[mattdm]

true until you try to sell it

Yep. Although if you're careful enough in your procedures, you can use what you've learned to sell a new firmware based on the interfaces used by the original one.

It depends, I guess. Some of what I have asked for are really enhancements, others fix bugs. Bug fixes I agree, we don't want pentax to behave like microsoft, but I don't thnk they have the market share to do so.

BUT where this got started was with the custom file name option. Pentax claimed for ever that they could not do it because it violated international imaging standards, then have it listed as a feature on the K20. They just didn't want to.

Yeah, it's an interesting idea. I'd just rather see it solved by an open API. Best of both worlds.

[glanglois]

I'm afraid that Pentax knows that, once the update file is available, some users will immediately get busy distributing it for free. The way around that is some sort of digital rights protection (DRM) method, which is entirely too expensive for an infrequently-used update mechanism.

Ask the RIAA.

I think we need to stick to asking, clearly and professionally, for help with bugs and unreasonable gaps. It's fair that Pentax invests the real advances into the more advanced models. It's just how software R&D gets funded.

We have a good deal with what we have for what we paid, don't we?

[Lowell Goudge]

I'm afraid that Pentax knows that, once the update file is available, some users will immediately get busy distributing it for free. The way around that is some sort of digital rights protection (DRM) method, which is entirely too expensive for an infrequently-used update mechanism.

Ask the RIAA.

I think we need to stick to asking, clearly and professionally, for help with bugs and unreasonable gaps. It's fair that Pentax invests the real advances into the more advanced models. It's just how software R&D gets funded.

We have a good deal with what we have for what we paid, don't we?

There are a lot of ways to get an update securely distributed, that don't really add to overhead.

With respect to good deal, I guess that depends, Some of my updates are to fix things that DONT work as they should. Still, I am willing to pay a small amount for an update to get them to work, along with some others that would be nice.

I am really still waiting to see proof that pentax, as they advertise, listen to thier customers.

[stewart_photo]

..(snip) Bug fixes I agree, we don't want pentax to behave like microsoft, (snip)..

Why wouldn't we want Pentax to act like Microsoft? During the five-year lifespan of Windows XP, Microsoft provided several thousand patches and fixes to various versions of this operating system during weekly automatic updates, including two larger upgrades (SP1 & SP2) adding new features, without any additional costs to the consumer. All this for a product priced less than a single inexpensive camera lens. If Pentax did even a tenth as much, we'd probably have the best functioning cameras on the planet - with a 5-year lifespan and a promise of support for an additional five years after that.

stewart

[Robert Barnett]

I have no interest in filenaming, could really careless. However, I would like to see the add the ability to create special folders that one can access from a button on the back of the camera. You could create a folder for panorama images. When you went to shoot a set for later stitching you could press the button and choose that folder and the images you shoot from then on would go in that folder. This would allow you to organize your images based on special circumstances.

Now as I think about this filenaming might be nice also. Being able to add Pano to the end of the filename or Man for manually shot images would be nice as a way of further organizing your images. However, I would want a button that would let you cycle through these. I don't want to fool with a menu option as the LCD screen can't alway be seen outside. A button would be better.

Robert

[flyer]

Why wouldn't we want Pentax to act like Microsoft? During the five-year lifespan of Windows XP, Microsoft provided several thousand patches and fixes to various versions of this operating system during weekly automatic updates, including two larger upgrades (SP1 & SP2) adding new features, without any additional costs to the consumer. All this for a product priced less than a single inexpensive camera lens. If Pentax did even a tenth as much, we'd probably have the best functioning cameras on the planet - with a 5-year lifespan and a promise of support for an additional five years after that.

stewart

Actually, if you look at the number of computers running microsoft worldwide, the amount of money spent for the upgrade is small change, as for Pentax, the amount of money spent vs the number of camera worldwide is a larger investment. But, I still think Pentax should give a little bit more support in the upgrade dept. Adding another $10.00 to the cost of a camera when you buy it to support upgrade could be a way to do this (with current price, I don't think a $10.00 increase would make much difference anyway).

