Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital camera and windows xp 64 bit

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 4:15:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64 bit
operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly be
made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is fully
examined (no more beta versions).
If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
obsolete.

Any thoughts welcome....
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
backwards
> compatible.
>
> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
bit
> > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly
be
> > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
fully
> > examined (no more beta versions).
> > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years
or
> > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
digitals
> > obsolete.
> >
> > Any thoughts welcome....
> >

Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:25:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pete D wrote:
> >> OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
> > backwards
> >> compatible.
> >>
> >> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
> > bit
> >> > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> >> > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will
surelly
> > be
> >> > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
> > fully
> >> > examined (no more beta versions).
> >> > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5
years
> > or
> >> > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
> > digitals
> >> > obsolete.
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts welcome....
> >> >
> >
> > Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
> >
>
> Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if Windows
3.1
> supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support USB.

Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...
Related resources
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:16:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110191124.219399.44180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pete D wrote:
> >> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Pete D wrote:
> >> >> OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything
is
> >> > backwards
> >> >> compatible.
> >> >>
> >> >> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new
64
> >> > bit
> >> >> > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> >> >> > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will
> > surelly
> >> > be
> >> >> > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology
is
> >> > fully
> >> >> > examined (no more beta versions).
> >> >> > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5
> > years
> >> > or
> >> >> > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
> >> > digitals
> >> >> > obsolete.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Any thoughts welcome....
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
> >> >
> >>
> >> Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if
Windows
> > 3.1
> >> supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support
USB.
> >
> > Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets
speculate
> > the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has
something
> > diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
> > hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...
>
> Think about this, all the hardware devices that worked with Win 3.1
still
> work with all operating systems now, there are a few unusual
exceptions of
> course but they are the non mainstream devices, USB is fairly
mainstream.
>
> >


Your right, I don't know anyone who uses hardware/software that was
used on windows 3.1 that they now use on windows xp. They is of course
Microsoft office, which is backward compatable. For how long is
Microsoft going to be using the same format?
We live in a consumer society, nothing really last that long.
I have not argued from the start against Digital, I use it as well as
film.
Its just another way of making a photography , like in art for
instance, oil paint or water colours etc..

If they decided to discontinue film developer, fixer etc, all you would
have left when the production is run out are Negatives, Of course you
can still see a negative, as long as there are loupes around and a good
pair of working eyes.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:42:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If I am correct, the true colour starts at 24 bits. I believe that 32 bits
is the standard now used for true colour. The processing bits of the CPU and
system is not important in relation to whatever graphics card is going to
handle. You can process a 128 bit colour picture, if it existed, using an 8
bit processor. It would just take longer, if the clocking speed was not
extremely high.

You may find that the amount of bits coming from the photo cameras may not
increase so much as what the computers will be. In any case, the pictures
will still be able to be processed, no matter how many bits they are at.

--

Jerry G.
======


"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64 bit
operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly be
made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is fully
examined (no more beta versions).
If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
obsolete.

Any thoughts welcome....
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:45:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
> so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
> obsolete.
>
> Any thoughts welcome....
>

Sigh. Yes, current digital cameras will be 'obsolete' in 5 years in the
same sense that cameras from the year 2000 are obsolete now. If trends
continue, what will be available then the 2010 cameras will be significantly
better and cheaper. But today's cameras won't be obsolete in the sense that
they won't *work* just as they do now--they will.

But 64-bit windows will have NO effect one way or the other--it will still
run 32-bit programs and 64-bit versions of Photoshop (and other image
editors) will still edit current image files just fine.

Mark
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:20:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is backwards
compatible.

"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64 bit
> operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly be
> made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is fully
> examined (no more beta versions).
> If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
> so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
> obsolete.
>
> Any thoughts welcome....
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:43:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

geletine wrote:
> There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64 bit
> operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly be
> made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is fully
> examined (no more beta versions).
> If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
> so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
> obsolete.
>
> Any thoughts welcome....
>

