Windows XP -- digital camera/photo features

Nothing specific, just a general comment on the interface.

I hate Wizards. I have always hated wizards.

When I want to do something with the computer, I want to do it.
I don't want the computer to ask me one or two questions at a time
and maybe leave out a few options I did want.

Wizards are good because I know that many people don't know as much
about computers as my crowd, but along with the wizards I think
there should be a more technical way to do things. A screen
covered in options for the people that know what the options are
would be great.

Don't spend all of your time making it easy for people that don't
want to learn. Spend some time adding in some really great options
that pros/experts will appreciate.
Thanks for the feedback. Your point is something we wrestle with all the time trying to design our software. We know there are disparate levels of knowledge and skills in the users who use our software. It is amazingly hard to design UI that satisfies both. We try to walk that line, but we usually will go towards the simple or less feature laden route in features that are targeted for "the masses." Your level of expertise tends to be the 10% or 20% case. For Windows XP, we have consciously skewed many elements of our UI to the 80% case.

That being said -- we don't like to make things hard or cumbersome for the more advanced computing set. In fact, perfection for us is making software that is equally compelling and usefull to beginners and experts alike. In that spirit -- is there any feature, in particular, that you'd like to see for the pro/expert set?

Again, thanks for the input.

-Rick
 
The automatic search for drivers, by Windows is slick, I only hope it works better than the automatic search for video codecs that is in Windows now. I always wonder why, when I click on an avi, and Windows jumps onto the web to get the codec, it fails to find it. Is it too hard for Microsoft to collect all the codecs? Is there legal issues with some codecs that negate Microsoft holding them? Are the codec writer's websites down at the time so the codec isn't available?

Danny
Does Microsoft plan to provide drivers for all digicams out there ?
When I conencted my Canon G1, it searched the net for drivers and
came up with a blank. What are the plans wrt. driver support for
digital cameras? An explorer like interface to browse the G1 would
be excellent.
Our goal is to have drivers for all digicams -- either available on
the Windows XP CD or available from the manufacturer on their
website. At this point, I can't comment on support for the G1
specifically. Sorry.

-Rick
 
It might interest you to know that I have debates with my co-workers over the "give them fish/teach them to fish" aspect of our UI all the time. :-)

In any case, we use wizards a lot because in our usability testing people are really successful at accomplishing the desired task when it is presented in a wizard. This is compared to almost all other forms of UI.

However, your point is that we should think about ways to invest in our users and teach them how to do more on their own is well taken. Thanks.

-Rick
It would be better if there was a wizard interface, that as it
asked the questions it showed the alternative method...highlighting
the boxes it was filling in so the user would know how to do it the
non-wizard way next time. A split screen with the "wizardease" on
the left and the printer option menu on the right might work. As
you answered wizard questions, on the left, you could see how that
selected or filled in the choices on the printer option menu, on
the right. It would even be neater if you could swap, back and
forth, between the two methods on the fly.

Danny
Nothing specific, just a general comment on the interface.

I hate Wizards. I have always hated wizards.

When I want to do something with the computer, I want to do it.
I don't want the computer to ask me one or two questions at a time
and maybe leave out a few options I did want.

Wizards are good because I know that many people don't know as much
about computers as my crowd, but along with the wizards I think
there should be a more technical way to do things. A screen
covered in options for the people that know what the options are
would be great.

Don't spend all of your time making it easy for people that don't
want to learn. Spend some time adding in some really great options
that pros/experts will appreciate.
 
The automatic search for drivers, by Windows is slick, I only hope
it works better than the automatic search for video codecs that is
in Windows now. I always wonder why, when I click on an avi, and
Windows jumps onto the web to get the codec, it fails to find it.
Is it too hard for Microsoft to collect all the codecs? Is there
legal issues with some codecs that negate Microsoft holding them?
Are the codec writer's websites down at the time so the codec isn't
available?

