Here's a tip though: The new copy protection in the brodcast signals is
NOT detected by the old VCRs, and they WILL copy those "protected"
movies. I just got thru testing an old one this week; an RCA model. So
at least those will still let you record a show while you're away from
home, which you can't do with a lot of them and the new recorders.
I'm still running W98SE.
although a printer/scanner/copier I bought SAID on the box it would run
under W98SE,they deleted the drivers for W98/ME from the disc.
they did change an addendum sheet -inside- the carton,but failed to change
the carton's support chart on the outside,and required archive sites to
DELETE the already-written W98/Me drivers.
Why does Microsoft suck? Did they make the printer? Does your Ford or
Chevy dealer still stock headlight assemblies for you 1952 model? When you
buy a new computer or peripheral you know it will be out of date when you
get it home and won't be supported after a few years.
The driver was ALREADY CREATED,and IN circulation.
It existed UNTIL -MS- set a date of June 30,2007.
there was no reason for MS to REQUIRE it be removed from a 3rd party's
driver disc,nor to require the driver be removed from archive sites.
MS just wanted people to be unable to use W98SE.
That makes it entirely Microsoft's fault.So,they SUCK.
I can see not -creating- drivers for older systems after the cutoff
date,but not deleting existing drivers from archive sites.
Could you give us a reference to MS mandating that legacy software - or any
software for that matter - be removed from circulation.
It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't believe you.
Micron comp. with W95 - I
"raised" it from the system mess it came with (Win. 3), through the
first version of W95 and,
finally, to the good version of W95........it did far more, without
crashing, than my Dell with
ME. Learned I could find any file somewhere on the net - there must be
a driver somewhere
that can be downloaded for your printer. The mfg. website almost always
has old drivers to
You know, I've heard of that 35mm thing but I shoot 645 and 6x6. But
then I've also talked to some who are really big on 4x5 - I even know
one guy who swears by 8x10 - go figger. Have you noticed how muffled
things sound from where you have your head stuck?
The interesting thing is that 35mm is a wide screen format. In the
movie theater, that format is called Vistavision. The negative is 24mm
x 36mm, which is a 2:3 aspect ratio. If you print a 35mm negative full
frame, the print is 8x12. After the success of Cinerama, they started
using anamorphic lenses in filming and projection to give an even wider
The 3:4 ratio was from 16mm film, which was cheaper and plenty high
quality for TV production. Now that TV doesn't use film any more,
there's no economic reason not to broadcast a wide screen format. If
somebody insists on sticking with the old 3:4 tube, they can either
letterbox the picture or crop the edges. The new digital technology
gives them the choice. In the old days, they just cropped the edges for
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
$174,000 X 535 senators and representatives = 93090000 dollar laugh...
...and the manufacturers get to sell new,
using the public's natural desire to covet and crave coupled with
their gluttonous inherent appetite for the newest toys has long
been the means by which industry has been able to keep the cash
flowing into their coffer.
You hit the nail right on the head with what you said. The govt will
make a killing selling these frequencies to cell phone companies. so
those companies can continue to pollute our youth with their toy
cellphones. If cellphones were only used for business and personal
emergencies, like they were intended, we would nto need more
I dont buy the "Progress" concept at all. In a fringe rural area, I
can get analog signals that may be a bit snowy at times, but I can
still watch them. With digital tv, it's ALL or NOTHING. I can NOT
watch a program when the screen goes blank every few minutes. As far
as picture quality, their ads say how much better it is. To that I
say BULLSHIT. At least not on a standard tv with converter. But
then, I have always been satisfied with a regular tv picture. I am
not trying to get a home theater, I just watch tv. About the only
real improvement in many years was stereo sound.
Like you said, Wide screen is just another useless "innovation". I
personally could care less. And for those who think HDTV is better, I
disagree. I have looked at many of the HDTV sets on the stores, from
the low end cheap ones to the most expensive. For some reason I
always end up watching the cheapest ones referred to as SDTVs. The
ones with the CRT. For some reason those LCD screens give me a
headache, (literally), and I do not care for the picture. It looks
fake. Closeups of faces look like they are made out of plastic.
Nature scenes look a little better, but I still much prefer the CRT
But like everything, these companies will continue to brainwash
consumers, particularly the youth who have been programmed to NEVER be
satisfied with any consumer product, and always want more. I'm
elderly, I have been watching analog tv on a CRT for many years.
There have been great improvements since the 1950s, and the tv sets
made since the 1990s have been superior. Now we can all go back to
the 50's where we have poor reception. Poor reception, but in wide
screen HDTV color...... Whoopie. I AM NOT IMPRESSED !!!!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.