I don't see your logic. While a computer using 64 bit word size will
usually run faster, it doesn't require 64 bit input data. I don't think
64 bit image data would be of any advantage over the current 32 bit
values. Pictures can only contain so many pixels, and if every one of
them were a different color, 32 bit data would still have plenty of
range to represent a VERY large picture.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:11:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete D wrote:
>> OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
> backwards
>> compatible.
>>
>> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
> bit
>> > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
>> > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly
> be
>> > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
> fully
>> > examined (no more beta versions).
>> > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years
> or
>> > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
> digitals
>> > obsolete.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts welcome....
>> >
>
> Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
>

Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if Windows 3.1
supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support USB.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 2:05:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110191124.219399.44180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete D wrote:
>> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Pete D wrote:
>> >> OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
>> > backwards
>> >> compatible.
>> >>
>> >> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
>> > bit
>> >> > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
>> >> > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will
> surelly
>> > be
>> >> > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
>> > fully
>> >> > examined (no more beta versions).
>> >> > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5
> years
>> > or
>> >> > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
>> > digitals
>> >> > obsolete.
>> >> >
>> >> > Any thoughts welcome....
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
>> >
>>
>> Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if Windows
> 3.1
>> supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support USB.
>
> Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
> the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
> diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
> hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...

Think about this, all the hardware devices that worked with Win 3.1 still
work with all operating systems now, there are a few unusual exceptions of
course but they are the non mainstream devices, USB is fairly mainstream.

>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:03:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 02:25:24 -0800, "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Pete D wrote:
>> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Pete D wrote:
>> >> OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
>> > backwards
>> >> compatible.
>> >>
>> >> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
>> > bit
>> >> > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
>> >> > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will
>surelly
>> > be
>> >> > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
>> > fully
>> >> > examined (no more beta versions).
>> >> > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5
>years
>> > or
>> >> > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
>> > digitals
>> >> > obsolete.
>> >> >
>> >> > Any thoughts welcome....
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
>> >
>>
>> Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if Windows
>3.1
>> supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support USB.
>
>Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
>the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
>diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
>hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...

You are making assumptions without any data to back them up.
Yes, as new technology appears, there will be new hardware to take
advantage of it. this does not mean that USB will be so obsolete that
there will be no USB available.
Nor does it mean that the flash RAM cards will not be readable; USB is
not *required* to get data off such cards, it's just the way we
usually do it *now*. There is nothing inherent in these cards that
requires USB.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:05:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 04:16:47 -0800, "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Pete D wrote:
>> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1110191124.219399.44180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Pete D wrote:
>> >> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Pete D wrote:
>> >> >> OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything
>is
>> >> > backwards
>> >> >> compatible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new
>64
>> >> > bit
>> >> >> > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
>> >> >> > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will
>> > surelly
>> >> > be
>> >> >> > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology
>is
>> >> > fully
>> >> >> > examined (no more beta versions).
>> >> >> > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5
>> > years
>> >> > or
>> >> >> > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
>> >> > digitals
>> >> >> > obsolete.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Any thoughts welcome....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if
>Windows
>> > 3.1
>> >> supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support
>USB.
>> >
>> > Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets
>speculate
>> > the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has
>something
>> > diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
>> > hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...
>>
>> Think about this, all the hardware devices that worked with Win 3.1
>still
>> work with all operating systems now, there are a few unusual
>exceptions of
>> course but they are the non mainstream devices, USB is fairly
>mainstream.
>>
>> >
>
>
>Your right, I don't know anyone who uses hardware/software that was
>used on windows 3.1 that they now use on windows xp. They is of course
>Microsoft office, which is backward compatable. For how long is
>Microsoft going to be using the same format?
>We live in a consumer society, nothing really last that long.
>I have not argued from the start against Digital, I use it as well as
>film.
>Its just another way of making a photography , like in art for
>instance, oil paint or water colours etc..
>
>If they decided to discontinue film developer, fixer etc, all you would
>have left when the production is run out are Negatives, Of course you
>can still see a negative, as long as there are loupes around and a good
>pair of working eyes.

You do realize that people still use wet plates, and make tintypes,
don't you?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:28:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1110186954.793116.128240
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly be
> made with 64 bit graphics

This is nonsensical. Processor instructions for a microprocessor and color
depth are two completely different things.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:37:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jerry G." <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:392nbvF5tota6U3@uni-berlin.de:

> If I am correct, the true colour starts at 24 bits.

Yes. 8 bits per channel for R, G and B = 24 bits.

> I believe that 32
> bits is the standard now used for true colour.