Danny
All of these are good questions regarding codec's. However, I don't have any real knowledge about how this is done so I can't shed any informative light on the subject. I will attempt to pass along your comments, though.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Rick
 
When I conencted my Canon G1, it searched the net for drivers and
came up with a blank. What are the plans wrt. driver support for
digital cameras? An explorer like interface to browse the G1 would
be excellent.
Did you point the new device wizard at the Canon G1 CDROM which contains the Windows 2000 drivers?

--svb
 
The only way to partition a disk into NTFS and FAT32 in the same disk that I know is to use a utility like Partition Magic, and I don't want to spend like 80 dollars (I think) buying it. Does anyone know a cheaper or free way to partition disks?

csk
Unfortunately, I can't use NTFS since I'm using Boot Magic and
multiple OS's in the same partition. NTFS is not supported by BM.
But thanks anyways.
I had BootMagic booting to my NTFS (win 2K pro) / Linux / BeOS,
though they were on seperate partitions. The only trick is that
BootMagic had to be on a small FAT partition.

I've also used http://www.xosl.org . Its free and works great.

Josh
 
There is shareware partition software out there. I recall downloading some a while ago. In the end I upgraded my Partition Magic and used that because I knew I could trust it. I can't recall where I found the partitioning utility. Try doing a web search.

Danny
csk
Unfortunately, I can't use NTFS since I'm using Boot Magic and
multiple OS's in the same partition. NTFS is not supported by BM.
But thanks anyways.
I had BootMagic booting to my NTFS (win 2K pro) / Linux / BeOS,
though they were on seperate partitions. The only trick is that
BootMagic had to be on a small FAT partition.

I've also used http://www.xosl.org . Its free and works great.

Josh
 
Partitioning and formating are two different things. Win2k can partition and format a drive with NTFS on one partition and FAT32 on another. It will also alow you to change FAT32 into NTFS, but I dont think it will do the opposite.
csk
Unfortunately, I can't use NTFS since I'm using Boot Magic and
multiple OS's in the same partition. NTFS is not supported by BM.
But thanks anyways.
I had BootMagic booting to my NTFS (win 2K pro) / Linux / BeOS,
though they were on seperate partitions. The only trick is that
BootMagic had to be on a small FAT partition.

I've also used http://www.xosl.org . Its free and works great.

Josh
 
I forgot to add, even if you weren't using BM, you probably wouldn't be able to use NTFS on your boot partition anyway unless your other OS's support it. There is nothing stopping you from formating a section of the hard drive with NTFS for Win2k use only (if BM will allow it, I'm really not familiar with it). You could also add a small hard drive and use Win2k to format it in NTFS if you wanted.
csk
Unfortunately, I can't use NTFS since I'm using Boot Magic and
multiple OS's in the same partition. NTFS is not supported by BM.
But thanks anyways.
I had BootMagic booting to my NTFS (win 2K pro) / Linux / BeOS,
though they were on seperate partitions. The only trick is that
BootMagic had to be on a small FAT partition.

I've also used http://www.xosl.org . Its free and works great.

Josh
 
I can (and do) understand the want for simplicity and ease of use.
I guess I am trying to communicate two primary points about the new
registration requirement in Windows XP:
[...]
Right now, we are only compensated for about half of the instances
where our product is used. The fact that piracy of our products is
so rampant dictates things like required registration. If you
don't like the registration, by all means, vote with your wallet.
But even more so -- you should become a champion against software
(or any kind) of piracy.
First I think that 50% of not licened copies of your product is way to high, but this is a other thing.

I am more interessted in things that make my live easier, not that I have to register the product online, it should be possible to get rid of the requirement to have the old release available when I have bought the update, especially as a mobil user it is unacceptable that there is a requirement to have the old release and the update with you in case there is a problem and the system has to be reinstalled.

I would accept to have the old CD Key or what ever, but the additional CDs is more then unpractical!

Another questions I have more copies of the OS, the Office package, but I use allways only one package to install the products the other ones go unopened into the storage area, will this be possible with Win XP and Office XP? Using yust one CD (where the code is printed on) is easier than to use than to think about which system has which code installed.

