I was really pleased when I read that Kodak is using USB for it's 220+ cameras, thinking this would be the tip of the USB iceberg for digicams. So far, however, I've been very disappointed by the continued introduction of non-USB cameras from the major manufacturers. I suppose there must be some very good reasons for not using USB, but I can't imagine what they might be. Most PCs sold in the last few years have USB connections, and all the new Macs have at least one. Does anyone out there know why the camera builders are not adopting this transfer method?

-- Michael Gallant (michael.gallant@usa.net), May 03, 1999

Answers

Many people are running a version of Win 95 that isn't new enough to support USB. As a matter of fact there isn't a retail Win 95 version that does support USB. The only way to get it is to have bought a computer or hard drive recent enough to come with Win 95B or Win 95C with USB support or any version Win 98.

-- Bob G (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

I think the oversight is getting a Kodak a lot of sales. I suggest buying a USB card reader for about $70, and buy whatever camera you want without concern for this feature. The parallel port readers are just about as fast too, contrary to popular assumptions. PCMCIA adaptors are way faster than both.

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), May 03, 1999.

I should know - but I've heard that NT 4X does not support USB yet. So Windows 95 and NT customers are left wagging in the wind (???).
But I too agree - and perhaps the greatest aspect of USB is that it's HOT-Pluggable. Even with the parallel and serial ports, manufacturers do not recommend that you plug anything in while the computer is on. The USB port, however, was designed for this.
Also, USB being a multi-drop port you can load many different device drivers for USB, then just plug 'em in as you use them.
Yup - Kudos to Kodak.
Shame on the other slackards!

DES

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), May 04, 1999.