This relates to the graphics card, not what we get off the cameras.

Most current sensors produce 12 bits per channel. Conversion software
either rounds this up to 16 or 8 depending on things like the
capabilities of the software and user preferences.

<snip>

> You may find that the amount of bits coming from the photo cameras may
> not increase so much as what the computers will be.

I find it likely that the next generation of sensors will increase color
depth to a true 16, at which time all the marketing departments will find
another category to over-hype and the race will be on.

Of course, practical considerations, such as the massive file sizes, will
slow that a bit...

> In any case, the
> pictures will still be able to be processed, no matter how many bits
> they are at.

Yep.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:00:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

geletine wrote:

> Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
> the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
> diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
> hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...

Windows 3.1 was released, IIRC, in 1990 or 91. It's over 14 years old.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:

> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110191124.219399.44180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Pete D wrote:
>>
>>>"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Pete D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
>>>>
>>>>backwards
>>>>
>>>>>compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>>"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
>>>>
>>>>bit
>>>>
>>>>>>operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
>>>>>>Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will
>>
>>surelly
>>
>>>>be
>>>>
>>>>>>made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
>>>>
>>>>fully
>>>>
>>>>>>examined (no more beta versions).
>>>>>>If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5
>>
>>years
>>
>>>>or
>>>>
>>>>>>so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
>>>>
>>>>digitals
>>>>
>>>>>>obsolete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any thoughts welcome....
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
>>>>
>>>
>>>Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if Windows
>>
>>3.1
>>
>>>supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support USB.
>>
>>Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
>>the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
>>diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
>>hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...
>
>
> Think about this, all the hardware devices that worked with Win 3.1 still
> work with all operating systems now, there are a few unusual exceptions of
> course but they are the non mainstream devices, USB is fairly mainstream.

The latest versions of Windows will not load on a non-32-bit processor.
That means a 486DX or above. That right there excludes almost all
Win3.1 hardware - by the time the Pentium came out, the move was to
Win95. There is also no support for USB in any version of Windows
before 98SE.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:05:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Weaver wrote:

> "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
>>so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
>>obsolete.
>>
>>Any thoughts welcome....
>>
>
>
> Sigh. Yes, current digital cameras will be 'obsolete' in 5 years in the
> same sense that cameras from the year 2000 are obsolete now. If trends
> continue, what will be available then the 2010 cameras will be significantly
> better and cheaper. But today's cameras won't be obsolete in the sense that
> they won't *work* just as they do now--they will.
>
> But 64-bit windows will have NO effect one way or the other--it will still
> run 32-bit programs and 64-bit versions of Photoshop (and other image
> editors) will still edit current image files just fine.

It should be noted that the 64-bit version of XP is designed
specifically for 64-bit processors, which at the consumer level right
now means AMD Athlon64. or Athlon64FX. Unless you have one of these
chips, it's all quite moot.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64 bit
> operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly be
> made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is fully
> examined (no more beta versions).
> If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
> so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
> obsolete.

Either you don't know what you're talking about, or I don't. I suspect it's
the former. What do you perceive "64 bit graphics" to be?

Cameras put out image data. The format and quantity of that data might
change as technology improves, but the only relevance of the integer width
of the CPU used to process the data is that the data will be processed a
bit faster.

Oh, and all current digitals will be obsolete in 5 years, but that won't
stop a lot of us using them quite happily.

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:54:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:CX_Wd.596122$6l.375387@pd7tw2no...
> Pete D wrote:
>
> > "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1110191124.219399.44180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Pete D wrote:
> >>
> >>>"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>
> >>>>Pete D wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
> >>>>
> >>>>backwards
> >>>>
> >>>>>compatible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
> >>>>
> >>>>bit
> >>>>
> >>>>>>operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> >>>>>>Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will
> >>
> >>surelly
> >>
> >>>>be
> >>>>
> >>>>>>made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
> >>>>
> >>>>fully
> >>>>
> >>>>>>examined (no more beta versions).
> >>>>>>If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5
> >>
> >>years
> >>
> >>>>or
> >>>>
> >>>>>>so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
> >>>>
> >>>>digitals
> >>>>
> >>>>>>obsolete.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Any thoughts welcome....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Backwards but not to the dark ages. LOL Seriously though, if Windows
> >>
> >>3.1
> >>
> >>>supported USB it would work, the new 64 bit Windows will support USB.
> >>
> >>Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
> >>the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
> >>diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
> >>hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...
> >
> >
> > Think about this, all the hardware devices that worked with Win 3.1
still
> > work with all operating systems now, there are a few unusual exceptions
of
> > course but they are the non mainstream devices, USB is fairly
mainstream.
>
> The latest versions of Windows will not load on a non-32-bit processor.
> That means a 486DX or above. That right there excludes almost all
> Win3.1 hardware - by the time the Pentium came out, the move was to
> Win95. There is also no support for USB in any version of Windows
> before 98SE.
>

