Ron - Kodak guy

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

  1. pjp

    ASAAR Guest

    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
    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.]
    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.
    ASAAR, Dec 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    ASAAR 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.
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. pjp

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Dec 24, 2006
  4. pjp

    Leigh Taylor Guest

    ...that you'd invent "vitriol" where it doesn't exist.
    Ah well, that gave me a good laugh.
    Leigh Taylor, Dec 24, 2006
  5. pjp

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Dec 24, 2006
  6. Note, you can get a USB card reader for $10-20 and upload the pictures without
    using the Kodak software.
    Michael Meissner, Dec 24, 2006
  7. pjp

    Bill Funk Guest

    No; as others have pointed out, the advice is to buy a card reader and
    get on with life.
    Bill Funk, Dec 24, 2006
  8. pjp

    Bill Funk Guest

    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
    Bill Funk, Dec 24, 2006
  9. pjp

    pjp Guest

    And it would be entirely money wasted for nothing more than a little speed.
    Word 2000, Photoshop, PSP, even Autocad (Light, school) all run well and
    load fast enough. A lot of games run on it including a fair number of
    emulators (GB's very favorites). It seldom crashes (no more than my XP pc it
    seems though I do demand more of it on one of mine) and if high speed is
    really the only reason, well I'm rural area and unlikely to be serviced by
    anything than the present dialup at <= 28.8 that I can afford, e.g. Sat only

    As it turns out one can connect and install only the device driver for 98SE
    provided it has an internet connection as it does the actual dl during the
    install. I was always aware that I could buy a card reader for a 98se pc;
    not that hard to find one pretty cheap. My own habit having owned a Fuji
    S602Z for 5+ years now though is still; just take care connecting usb cord
    and use Explorer to Move the files to hard disk then disconnect camera.
    Easy, simple, know where they went and cards empty ready to be used again.
    Both my kids having had cheapie webcam style cameras and have learned to do
    it that basic way. No "helper" software required or wanted :)

    I'll probably simply allow the custom install on one of my own pcs running
    98se and see how easy it is to simply copy the required additions over, e.g.
    nice inf file to read and see what dll's, reg entries etc. got changed.
    pjp, Dec 26, 2006
  10. pjp

    pjp Guest

    And I replied why bother to even do that, leave it with 98SE and save the
    money XP would cost. The pc meets all requirements of it's user as is.
    pjp, Dec 26, 2006
  11. pjp

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Ron:

    I plan to do just that, after the holidays are over.

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 30, 2006
  12. pjp

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, PJP:

    Still, Windows XP could allow that eggbeater of a Pentium III computer
    to soldier on, for a few more years. :p

    Seriously, a couple of months ago, I obtained an OEM XP installation CD,
    via eBay, for $42.78 USD. At such a reasonable price, it would probably
    be worth it to upgrade your old PC, too.

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 30, 2006
  13. pjp

    Paul Bartram Guest

    I'm another Win98SE hold-out - I actually have a legitimate XP disk but have
    not 'bit the bullet' and swapped over, mainly because when you run that
    'Compatibility' hardware / software wizard they provide the list it produces
    is long and worrying. OK, I could upgrade the subject programmes to the
    latest editions (for a price), but not much would save my Nikon LS1000 SCSI
    slide scanner, whose associated programme has never heard of XP, nor has it
    been replaced. (I'm told I could use Vuescan as an interface, but that's one
    more item to buy.)

    In case you think I'm a Luddite, in my defence I'd say I'm of the old school
    'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' brigade, and for 95% of everything I do,
    Win 98SE is perfectly adequate, comfortable and easy to use. The odd BSOD
    just adds interest to the day!

    The fact that so many people are also still using it after 8 long years
    suggests it must be doing something right!

    Paul Bartram, Dec 30, 2006
  14. pjp

    Cgiorgio Guest

    Cgiorgio, Dec 30, 2006
  15. pjp

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Paul:

    I "hear" what you're typing, man. :) My very own home-built, PIII
    "eggbeater" has gone through 98SE and Millennium -- and before that,
    during its Pentium 120MHz and 233MHz incarnations, Win95.

    That's nine years of the Window 9x family, for me (following two-plus
    of Win3.1 and DOS 6.2., on my old Pionex 486DX2 66MHz box). It's time
    to move into the 21st century, at long last!

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 31, 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.