Best regards -- Andreas Krattenmacher
 
What I'd like to see - it might already exists, is easyly available documentation as to how to write/interface web site with the wizard, so that it is possible for any Web developper to interface with Windows XP and let people (or himself) publish digital picture online.

The "walled garden" idea of restricting this possibility to choosen third party will kill the feature, while letting everyone interface to the feature will make it a real success.

A simple protocol to do it would be nice too (something like a plain XML document exchange for example)
 
I have but a couple of points

1) It is very annoying to have to keep rotating images taken in portrait format ready for printing out or more importatly for use on the web etc. It would be great to have some software that could automatically 'correct' this, maybe using some image analysis technique. It would automatically correct this as images were taken off camera... maybe other simple tasks such as this could also be included to remove some of the donkey work.

2) renaming images, this can be quite a boring process. It would be great if some kind of renaming utility could be implemented. At the most basic level to rename a number of images with a prefix or suffix. (useful for many other applications such as for those involved with film and video where this process is a real pain with windows).

3) The links to online developes should be kept as open as possible. Maybe MS could create a piece of linking software (preferably free or at low cost to promote its use) for use by online developers. This would then allow them to tap into XP. Users could add their own choice of developer rather than rely on those provided by MS such as ofoto. This would also ease localisation issues. We dont all live in US!!! ie. we would just add our own URL's (providing the site had your linking software installed on their server.
 
Just one more point...

Following on from a point made before...

Surely windows is grown up enough now to have icons displaying an image ALL the time (as the mac has done since year dot). The thumbnail view is good, though sometimes crashes or locks up on w2k on my machine. IT can be a bit slow. I dont know if the thumbnail view saves a cache for each directory but it should do. It need to be faster really.

Better than that though, image icons should have an option (maybe on a per/directory basis) to ALWAYS display a small thumbnail of the image as its icon (so then its viewable in all modes such as details, just as the mac does). This would be in addition to the thumbnail view which is different as it displays a larger view. Would be cool to have thumbnail views of movies too (maybe activated when the cursor passes over them...??)
 
Hello Rick,

Thanks for answering all our questions and suggestions. My wish list as a pro user and photographer is:

First and moist important to me: The OS has to be as stable as possible and mustn’t crash or freeze if a user application crashes.

Second; registration: I can understand why MS will do that but I think it should be just necessary the first time you install the system or if you move the OS to an other computer and: If MS has less piracy because of the registration they have less loss and the OS should get much cheaper for the end user!

And if I buy a new PC with preinstalled XP it should not be necessary to register, it should be done by Dell, HP, etc.

Also, I’d like that you support the fast USB 2 connection and not just Firewire.

I’d also like, if you support Bluetooth, e.g. for transferring pictures wireless from my camera with a Bluetooth CF card to my Laptop or to my Desktop PC in my studio.

The Pic-View in Explorer should support all common file types, not just jpg (e.g. tif, gif, PhotoShop, CorelPhotoPaint, Kodak PhotoCD(pcd), bmp, fpx, tga etc.)

And: I really hate Wizards, too! I hope there is a way for system administrators to do their job without using Wizards. They are good for the first or second time, but not if administrating PCs this is your daily job.

Thanks
Reto
 
Rick,

Can we use our custom printer profiles using the wizard or do we have to use "canned" profiles?
I've been lurking around this wonderful site for a while. Thanks
for all the great content & information. I am the proud owner of a
Canon D30.

In any case, the reason I am posting today is the recently posted
review of Windows XP's digital camera/photo features. I am the UI
development lead for just about all the features mentioned in the
review, and personally wrote the Photo Printing Wizard. I wanted to
give something back to this site, and also get people's feedback on
our stuff (if people are willing).

A couple of ground rules:

(1) I can't be global technical support for Microsoft products, but
I'll help when/where I can.

(2) I'll eagerly accept any feedback, either positive or negative,
as long as it's polite.

(3) I can't always comment on future plans, but when/where I can, I
will.

