USB camera [maybe a solution]

[mstechca]

Please go to the following URL:

**broken link removed**

These guys are smart! They seem to understand the fact that 1/2 the world does not have the money to buy top-of the line computers, and what they have done is made a driver that can work with Windows 95.

The question is where is the link to the driver? Or if there is a driver similar to it, I need to know.

In fact, if there is a driver that can work for ALL USB digital cameras in Windows 95, I want it.

 

[TekNoir]

Too bad they're talking about digital video cameras. And though it is possible to stream video through the USB connection (considering video transfer is rather rudimentary), file transfer doesn't quite work the same way without anything being in place for it to connect to.

What they have done is figured out a way to stream video into a capture program over a common USB two-wire link, much like most people do when they plug a RCA cable between their digital video camera and their graphics card or capture card or hooking it up to a VCR and recording the external input. Win95 did support basic video editing using the Video for Windows (VFW) standard (which became the basis for the formats used in Microsoft's current Media Player series). This has nothing to do with accessing what is, basically, an external storage device and looking up the file table to pull things off.

Now... Having said that. With USB1.0 having been based on the older SCSI standard (this is how Windows magically knows what device you're connecting to it, by the way, as it has always been hardcoded as part of the SCSI standard), it should theoretically be possible if someone would write some low-level kernel-mode drivers and a support program that sequentially grabbed streams from a storage device. The problem comes form the fact that it would take a great amount of work to accomplish. So much so, that even Microsoft has been avoiding writing such drivers themselves.

I, for one, would like for them to eventually implement this as it would allow us to access drives, ports, and devices directly, exactly like you are able to in a *NIX environment. Their new filesystem was a step in the right direction and it is too bad they had to scrap it this late in development.

Is it impossible? Absolutely not. Is it practical? That is also a negative.

By the way... It has nothing in the world to do with anyone not being able to afford a, quote, "top-of-the-line" computer. It's about trying to use seven-year-old technology on something that came out ten years ago (and was in development earlier than that even). In the world of computers, particularly with software, considering how long they've been in existance, that is getting pretty ancient. Compressing the timeline of automobiles to fit with the computer industry, it would be like complaining that the parts on a 1950s Ford wouldn't work on one made in the 20s.

Secondhand computers, particularly those running Windows 98SE (which, by the way, was far less buggy than Win95 contrary to what you stated in another thread) can be had for around 50 dollars American or less. You can even get brand new computers running WindowsXP for between 250 and 300 American. And you know what? They work just fine, especially for something as simple as photographic transfer from a USB supported camera.

It's all about priorities...

 

[bmcculla]

Most digital cameras can be read like a mass storage device using the standard USB Mass storage driver. There might be mass sortage drivers for windows 95 somwhere. If not Linux almost surely has a mass storage driver. Linux should be able to run on your computer.