Wrong. Not that it matters much, but Windows 95B had USB support.

Ron
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:54:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <kk2Xd.48328$ya6.24155@trndny01>, Ron Krebs
<rkrebs11@verizon.net> wrote:

> Wrong. Not that it matters much, but Windows 95B had USB support.

There was support, but not much. Basically, Windows 95 did not support
USB. I know...you could download a patch and it would recognize
devices sometimes...but it didn't really work until Win98 and finally
worked like it should with 98SE.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:54:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:54:56 GMT, "Ron Krebs" <rkrebs11@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Wrong. Not that it matters much, but Windows 95B had USB support.
>
>Ron

Sort of. The best that could be said for USB support in 95B was that
it was 'spotty'.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
March 7, 2005 10:54:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dvip2159h60cptc3524qhrd18v75v3creu@4ax.com>, bill@pipping.com
says...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:54:56 GMT, "Ron Krebs" <rkrebs11@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Wrong. Not that it matters much, but Windows 95B had USB support.
> >
> >Ron
>
> Sort of. The best that could be said for USB support in 95B was that
> it was 'spotty'.
>
>
Yeah, spotty, like Leprosy, or Denge Fever.. GOD what a joke THAT was.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:51:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion wrote:
> geletine wrote:
>
>> Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
>> the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
>> diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
>> hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...
>
>
> Windows 3.1 was released, IIRC, in 1990 or 91. It's over 14 years old.
>
April 1992 - see www.computerhope.com/history/windows.htm


Tony M
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:45:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:070320051207382878%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <kk2Xd.48328$ya6.24155@trndny01>, Ron Krebs
> <rkrebs11@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Wrong. Not that it matters much, but Windows 95B had USB support.
>
> There was support, but not much. Basically, Windows 95 did not support
> USB. I know...you could download a patch and it would recognize
> devices sometimes...but it didn't really work until Win98 and finally
> worked like it should with 98SE.

Well, there nonetheless. And furthermore, USB was in its infancy anyway.
There weren't that many USB devices anyhow at the consumer level. Certainly
not in image devices like cameras. Scanners were just exploring that. But
even most of them were still LPT. Mostly input devices like mice and kbds.
You can't blame that on W95. It's like blaming Longhorn on not being able to
handle the latest 64-bit apps even though it should. The fault could lie
with the apps.
March 8, 2005 1:52:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote in
news:D vip2159h60cptc3524qhrd18v75v3creu@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:54:56 GMT, "Ron Krebs" <rkrebs11@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Wrong. Not that it matters much, but Windows 95B had USB support.
>>
>>Ron
>
> Sort of. The best that could be said for USB support in 95B was that
> it was 'spotty'.

It supported USB OK, the problem was supporting anything that you plugged
in to the USB. There was one or two devices that you could get to work
through USB and all the rest required Win98 or later to work.

So as long as you didn't want to connect any devices to it, the USB worked
fine.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:02:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Krebs" <rkrebs11@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4Q4Xd.54622$t46.48439@trndny04...
>
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:070320051207382878%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > In article <kk2Xd.48328$ya6.24155@trndny01>, Ron Krebs
> > <rkrebs11@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong. Not that it matters much, but Windows 95B had USB support.
> >
> > There was support, but not much. Basically, Windows 95 did not support
> > USB. I know...you could download a patch and it would recognize
> > devices sometimes...but it didn't really work until Win98 and finally
> > worked like it should with 98SE.
>
> Well, there nonetheless. And furthermore, USB was in its infancy anyway.
> There weren't that many USB devices anyhow at the consumer level.
Certainly
> not in image devices like cameras. Scanners were just exploring that. But
> even most of them were still LPT. Mostly input devices like mice and
kbds.
> You can't blame that on W95. It's like blaming Longhorn on not being able
to
> handle the latest 64-bit apps even though it should. The fault could lie
> with the apps.
>
>