So any comments or questions? Fire away!

Thanks.

-Rick

P.S. I also posted this info in the "News" forum but am trying to
move the discussion here as it seems to be the more obvious place
for it.
 
If people think they will need to buy a new full priced copy of
Windows for each machine they have laying around they will
seriously think twice about buying a new machine or keeping old
machines in service. The cost of ownership is too high.

But, if it were only to cost, say $10 dollars, to use Windows on a
second machine, you'd have a lot more chance of bringing people to
the table. Now when a customer goes to the store to buy that new
copy of Windows he might consider paying $20 dollars more for the
right to install it on the other two machines he has in his house.

I also feel very strongly, with my own innate sense of fairness,
that the solution Microsoft has chosen for Windows XP is not fair
to customers with multiple machines...cutomers that have been loyal
to Microsoft for years and have provided Billions and Billions of
dollars of revenue to Microsoft.

If Microsoft thinks they can drive against popular opinion by the
shear force of their size and inertia, they need to take a history
lesson and look back at Sony's Betamax, IBM's personal PC, or
closer still, CP/M....or a hundred other cases in history.
Software companies, if anything, have even more fragile positions.

Good luck,
Danny
Danny,

Thanks so much for expressing so very well the concerns of a great majority of XP potential users. I am extremely sensitive to the copyright issues raised by Rick and believe strongly that piracy must be contained. However, I agree with you that Microsoft's approach will only hurt consumers like you and me and ultimately Microsoft's bottom line. Unfortunately, piracy will continue unchecked. I wonder how many users would suddenly feel justified in obtaining pirated copies of XP?

While I wold love to upgrade to XP to replace my very unstable Win98, I will balk at having to buy multiple copies of XP to install in my home computers. Rick, I am more than happy to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for that priviledge. Fairness and convenience to the law-abiding consumer should be paramount in Microsoft's strategy and not at all inconsistent with its ability to protect its products from illegal use.

Lorena
 
Thanks for the feedback. And, yes, I think you've correctly
identified how things work currently.

A couple of counter-points: if a person is installing one copy of
Windows on more than one computer, then they are violating the
licensing that they accepted when they installed the computer.
Whether it is convienent to do so is a separate debate -- it is a
violation of the product license that they have to accept to
install the OS. There is no debate about that.

What is strange to me is that the arguement used to support
installing one copy of Windows on more than one computer completely
falls down if we aren't talking about software. It's seems obvious
that hardware vendors wouldn't allow multiple free "copies" of a
computer in the house, as long as they aren't used concurrently. I
don't mean any disrepect by phrasing my argument this way, but why
should software be different than any other thing that you buy in
this regard? If you want a TV in the den and in the bedroom, and
you don't want to disconnect it and move it, you have to buy two of
them, right?

As for alienating and "punishing" power users, I see your point.
However, the goal is not to "milk" more money from established
users. It is only to get compensation for each unit of Windows
that is installed. Every other company who sells any kind of goods
tries to do the same thing.

Please note -- none of this is my area of expertise or
responsibility in WinXP. However, I will pass along the comments
on this site to those who are responsible for this feature of
Windows XP.

-Rick
First let me welcome you to dpreview, Rick. I know it can get
dicey at times trying to walk that fine line between interaction
and support. I wish you the best.

I'd like to make a comment regarding the registration. There is a
truth out there that Microsoft and pretty much anyone who builds
and tinkers with computers knows. That is, one copy of Windows is
often used multiple times by home users. We can debate back and
forth the morality and legality of this, but we all know it happens.

From a user standpoint, many people purchase multiple computers and
end up with more than one copy of Windows. I would estimate that
I've paid for 20 copies of Windows in the process of buying
machines and probably another half a dozen copies outright as
upgrades. Microsoft is definitely making money off me and others.

People, justify using one copy of Windows on multiple machines by
knowing they won't be using more than one machine at once. It is
perfectly legal to move the single copy of Windows from machine to
machine but incredibly inconvenient to be uninstalling and
reinstalling it so they leave the copy on the other machines when
they aren't using them.

