Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > 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?


    3GB - XP or Vista, but I see Vista making more use of the RAM which may
    make it slightly quicker.

    4GB or more - you need a 64-bit OS, and Vista-64 is more mature than
    XP-64, so I would therefore recommend Vista-64 (but watch out for
    compatibility issues, particularly hardware).

    []
    > 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 <>


    No, neither are mine, but I do have "distance" and "reading" glasses -
    that's all I meant. As far as I can gather, normal "reading" are set for
    a book in the lap - line of sight about 30 degrees down and a distance of
    about 50cm. I got my "reading" glasses to be more "computer glasses", so
    line of sight horizontal from the eyes (not depressed) and a distance of
    70cm. Being short-sighted like you, if I want to "read" I just take off
    my glasses!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 4, 2008
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:21:15 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-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
     
    tony cooper, Mar 4, 2008
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    Ï "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> Ýãñáøå óôï
    ìÞíõìá news:LL6zj.17479$...
    > 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
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Mar 4, 2008
  4. Re: 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
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 4, 2008
  5. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:55:41 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-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
     
    tony cooper, Mar 4, 2008
  6. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:24:05 GMT, "Jufi" <> 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!
     
    Pete D, Mar 5, 2008
  7. Re: 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
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 5, 2008
  8. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <47ce3f2d$0$23635$>, Pete D
    <> 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.
     
    Mr. Strat, Mar 5, 2008
  9. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    no_spam_from_scumbags@die_scumbags.com wrote:
    >
    > Very true. Kodak was an industry giant for film. However, like other
    > companies before they just couldn't make the leap to the new technology.
    > Kodak made crap consumer digital cameras, crap consumer printers, and even
    > their pro dSLR's were lame ducks. WordPerfect Corporation couldn't make the
    > jump from DOS to Windows and so that killed them for WordPerfect. Corel
    > Corporation tried the leap to Linux and that almost killed them. Netscape
    > couldn't see the forest for the trees and had to keep charging for their
    > browser while others gave theirs away by the time you woke up they were
    > dead. I don't believe for one second that Microsoft helped maters but I
    > don't think Microsoft alone killed Netscape, Netscape killed Netscape. There
    > are many more companies over the decades that have had hard times making the
    > change. Car companies are having a tough time making the leap from gas to
    > other forms of fuel. Like idiots they think that Ethanol is the answer and
    > while it is better for the environment at least to some small extent, it is
    > causing a rise in food prices and costs as much more than gas. If they want
    > non-gas vehicles to do well then they need and environmentally friendly fuel
    > that is around $1.50 a gallon or less. Then people would junk their current
    > cars and make the switch. The examples go on and on.
    >
    > In many ways I think companies evolve like people and animals do. Those that
    > can't evolve to the new world become extinct like the dinosaurs.



    Hello,

    You've made some good points, above. Except, Kodak is among the U.S. and world
    leaders, in digicam sales, today; hence, I disagree with your assertion that,
    "they just couldn't make the leap to the new technology."

    In fact, Kodak >invented< the "new technology" (i.e., the Bayer sensor and the
    digital camera, itself)!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 7, 2008
  10. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: 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 <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 7, 2008
  11. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > []
    > > 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?

    >
    > 3GB - XP or Vista, but I see Vista making more use of the RAM which may
    > make it slightly quicker.
    >
    > 4GB or more - you need a 64-bit OS, and Vista-64 is more mature than
    > XP-64, so I would therefore recommend Vista-64 (but watch out for
    > compatibility issues, particularly hardware).


    Hello, David:

    Yes, I've been doing some "Googling" on this subject, lately. It seems
    the 64-bit versions of XP and Vista are seriously lacking in driver
    support, which rules them out, for my purposes.

    Also, some people maintain that XP-32 can utilize 4GB of memory, but,
    will only "show" 3.5GB of it.

    > > 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 <>

    >
    > No, neither are mine, but I do have "distance" and "reading" glasses -
    > that's all I meant. As far as I can gather, normal "reading" are set for
    > a book in the lap - line of sight about 30 degrees down and a distance of
    > about 50cm. I got my "reading" glasses to be more "computer glasses", so
    > line of sight horizontal from the eyes (not depressed) and a distance of
    > 70cm. Being short-sighted like you, if I want to "read" I just take off
    > my glasses!
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    My own "close-up" vision is virtually microscopic, even rivaling that
    of Superman, himself. :p


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 7, 2008
  12. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    "John Turco" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >> John Turco wrote:
    >> []
    >> > 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?

    >>
    >> 3GB - XP or Vista, but I see Vista making more use of the RAM which may
    >> make it slightly quicker.
    >>
    >> 4GB or more - you need a 64-bit OS, and Vista-64 is more mature than
    >> XP-64, so I would therefore recommend Vista-64 (but watch out for
    >> compatibility issues, particularly hardware).