[rormeister]

... with a 5-year lifespan and a promise of support for an additional five years after that.

stewart

Well, as a nooby to the Pentax DSLR line, I surely didn't realize I'd be buying my camera at the "END" of it's product life cycle when I picked it up in December 2007. IMHO, that's not a very long time for a piece of equipment of this caliber.

[Lowell Goudge]

Why wouldn't we want Pentax to act like Microsoft? During the five-year lifespan of Windows XP, Microsoft provided several thousand patches and fixes to various versions of this operating system during weekly automatic updates, including two larger upgrades (SP1 & SP2) adding new features, without any additional costs to the consumer. All this for a product priced less than a single inexpensive camera lens. If Pentax did even a tenth as much, we'd probably have the best functioning cameras on the planet - with a 5-year lifespan and a promise of support for an additional five years after that.

stewart

And what about USB support, which was supposed to be in Windows 95 and not delivered, the horrendus ME package, windows for work groups because they couldnt get the rest of 95 out oin time, .......

Yes there were a lot of upgrades, but there were also a lot of releases that we had to buy along the way. Not to menition the fact that they deliberately obsolited many software packages because they did not maintain compatability.


So, you want them to behave like microsoft, Backwards compatibility not important to you? Its one of pentax's selling points. Look at the whole package/

[stewart_photo]

Actually, if you look at the number of computers running microsoft worldwide, the amount of money spent for the upgrade is small change, (snip)...

That might be true if we were talking only about a single update or upgrade. But, as stated, Microsoft provided thousands of smaller fixes, dozens of incremental updates to various parts of the OS (WMP, IE, etc), and at least two major upgrades, all of which represented a significant financial investment by the company in it's products - and little or no additional financial investment by consumers.

Of course, nobody is seriously expecting Pentax to do nearly as much. However, I do have some concerns about what degree of support might be available for Pentax products down the road, especially in light of the very short market life-span of those products. If firmware updates are used as one indicator of that, the future doesn't look too promising at this point. - Please notice this isn't a dire warning, prediction, or speculation worthy of a nasty reply. I'm simply voicing a personal concern which may very well prove to be entirely unwarranted as time passes.

stewart

[stewart_photo]

And what about USB support, which was supposed to be in Windows 95 and not delivered, ...(snip)... Not to menition the fact that they deliberately obsolited many ...(snip)... Backwards compatibility not important to you? Its one of pentax's selling points. Look at the whole package/

I thought we were talking about "bug fixes," Lowell. That's what I replied to without being aware you had somehow or somewhere raised an issue there about a missing feature in a 13-year-old operating system or whatever.

Further, I don't feel you're judging both companies equally. For example, Microsoft obviously did occasionally obsolete software/hardware products over the years for various reasons (upgraded features or capabilities, better alternatives available, security, compatibility issues, etc), but so has Pentax. Try using an older Pentax TTL-only flash unit on your K10D with P-TTL, for instance. So, like you said, do look at the whole package. But do so for both companies equally.

stewart

[KyPainter]

There are quite a number of software/firmware/hardware professionals using Pentax cameras. I'm certain Pentax could find any number of qualified outsiders willing to sign NDAs and agree to write and submit feature updates through Pentax for testing and general release in exchange for access to the source and the software development kit. Pentax could even have one of their own oversee the "project." I'd jump on the bandwagon, sign the NDA, and devote 8-16 hours a week to adding/testing features for the foreseeable future.

Of course, I'd much rather see them provide a general release of the code and software development kit, but even if they recognized the PR value and the devotion that it'd bring from a segment of the community we unfortunately wouldn't see any chance of this til well after all the covered models were out of warranty. FYI Pentax - I'd jump ship in a heartbeat and head for any (decent) DSLR maker who went this route.

