Software for Kodak DC 210 Does Not Work With Windows XP?

Hello.

I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
software for the camera no longer works.

Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
the images, but maybe there is a better way.

Thanks.

Jeff Turner

Gates Mills, Ohio

 

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 +0000, JEFF TURNER wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
> recently upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro.,
> and the software for the camera no longer works.
>
> Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
> this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
> reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to
> process the images, but maybe there is a better way.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeff Turner
>
> Gates Mills, Ohio

I have a DC 210+. I use it with a card reader on a Linux system. So
what's the issue? Faster file transfers and save the camera battery -
seems like a deal to me (actually I have an AC adapter too). Get yourself
an inexpensive CF USB card reader (or a multi unit if you think you might
do other cards sometime). Crucial makes several for good prices, or visit
your local walmart.

 

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:33:35 -0800, trouble wrote:

> You may be the only person on Earth with a Kodak digital camera that
> still works one day past the expiration of its warranty.

Hardly. My DC210+ is still working and so is my (more recent) P850. The
DC210 is a good camera with several redeeming qualities: it's paid for,
it takes decent 1mp photos (I've printed to 8x10 - they come out nicely),
it has an available AC adapter (which came with mine), it uses CF cards
instead of a proprietary expensive card, it's rugged, Kodak used to have
an SDK you could download and use for free (may or may not still be
available, but I have it), it's dependable and it's a nice size.

 

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:33:35 -0800, trouble wrote:
>
>> You may be the only person on Earth with a Kodak digital camera that
>> still works one day past the expiration of its warranty.
>
> Hardly. My DC210+ is still working and so is my (more recent) P850. The
> DC210 is a good camera with several redeeming qualities: it's paid for,
> it takes decent 1mp photos (I've printed to 8x10 - they come out nicely),
> it has an available AC adapter (which came with mine), it uses CF cards
> instead of a proprietary expensive card, it's rugged, Kodak used to have
> an SDK you could download and use for free (may or may not still be
> available, but I have it), it's dependable and it's a nice size.

My old Olympus 1.3MP camera with 2X digital zoom still works, too, but I
wouldn't think of using it today. In fact, I still look back at the photos I
took back in 2004 and wish that I could go back with today's cameras and do
them over.

Of course, I have no desire to return to Windows 98, either. Or black and
white televisions.

dwight

 

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:21:58 -0500, dwight wrote:

> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:33:35 -0800, trouble wrote:
>>
>>> You may be the only person on Earth with a Kodak digital camera that
>>> still works one day past the expiration of its warranty.
>>
>> Hardly. My DC210+ is still working and so is my (more recent) P850. The
>> DC210 is a good camera with several redeeming qualities: it's paid for,
>> it takes decent 1mp photos (I've printed to 8x10 - they come out
>> nicely), it has an available AC adapter (which came with mine), it uses
>> CF cards instead of a proprietary expensive card, it's rugged, Kodak
>> used to have an SDK you could download and use for free (may or may not
>> still be available, but I have it), it's dependable and it's a nice
>> size.
>
> My old Olympus 1.3MP camera with 2X digital zoom still works, too, but I
> wouldn't think of using it today. In fact, I still look back at the
> photos I took back in 2004 and wish that I could go back with today's
> cameras and do them over.
>
> Of course, I have no desire to return to Windows 98, either. Or black
> and white televisions.
>
> dwight

I guess that would be a part of the difference. I look back at pictures I
took with the DC210+ and wonder how I ever got such good looking photos -
the modern equipment may surpass in resolution, but that's about it. I
still use mine from time to time when I'm doing shoots for special events
at the local library. They like to be able to print our photos 'on the
spot' to give out to the kiddies - works fine.

 

"JEFF TURNER" <> wrote in message
news:Cidrl.45132$...
> Hello.
>
> I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
> recently upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro.,
> and the software for the camera no longer works.
>
> Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
> this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
> reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to
> process the images, but maybe there is a better way.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeff Turner
>
> Gates Mills, Ohio
>
Go and buy a decent digital camera and trash the Kodak.

 

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "JEFF TURNER"
<> saying something like:

>Hello.
>
>I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
>upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
>software for the camera no longer works.
>
>Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
>this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
>reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
>the images, but maybe there is a better way.

If the old software actually installs ok on XP Pro, then do this...
Go to the installation folder, right click on the .exe file and select
properties. Select 'compatibility' and run it as if it's in W98.
It might work, it might not.

 

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER <> wrote:

| I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
| upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
| software for the camera no longer works.
|
| Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
| this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
| reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
| the images, but maybe there is a better way.