    >
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > Yes, I've been doing some "Googling" on this subject, lately. It seems
    > the 64-bit versions of XP and Vista are seriously lacking in driver
    > support, which rules them out, for my purposes.
    >
    > Also, some people maintain that XP-32 can utilize 4GB of memory, but,
    > will only "show" 3.5GB of it.
    >
    >> > 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 <>

    >>
    >> No, neither are mine, but I do have "distance" and "reading" glasses -
    >> that's all I meant. As far as I can gather, normal "reading" are set for
    >> a book in the lap - line of sight about 30 degrees down and a distance of
    >> about 50cm. I got my "reading" glasses to be more "computer glasses", so
    >> line of sight horizontal from the eyes (not depressed) and a distance of
    >> 70cm. Being short-sighted like you, if I want to "read" I just take off
    >> my glasses!
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David

    >
    > My own "close-up" vision is virtually microscopic, even rivaling that
    > of Superman, himself. :p
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    Actually it may manage less than you this, if you have a large video card
    that will also come off the useable RAM.
     
    Pete D, Mar 7, 2008
  13. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco <> 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
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 7, 2008
  14. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    >> 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."


    Yes, rather like lawyers are the only people to benefit, although Intel
    did here. Perhaps DEC would have been better keeping quiet!


    > 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 <>


    Raising the interesting question of whether you would expect a product
    from a "specialist" company like Nikon to be "better"? <G>

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 7, 2008
  15. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > Yes, I've been doing some "Googling" on this subject, lately. It seems
    > the 64-bit versions of XP and Vista are seriously lacking in driver
    > support, which rules them out, for my purposes.
    >
    > Also, some people maintain that XP-32 can utilize 4GB of memory, but,
    > will only "show" 3.5GB of it.

    []
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    I have 3GB RAM in each of my main PCs, and it feels quite comfortable
    today, to be honest. Once 64-bit applications become more widespread I
    suppose I will be looking for 8GB or 16GB PCs. The higher end of the 4GB
    is taken by the address space for the video card(s).

    For the two unusual items of hardware I have, there are 64-bit drivers
    available, but both items are fairly recent (a satellite TV receiver and a
    "virtual radar"). Vista-64 installed on the AMD hardware without
    problems, and looked just about the same as Vista-32. But it's likely
    that manufacturers of older printers or scanners may not want to spend
    money providing new drivers. Caveat Emptor.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 7, 2008
  16. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On 07 Mar 2008 06:13:21 GMT, Ray Fischer <> wrote:
    > John Turco <> 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.


    If you really do need a Mac with that much memory, you're much better
    off buying one in the base configuration, and then getting the
    additional RAM from some third-party vendor and putting it in yourself.
    Apple is notorious for overcharging on RAM upgrades.

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


    Or dual-boot into Vista/64 when the mood strikes.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Mar 7, 2008
  17. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    >
    > John Turco <> 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.



    Hello, Ray:

    Sorry...don't want no Mac, no way, no how. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 10, 2008
  18. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > []
    > >> 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."

    >
    > Yes, rather like lawyers are the only people to benefit, although Intel
    > did here. Perhaps DEC would have been better keeping quiet!


    Hello, David:

    Apparently, DEC's departure was a gradual, painful process, which took place
    between 1992-1998. Intel merely delivered the "coup de grâce," one might say.

    > > 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).
    > >

    >
    > Raising the interesting question of whether you would expect a product
    > from a "specialist" company like Nikon to be "better"? <G>
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Oh, that's true; diversification isn't always a good thing. Even the renowned
    General Electric conglomeration went too far, in that direction, once upon a
    time; it decided to sell its computer division (to Olivetti), in the 1960's,
    for instance.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 10, 2008
  19. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > []
    > > Hello, David:
    > >
    > > Yes, I've been doing some "Googling" on this subject, lately. It seems
    > > the 64-bit versions of XP and Vista are seriously lacking in driver
    > > support, which rules them out, for my purposes.
    > >
    > > Also, some people maintain that XP-32 can utilize 4GB of memory, but,
    > > will only "show" 3.5GB of it.

    >
    >
    > I have 3GB RAM in each of my main PCs, and it feels quite comfortable
    > today, to be honest. Once 64-bit applications become more widespread I
    > suppose I will be looking for 8GB or 16GB PCs. The higher end of the 4GB
    > is taken by the address space for the video card(s).
    >
    > For the two unusual items of hardware I have, there are 64-bit drivers
    > available, but both items are fairly recent (a satellite TV receiver and a
    > "virtual radar"). Vista-64 installed on the AMD hardware without
    > problems, and looked just about the same as Vista-32. But it's likely
    > that manufacturers of older printers or scanners may not want to spend
    > money providing new drivers. Caveat Emptor.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    Hello, David:

    "8GB or 16GB PCs," eh? You're far more of a "power user" than I am, I see! ;-)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 10, 2008
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    955
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,157
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    557
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 29, 2010
  4. LOL!
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    662
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 30, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    493
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page