Originally posted by RKKS08 PDCU 4 has a much improved (not to say, totally different) user interface than PDCU 3 (and, on my computers, runs by far more stable).
I tried PDCU 4 a long time ago. There were a couple of things I didn't like about it - the main one being that you more or less had to use its browser. I'm very happy using FastStone as my browser, and I like being able to launch editors and/or RAW converters from it. IIRC, the problem was that if I launched PDCU 4 from FastStone, it would have to generate thumbnails for the entire folder, instead of just opening the image I was interested in working on ( and this would bog down my old machine horribly ). I'm going on memory and I can't verify that because I never bothered to install PDCU 4 on this machine. I know that PDCU 3 just opens the one file, and now that I've got it set up the way I like it, I don't mind using it when I want to work on an old file from my K200D. It has always behaved itself, both on my old XP desktop as well as on Windows 8.1. That said, now that I've tried DxO on my K30 files, I'm looking forward to trying it out on some of my old K200D files to see whether it can squeeze better IQ out of them.
Originally posted by RKKS08 As both are special versions of Silkypics, it may be based on Silkypics 3.
While the underlying software is probably some version of the Silkypix engine, I think PDCU is more closely related to the actual software that's in the cameras. This would account for the ability of PDCU to use the camera's custom settings ( which Silkypix can't ), and its ability to closely mimic the camera JPG. If you think about it, what other explanation is there for the PDCU interface? Why not just use the Silkypix UI and gray out the features you don't want to give away for free? PDCU looks more like they took the camera's software - which would be Silkypix optimized for the Pentax camera's RAW output - and bolted on a quick and dirty UI.
Why they opted to bundle a version of Silkypix with certain cameras ( K-01, K-30, K-50, ?? ) rather than create a version of PDCU for them is a bit of a mystery. Is there some hardware feature common to all those cameras that's different from all the cameras that use some version of PDCU ? Or perhaps there were some other considerations which made them decide to bundle Silkypix instead of updating PDCU ( time/expense? ).
If there was a version of PDCU that would handle files from both my K200D and my K30, it would be nice. Maybe I should have got a K5ii instead of the K30.