1.

I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a full
set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the computer
via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This camera is so old
I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.

Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add software
to support the USB ports. This software would have at least included a driver.
It often includes other things to let you browse pictures, edit them, etc.
But this software will definitely NOT succeed at installing on XP if it is
trying to install a USB driver. That is because XP already has USB drivers
in it.

If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for presenting its
memory to the computer in the form of a small disk storage (just like a USB
key/stick does ... and just like every camera I have used does), then you do
not need ANY software on XP to at least get the pictures from the camera via
the USB cable. You would then need to use other software to work with those
pictures. But XP has more such software included than previous versions of
Windows. Vista has even more if you want to go that route.

So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without adding any
software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is connected.

2.

I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to computer
by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It doesn't run down the
camera battery (or require yet another cable to power the camera). And it is
faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF has the ability to be faster than
other kinds of memory cards because of its 8-bit data path, but that does not
mean every device that works with CF achieves such speeds.

Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good investment.
If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer, AND if yours has
an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a front panel slot, then
an internal memory card adapter might be an option. Both of my main desktop
computers have them (but then, I build my own computers). All new computers
I see in Best Buy and Walmart have them already integrated. Many laptops
seem to have at least one memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.

Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in the
future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the USB
adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC) protocol, and
as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and the effective
limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made to work with the
SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to 2GB due to programmer
errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory card adapter, don't pay more
than about $12 for it unless you see that it really has SDHC.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:25:18 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER
> <> wrote:
>
> | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
> recently | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP
> Pro., and the | software for the camera no longer works. |
> | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to
> use | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory
> card | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want
> to process | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
>
> 1.
>
> I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a
> full set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the
> computer via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This
> camera is so old I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full
> specs.

Actually, it connects via a serial cable.


>
> Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add
> software to support the USB ports. This software would have at least
> included a driver. It often includes other things to let you browse
> pictures, edit them, etc. But this software will definitely NOT succeed
> at installing on XP if it is trying to install a USB driver. That is
> because XP already has USB drivers in it.
>
> If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for
> presenting its memory to the computer in the form of a small disk
> storage (just like a USB key/stick does ... and just like every camera I
> have used does), then you do not need ANY software on XP to at least get
> the pictures from the camera via the USB cable. You would then need to
> use other software to work with those pictures. But XP has more such
> software included than previous versions of Windows. Vista has even
> more if you want to go that route.
>
> So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without
> adding any software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is
> connected.
>
> 2.
>
> I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to
> computer by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It
> doesn't run down the camera battery (or require yet another cable to
> power the camera). And it is faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF
> has the ability to be faster than other kinds of memory cards because of
> its 8-bit data path, but that does not mean every device that works with
> CF achieves such speeds.
>
> Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good
> investment. If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer,
> AND if yours has an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a
> front panel slot, then an internal memory card adapter might be an
> option. Both of my main desktop computers have them (but then, I build
> my own computers). All new computers I see in Best Buy and Walmart have
> them already integrated. Many laptops seem to have at least one memory
> card slot (usually just SD) these days.
>
> Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in
> the future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the
> USB adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC)
> protocol, and as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and
> the effective limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made
> to work with the SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to
> 2GB due to programmer errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory
> card adapter, don't pay more than about $12 for it unless you see that
> it really has SDHC.

Fine, but the DC210 uses CF cards.

 

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:49:43 +0000, Deep Reset wrote:

> <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>>>I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a
>>>full
>>>set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the
>>>computer via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This
>>>camera is so old
>>>I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.
>>
>> It's so old that it connects to the computer with a serial cable.
>
> Don't they all?

USB is a specific form of serial. The serial cable used on the DC210 is
not USB.

 

"Deep Reset" <> wrote:
><> wrote in message
>> It's so old that it connects to the computer with a serial cable.
>
>Don't they all?

Well, strictly speaking in a technical sense yes (unless there are any
cameras with a parallel or no port).
However the vast majority of people mean RS-232 when they are talking
about "serial", not USB.

