Ron - Kodak guy

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by pjp, Dec 21, 2006.

  1. pjp

    Chuck Guest

    There is still a bunch of military hardware that is stuck in the DOS win9x
    configuration hardware era. Seems that the Mil spec processors were the
    first problem, then special purpose ISA I/O cards that require drivers that
    have no available source code (military didn't buy source), and, under the
    new rules, cannot reverse engineer it.
    So, the hardware is sort of stuck in the 386/486 era, untill funds are
    available to redesign from the "ground up". Since almost all the funds are
    expended on keeping things going in the mideast, there isn't a lot of money
    to go around, so what is there is going for long term development of
    politically "important" big dollar things.
    Chuck, Dec 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. pjp

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
    What "hype" was that? I don't recall any "hype" about 9x being bug-free
    or reliable. But it _was_ better than 3.x.
    J. Clarke, Dec 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    Try it before returning means have to wait till "the day" and open box etc.
    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.
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 22, 2006
  4. pjp

    Bill Funk Guest

    I learned that clients should never, ever, be friends. Friendship
    clouds the client relationship, makes you want to treat your friends
    differently from clients.
    And experience shows that's never good.
    Bill Funk, Dec 22, 2006
  5. pjp

    ray Guest

    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.
    ray, Dec 22, 2006
  6. pjp

    J. Clarke Guest

    That's oysters. Clams walk around occasionally and dig with considerable
    vigor. Here's a video of a clam digging
    J. Clarke, Dec 22, 2006
  7. pjp

    pjp Guest

    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, Dec 22, 2006
  8. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    That's exactly how Linux and OSX work.
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 22, 2006
  9. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    You should be able to persuade the camera to work, but it might not. You
    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.
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 22, 2006
  10. pjp

    ray Guest

    They also don't expend much time or effort fending off malware
    infestations and are rarely exploited. Grin. Grin.
    ray, Dec 22, 2006
  11. pjp

    ASAAR Guest

    Credit evolution for providing them with a useful and protective C
    shell. :)
    ASAAR, Dec 22, 2006
  12. 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:

    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 J Taylor, Dec 23, 2006
  13. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    Hey, the CAMERA will work exactly the same if you don't even HAVE a
    And what do you do with the card reader if you "don't even HAVE a
    computer"? (Your words.)
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 23, 2006
  14. pjp

    J. Clarke Guest

    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?
    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, Dec 23, 2006
  15. pjp

    Bill Funk Guest

    Not having a computer will not alter the camera's functioning in any
    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, Dec 23, 2006
  16. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    Not having a computer will not alter the camera's functioning in any
    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.
    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.
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 23, 2006
  17. pjp

    Bill Funk Guest

    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, Dec 23, 2006
  18. pjp

    John Turco Guest

    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!

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 24, 2006
  19. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    The camera STILL works. If you don't have a computer, then you take the
    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
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 24, 2006
  20. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    Not at all.
    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?
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 24, 2006
    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.