Combine that with the fact that tinkerers are often moving video,
sound and network cards around and the complexity of the situation
becomes even greater.

Now enter Microsoft's new registration scheme. Will it stop the
big pirating companies or will it punish "power" users.

I believe, and I'm not alone here, that piraters will quickly find
ways to hack WindowsXP so that they don't have to register it.
Meanwhile, power users will, have to buy multiple copies of Windows
(Microsoft would like this), constantly be registering their copies
of Windows, or be forced to side with the piraters and hackers.

Additionally, Microsoft is greatly underestimating the populace's
fear and paranoia of "Big Brother" and the huge backlash that will
ensue.

As an aside (this can lead to a whole huge debate like I mentioned
in the beginning) there is a legal/moral reasoning on both sides of
the multiple installation debate. Microsoft will argue that every
machine should have it's own licensed copy of Windows installed on
it. On the customer's side people have been forced to buy multiple
copies of Window's that were not needed because Microsoft created
licensing agreements with companies that required them to package
individual copies of Windows with all their machines (For example
if I'm buying a new machine to replace an older, outdated machine
that fried its hard drive why should I have to buy a second copy of
Windows for it? Why can't I take the copy from the trashed machine
and install it on my new machine.)

In conclusion this new registration policy will punish and alienate
Microsoft's longstanding customers while only acting as a temporary
diversion for hackers. Perhaps Microsoft thinks it can recoupe the
massive losses from the millions of pirated copies of Windows
floating around foreign countries by milking more money from it's
well founded user base.

I hope this helps you understand a bit of the customer's perspective.

Danny
 
I had a discussion with my brother about this last night. He is also a power user but like Rick, he works in the software industry, so he is going to have a different prospective than you or I might have.

He also felt very strongly that Microsoft is going about WinXP's registration system all wrong.

He suggested there are already good models out there that Microsoft could follow in the open source world. I believe he called it a service model where Microsoft would offer service for your computers, including updates to the operating system for a fixed fee per year. In order to get service on a particular machine you would have to have it registered and pay for this service. Microsoft could then offer single user service contracts, family contracts (for multiple computers in a home) and business contracts. Wouldn't it be nice if Microsoft would actually provide service for their operating system like you expect from any other product you pay for?

Software is one of the only things I can think of where you buy it and then if it fails, from no fault of your own, you are forced to pay for service. Microsoft can claim they will refund your service fee if it is an software issue, but these things are so complicated and often not resolved so it isn't fair to leave the burden of proof on the customer.

This didn't sound too onerous to me. I wouldn't mind paying MS $30 bucks a year for keeping a system updated or even $100 a year for improvements and enhancements for my family of computers.

There are a few things I've read about Microsoft's strategy that are very troubling to me.

For example I read a Microsoft's recommendations for new system requirements to manufacturers. There were things in there about not allowing internal upgrades that seem a extremely constraining. I'd link to the article on zdnet but don't have it on this computer (perhaps someone else might be able to do that.)

For another example I read that Microsoft is artificially impairing the quality of MP3's in their MediaPlayer to act as an incentive to push their own, more secure format. This is another example of backwards thinking. Does Microsoft really think people are going to dump their investment in MP3 players and equipment and jump ship to Microsoft's format because MP3's play worse with MS's own built-in Mediaplayer? It is too late to close this barn door. MP3 format is out and the best the industry can do is try to add on some type of MP3 macrovision type scheme to hardware and software players to reduce the convenience of copying.

In light of Microsoft's current, perilous legal situation, they should be bending over backwards to not look like a Goliath that is using its position to wield it's mandates on consumers.

Danny
If people think they will need to buy a new full priced copy of
Windows for each machine they have laying around they will
seriously think twice about buying a new machine or keeping old
machines in service. The cost of ownership is too high.