jue

 

wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER <> wrote:
>
> | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
> | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
> | software for the camera no longer works.
> |
> | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
> | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
> | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
> | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
>
> 1.
>
> I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a full
> set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the computer
> via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This camera is so old
> I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.
>
> Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add software
> to support the USB ports. This software would have at least included a driver.
> It often includes other things to let you browse pictures, edit them, etc.
> But this software will definitely NOT succeed at installing on XP if it is
> trying to install a USB driver. That is because XP already has USB drivers
> in it.
>
> If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for presenting its
> memory to the computer in the form of a small disk storage (just like a USB
> key/stick does ... and just like every camera I have used does), then you do
> not need ANY software on XP to at least get the pictures from the camera via
> the USB cable. You would then need to use other software to work with those
> pictures. But XP has more such software included than previous versions of
> Windows. Vista has even more if you want to go that route.
>
> So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without adding any
> software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is connected.
>
> 2.
>
> I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to computer
> by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It doesn't run down the
> camera battery (or require yet another cable to power the camera). And it is
> faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF has the ability to be faster than
> other kinds of memory cards because of its 8-bit data path, but that does not
> mean every device that works with CF achieves such speeds.
>
> Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good investment.
> If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer, AND if yours has
> an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a front panel slot, then
> an internal memory card adapter might be an option. Both of my main desktop
> computers have them (but then, I build my own computers). All new computers
> I see in Best Buy and Walmart have them already integrated. Many laptops
> seem to have at least one memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.
>
> Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in the
> future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the USB
> adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC) protocol, and
> as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and the effective
> limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made to work with the
> SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to 2GB due to programmer
> errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory card adapter, don't pay more
> than about $12 for it unless you see that it really has SDHC.
>
Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
you do not see the folder structure on the device.
Same is true of certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP
or MSC protocol.
My older canon A40 is not recognized by winxp, it probably came with
some sort of driver but I no longer have it and just use the card reader.
Dave Cohen

 

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:18:26 -0500, Dave Cohen wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
>> recently | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP
>> Pro., and the | software for the camera no longer works. |
>> | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to
>> use | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory
>> card | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want
>> to process | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a
>> full set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the
>> computer via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This
>> camera is so old I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full
>> specs.
>>
>> Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add
>> software to support the USB ports. This software would have at least
>> included a driver. It often includes other things to let you browse
>> pictures, edit them, etc. But this software will definitely NOT succeed
>> at installing on XP if it is trying to install a USB driver. That is
>> because XP already has USB drivers in it.
>>
>> If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for
>> presenting its memory to the computer in the form of a small disk
>> storage (just like a USB key/stick does ... and just like every camera
>> I have used does), then you do not need ANY software on XP to at least
>> get the pictures from the camera via the USB cable. You would then
>> need to use other software to work with those pictures. But XP has
>> more such software included than previous versions of Windows. Vista
>> has even more if you want to go that route.
>>
>> So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without
>> adding any software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is
>> connected.
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to
>> computer by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It
>> doesn't run down the camera battery (or require yet another cable to
>> power the camera). And it is faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF
>> has the ability to be faster than other kinds of memory cards because
>> of its 8-bit data path, but that does not mean every device that works
>> with CF achieves such speeds.
>>
>> Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good
>> investment. If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer,
>> AND if yours has an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a
>> front panel slot, then an internal memory card adapter might be an
>> option. Both of my main desktop computers have them (but then, I build
>> my own computers). All new computers I see in Best Buy and Walmart
>> have them already integrated. Many laptops seem to have at least one
>> memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.
>>
>> Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in
>> the future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the
>> USB adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC)
>> protocol, and as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB
>> (and the effective limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been
>> made to work with the SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit
>> SD to 2GB due to programmer errors). If you choose to buy a USB to
>> memory card adapter, don't pay more than about $12 for it unless you
>> see that it really has SDHC.
>>
> Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
> usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
> number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
> an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
> you do not see the folder structure on the device. Same is true of
> certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP or MSC protocol.
> My older canon A40 is not recognized by winxp, it probably came with
> some sort of driver but I no longer have it and just use the card
> reader. Dave Cohen

That's fine, but the DC210 does not use USB. It is an RS-232 serial cable.

 

On 4 Mar 2009 19:22:45 GMT ray <> wrote:

| Actually, it connects via a serial cable.

Oh well.

| Fine, but the DC210 uses CF cards.

I'm sure he'd check that the adapter has a CF slot. I'm suggesting also check
it for SDHC and maybe even SDXC (new) so that a future camera purchase will
more likely work.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:18:26 -0500 Dave Cohen <> wrote:

| Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
| usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
| number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
| an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
| you do not see the folder structure on the device.

I've connected a Canon camera to a Linux system, and it came up as a drive.
It didn't have letters like Windows, but Linux doesn't work that way. USB
has a standard for how a drive should appear in the USB protocol. Windows
should detect this and assign a letter. But maybe there are some cameras
that do emulate a disk drive and some that don't.


| Same is true of certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP
| or MSC protocol.

I don't know the specific protocols. I know my iPod Shuffle appears as a
drive on Linux, with a size around 1GB.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |