Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (99150)	5/2/2001 7:19:56 PM
From: benwood	Respond to of 436258

True, the printer is a weak spot. Mine does OK, but fades after a few months. I have a good scanner, btw, so do the digital on the backend. I spend a lot of $$ and time on archival photo albums, and will be glad to see day when software & viewers are acceptable for digital albums (easier to duplicate for kids, safekeeping, etc., and way cheaper). One reason I'm leery of floppies is the ONE friggin' time I had a very valuable floppy after a disk crash (my geneology data) my floppy failed me. Now I have multiple backups of worthwhile stuff on CD.

To: Ilaine who wrote (99150)	5/3/2001 12:01:38 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<The weak link for digital photos isn't the camera or the floppies, it's the printer. 600 x 600 dpi isn't good enough.> Agreed, and the "process" as well... plug the camera in and futz around with it to get the pictures into the software, etc... this stuff just isn't seemless yet... you can screw up you computer ports and software as well it'll have to be embedded in the OS like 'explorer'. THEN even if you had some godly printer... is it going to spit out nice wallet size photo's to take to Grandma [who use e-mail if she had to]??? Naw, the wipe out of conventional cameras will be slow... DAK