Regarding hacking firmware bordering on theft... I'm sorry but that's just foolish. Making changes and selling the modified firmware is of course, but discovering and sharing how to make the changes or selling a patcher - not at all.

Regarding Microsoft and backward compatibility or the delays you see in getting promised features - Microsoft is the size it is and you see many of these delays ONLY because they go so far out of their way to maintain backward compatibility. Go read the last couple years of Raymond Chen's blog and you'll see the troubles they face and the efforts they go through to maintain backward compatibility.

That's largely why XP and Vista are deficient if not outright crappy in so many ways - because Microsoft has to innovate and improve while maximizing continued compatibility with tens of thousands of applications they have no access to, no control over, many of which are in use by millions, many of which are years old, most of which are running on thousands of different hardware confogurations, very few of which are being maintained and a number of which were written to rely on bugs in windows itself. Yes, Microsoft frequently has to keep bugs because so much software relies on the bug's presence. They frequently have to expand the API (or shim it on an application by application basis) because programmers used API calls incorrectly thus preventing Microsoft from extending the API's functionality without breaking their apps.

Personally I fault Microsoft more for maintaining so much backward compatibility - it's allowed myriad other companies to keep releasing new versions of their own crap software without fixing or maintaining past ones and those same bugs keep getting passed along. If companies had to go back and fix their bugs and logic errors when Microsoft's changes exposed them then far fewer would still exist... and windows would be much better to boot.

[flyer]

There are quite a number of software/firmware/hardware professionals using Pentax cameras. I'm certain Pentax could find any number of qualified outsiders willing to sign NDAs and agree to write and submit feature updates through Pentax for testing and general release in exchange for access to the source and the software development kit. Pentax could even have one of their own oversee the "project." I'd jump on the bandwagon, sign the NDA, and devote 8-16 hours a week to adding/testing features for the foreseeable future.

Of course, I'd much rather see them provide a general release of the code and software development kit, but even if they recognized the PR value and the devotion that it'd bring from a segment of the community we unfortunately wouldn't see any chance of this til well after all the covered models were out of warranty. FYI Pentax - I'd jump ship in a heartbeat and head for any (decent) DSLR maker who went this route.

Regarding hacking firmware bordering on theft... I'm sorry but that's just foolish. Making changes and selling the modified firmware is of course, but discovering and sharing how to make the changes or selling a patcher - not at all.

Regarding Microsoft and backward compatibility or the delays you see in getting promised features - Microsoft is the size it is and you see many of these delays ONLY because they go so far out of their way to maintain backward compatibility. Go read the last couple years of Raymond Chen's blog and you'll see the troubles they face and the efforts they go through to maintain backward compatibility.

That's largely why XP and Vista are deficient if not outright crappy in so many ways - because Microsoft has to innovate and improve while maximizing continued compatibility with tens of thousands of applications they have no access to, no control over, many of which are in use by millions, many of which are years old, most of which are running on thousands of different hardware confogurations, very few of which are being maintained and a number of which were written to rely on bugs in windows itself. Yes, Microsoft frequently has to keep bugs because so much software relies on the bug's presence. They frequently have to expand the API (or shim it on an application by application basis) because programmers used API calls incorrectly thus preventing Microsoft from extending the API's functionality without breaking their apps.

Personally I fault Microsoft more for maintaining so much backward compatibility - it's allowed myriad other companies to keep releasing new versions of their own crap software without fixing or maintaining past ones and those same bugs keep getting passed along. If companies had to go back and fix their bugs and logic errors when Microsoft's changes exposed them then far fewer would still exist... and windows would be much better to boot.

Now, I understand why I want to use a sledgehammer on my computer: it's running with Vista. Seriously, at work, they have Windows XP and I can manage with those. But, at home, I can't install the driver for the Wacom pad: if I do, it kills the driver for my scanner (HP G4050).