Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

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

  1. John Turco wrote:
    []
    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).

    []
    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. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    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, Mar 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ï "David J Taylor"
    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.
    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, Mar 4, 2008
  4. tony cooper wrote:
    []
    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

    I wouldn't have the slightest idea. I am not a programmer.
    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, Mar 4, 2008
  6. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Fabulous, how about posting some action shots then to show us just how good
    it is!
     
    Pete D, Mar 5, 2008
  7. 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

    Please NO!!

    We've seen enough of Navas' mediocre photography.
     
    Mr. Strat, Mar 5, 2008
  9. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    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

    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."
    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

    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.
    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

    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

    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, Mar 7, 2008
  14. John Turco wrote:
    []
    Yes, rather like lawyers are the only people to benefit, although Intel
    did here. Perhaps DEC would have been better keeping quiet!

    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. John Turco wrote:
    []
    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. 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.
    Or dual-boot into Vista/64 when the mood strikes.

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

    John Turco Guest


    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

    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.
    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


    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. 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.