get bent out shape over.
    I hardly see this as one of them.
    Jim, Jan 14, 2007
  4. pjp

    pjp Guest

    Geez folks, does stating that I'm po'd to find it isn't seen by XP as a Mass
    Storage Device without need of a driver really warrant all that's followed?
    I basically assumed "today" that everything of that genre using removeable
    storage on the usb bus would implement XP's basic requirment with any
    additional "feature/protocol" also rather than as an alternate.

    That said, it has been mentioned getting a card reader provided it's seen as
    a Mass Storage Device by the OS natively. That does seem a better solution
    as it avoids needing to install anything. Incidentally what I was hoping the
    camera would do so it does seem like spend more money to solve a problem
    really in my mind shouldn't exist.

    Reply to an email query I wrote back ...


    I did run the install program on the included cd on a XP pc I have after
    first confirming that indeed a driver is required. During said install of
    Easyshare I was able to install just the driver ignoring all the rest. Can't
    remember specifics exactly but recall it wasn't that unintuitive. That said,
    I've been a programmer since 85 and "real comfortable" around pc's inside
    and out so ... :) The camera shows up as a disk drive as I believe it should
    even though others on newsgroup may feel differently ???

    I'm waiting for the cd Kodak volunteered to mail that supports 98SE and
    presumably it's install also allows one to install just the driver and not
    the Easyshare app itself. Then daughter has everything she needs to deal
    with it herself.

    Given the install does allow just a driver install, I haven't looked to see
    what the "inf" file says and what files are required etc. to make up a
    standard driver install and that's all.

    The jpg files themselves seem fine. The one thing I've noticed is their
    size. Seems to me the 7 meg jpg's were approx. 1400Kb which I was surprised
    at because my 6Meg Fuji S602Z creates jpg's of approx. 2200Kb. I can only
    assume that's because the Fuji's set to "Fine" and "whatever's lowest
    setting" produces something similar to the Kodak.

    That said the Kodak first impressions are very good. Especially as it was
    bought as something to slip in pocket even if (as it appears) the jpg
    "quality" is fixed!!! She'll likely never use it except in auto mode.


    P.S. My Fuji S602Z is also not seen without a driver.

    pjp, Jan 15, 2007
  5. pjp

    Paul Allen Guest

    So, you admit that it's not a selling point? Fine.
    I'm not sure why you keep pushing on this rope. PictBridge is owned
    by CIPA. Outside of reverse-engineering it from scratch, the only
    ways to use PictBridge are to buy a CIPA-licensed implementation or
    buy the spec from CIPA and implement it yourself. It's proprietary.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Jan 15, 2007
  6. pjp

    ray Guest

    Excuse me? I plug my Kodak P850 or printer dock into my Linux computer and
    read the data. No install nothing.
    ray, Jan 16, 2007
  7. pjp

    ray Guest

    That's just the point. Linux works - it does not need any corporate
    support. You simply plug the camera or printer dock into a Linux computer,
    and it mounts - and you download the photos. No muss, no fuss, no bother,
    do drivers to install and no reboots - it works fine 'out of the box'.
    ray, Jan 16, 2007
  8. pjp

    pjp Guest

    Hi Ron,

    You came into this thread a little late. I "am/was" po'd because of lack of
    the Mass Storage Device protocol being absent in favour of Pictbridge. I've
    a number of usb devices and all (except my Fuji S602Z) are recognized as
    MSD's (few cheap camera's and mp3 players) and hence it's just true "plug &
    use". The "new" camera not being able to be used that way is a minus in my
    book if for no other reason than, when visiting elsewhere to offload the
    camera, more than a cable is required (assuming running XP).

    Lots of people pointed out a card reader and I might have to purchase one if
    installing software on "others" pc's becomes a problem. To date it's seemed
    to me I'd rather just use the included cable over repeatedly cycling the
    card. If the cable messes up I still have the card and full use but if the
    card slot messes up and can't reinsert the card the camera becomes limited.

    I've already discovered one can install just the driver under XP and am
    waiting for the cd Kodak's tech support voluntered to send (kudo's for that
    Kodak) to do the same on daughters 98SE pc. Donwloading is a drag given
    rural area so slow dialup connection.

    I may or may not look at the "inf" file for the driver and see if I can't
    create a simple driver install from what it tells me as then it's presumably
    small enough to email before going someplace so it's there and dragging a cd
    along isn't required.

    Anyway, I'll work around it but I do find it annoying. Given it's really my
    daughters camera, once her pc is setup driver irritiation is more or less

    To remain positive in appreciation of the reply, camera seems to take nice
    "ordinary" pics. I haven't taxed it to check out "extremes", e.g. close
    focus, fastest shutter speed, longest zoom etc..
    pjp, Jan 17, 2007
  9. pjp

    John Turco Guest

    <edited, for brevity>

    Hello, PJP:

    For home use, think about buying a Kodak camera dock, if you value
    convenience. It's a tad slower (and somewhat costlier) than a card
    reader, but more versatile, as well.

    Not only does it tranfer pictures to the computer, it also charges
    certain types of Kodak battery packs, while they're still installed.

    Search eBay, for good prices on new and used items.

    Good luck!

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Jan 21, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.