I know this is digressing, but while thinking about USB and how it caught
on(and I'm guessing because it was a lot less clunkier than parallel ports
plus it allowed for "hot-swapping"), I can envision the day where most of
the internal components will be capable of being "hot-swapped." Almost all
of the current mobos have integrated video and audio chips so why wouldn't
it be feasible to, say, have your video card, ram, audio card, and even
CPUs, swapped out in an instant. Obviously, you wouldn't want to go tugging
on device cards or cpus INSIDE of a box with live current, but couldn't
these be housed in external enclosures like the IDE drives of today? Then,
just pull out your video card box, the onboard video chip automatically
takes over until you plug the new card box back in. With cpus, you'd
probably have to have a dual cpu mobo to do this. Just wondering how far
the plug-in movement will go.

Ron
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 5:28:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:

>>Windnows 3.1 is not that old, I think 10 years possibly, lets speculate
>>the operating system , hardware etc.. in 10 years time has something
>>diffrent to USB, so todays digital cameras won't work on that new
>>hardware, a less they make uprgradable adapters, software etc...
>
>
> You are making assumptions without any data to back them up.
> Yes, as new technology appears, there will be new hardware to take
> advantage of it. this does not mean that USB will be so obsolete that
> there will be no USB available.
> Nor does it mean that the flash RAM cards will not be readable; USB is
> not *required* to get data off such cards, it's just the way we
> usually do it *now*. There is nothing inherent in these cards that
> requires USB.

Hey, let's not forget, most new machines still come equipped with 3.5"
1.44MB floppy drives. Even those that don't, almost all PC mainboards
still include a floppy controller, including the latest Athlon 64
boards. And you're right that USB isn't the only way to interface a
card reader - some boards in the past have included front-panel readers
that connect to a proprietary header on the board, and others have IDE
interfaces.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:04:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Until your digicam is using a 24-bit A/D, my PC will probably use a 128-bit
processor architecture running Linux 128-bit (not Windows!) and every 64-bit
OS will be outdated. - You are comparing apples with oranges.

Gregor

"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64 bit
> operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly be
> made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is fully
> examined (no more beta versions).
> If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years or
> so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current digitals
> obsolete.
>
> Any thoughts welcome....
>
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:42:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110189698.631992.128570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete D wrote:
> > OMG, time to upgrade, oh wait it all still works and everything is
> backwards
> > compatible.
> >
> > "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1110186954.793116.128240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > There is a beta version on the microsoft website of there new 64
> bit
> > > operating system, thats not what I am writing about.
> > > Digital cameras in all forms (digit,dslr,d-rangefinder)will surelly
> be
> > > made with 64 bit graphics in a few years when the technology is
> fully
> > > examined (no more beta versions).
> > > If the technology comes faster than we think, presuming in 5 years
> or
> > > so all computers are going to be 64 bit, it will make current
> digitals
> > > obsolete.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts welcome....
> > >
>
> Does a nikon D70 work on windows 3.1? I would like it too
>

Camera might work, but processing your Raw Files may be a problem. I am
running 98 2nd ed and can not use Photoshop CS, Nikon Capture 4, Fuji Hyper
Utility for s3, Genuine fractals 4.0 ... and the list goes on.
March 8, 2005 2:46:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion wrote:

>
> Hey, let's not forget, most new machines still come equipped with 3.5"
> 1.44MB floppy drives.

They're optional on Dell computers. The last one I specified I ordered
without the floppy. One less thing to worry about people sticking things
into.

> boards. And you're right that USB isn't the only way to interface a
> card reader - some boards in the past have included front-panel readers
> that connect to a proprietary header on the board, and others have IDE
> interfaces.

The original poster was talking about the camera itself though. The
cameras only have USB ports. From a practical standpoint, if you have a
card reader there's seldom reason to plug the camera in though.
Excepting firmware upgrades.

I think there have been SCSI readers, and firewire wouldn't surprise me.

Bob
!