But, if it were only to cost, say $10 dollars, to use Windows on a
second machine, you'd have a lot more chance of bringing people to
the table. Now when a customer goes to the store to buy that new
copy of Windows he might consider paying $20 dollars more for the
right to install it on the other two machines he has in his house.

I also feel very strongly, with my own innate sense of fairness,
that the solution Microsoft has chosen for Windows XP is not fair
to customers with multiple machines...cutomers that have been loyal
to Microsoft for years and have provided Billions and Billions of
dollars of revenue to Microsoft.

If Microsoft thinks they can drive against popular opinion by the
shear force of their size and inertia, they need to take a history
lesson and look back at Sony's Betamax, IBM's personal PC, or
closer still, CP/M....or a hundred other cases in history.
Software companies, if anything, have even more fragile positions.

Good luck,
Danny
Danny,

Thanks so much for expressing so very well the concerns of a great
majority of XP potential users. I am extremely sensitive to the
copyright issues raised by Rick and believe strongly that piracy
must be contained. However, I agree with you that Microsoft's
approach will only hurt consumers like you and me and ultimately
Microsoft's bottom line. Unfortunately, piracy will continue
unchecked. I wonder how many users would suddenly feel justified
in obtaining pirated copies of XP?

While I wold love to upgrade to XP to replace my very unstable
Win98, I will balk at having to buy multiple copies of XP to
install in my home computers. Rick, I am more than happy to pay
Microsoft a licensing fee for that priviledge. Fairness and
convenience to the law-abiding consumer should be paramount in
Microsoft's strategy and not at all inconsistent with its ability
to protect its products from illegal use.

Lorena
 
I know how hard you all work at Microsoft. A relative of mine works
for the company.
I must admit that I am confused why you equate registering a
product with the (obviously) painful technical support calls you
have had to endure. They are not (to me, at least) the same issue.
Am I missing something fundamental in what you're saying?
I understood the registration process to involve a call (with
visions of call menuing, on-hold, etc.) But there are other issues
which make the registration process distasteful.

Microsoft will force me to call them if I purchase the new system
and it needs to be reinstalled, yet they will not (currently) speak
with me when I have their OS if it comes preinstalled on on a new
computer.

When I had problems with WME on my new computer, particularly it's
sluggishness, low resources and error messages, I called Microsoft.
They would NOT let me talk with MS technical support about the OS.
I had to call the manufacturer where I purchased the computer,
whose tech support gave wrong advice. It resulted in many hours
over a period of days to fix the problem (including a clean
reinstall). I do not believe this would have happened if I spoke
directly with MS support. (I also spent hours online searching the
KB).

In other words, I have your newest consumer OS, but I am not
allowed talk to Microsoft tech support. So why should I be thrilled
about a new system, particularly when I'm going to have to go thru
a re-registration process!
P.S. I don't blame you for not letting Microsoft know how your
issue was fixed.
Perhaps you can relate the problem: using the "clean up" feature in
system config utility deletes the optical mouse driver.

Thanks.

Gail
I am going linux ...

I have been in the computer business for 14 years now. I have a very small company and 50% of my clients do not have an internet connection or even a modem. You mean to tell me that I will have to register every time that I reinstall ? How will I do that ? Calling microsoft every time ? You must be mad over there in "microland"

My own machine is a mutant that goes thrue major changes every 2 months or so. When my clients change machines they usualy leave me some old junk and parts that I use on my machine just for the fun of it. Will I have to register every time I change the motherboard or the processor or some other minute card ?

Are you aware that often time the fastest thing to do to correct a problem is to simply reinstall. Most machine gets full of software junk not written to spec that overide your settings or worse overwrite your dll, vbx and other files over time (because windows does not protect it's system files). Reinstall is the thing to do. Will Microsoft be able to handle the rererereregistration process of all those rererereinstallation ? If not how long will my client machine will be down? There is a lot of mission critical machine out there that get trashed by bad software.

Gaetan

P.S. Should'nt we be talking about digital pictures, cameras and features

P.P.S. I hope pshop will release a native Linux version soon
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top