OT: plug and pray webcam on windows xp...

[John Doe]

Eddie, the porn-sucking retarded forger is flagging every off-topic post
with its flawed copy of my ID.

Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

See also...
John Doe <always.look_message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99_gmail.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99_gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99_gmail.com>

Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don\'t get spanked!

Spanked Eddie...

--
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com
Subject: Re: OT: plug and pray webcam on windows xp
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
References: <t7u00o$l83$1@dont-email.me> <t7u2g7$3pj$1@dont-email.me> <t7ukbm$1c6i$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t7uq57$1t0$4@dont-email.me
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <k_BoK.7010$BZ99.3985@usenetxs.com
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:00:32 UTC
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:00:32 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 2054
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:670952 free.spam:18558

Further, John Dope stated the following in message-id
svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164904625100) posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022
08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.9% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
least 1597 articles to USENET. Of which 171 have been pure insults and
753 have been John Dope \"troll format\" postings.

The John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Dope troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 06:59:51 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t7uq57$1t0$4@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

hAaUx6I91uJI

 

[Edward Hernandez]

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164904625100) posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022
08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.9% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1598 articles to USENET. Of which 171 have been pure insults and
754 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:02:21 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t7uq9s$1t0$5@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll\'s contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that Troll Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

Umn9YC+h6i9P

 

[corvid]

John DoPe:

This ignorant nym-shifting troll is unaware of the fact programmers
and gamers use PCs in low light,

Maybe I was unaware that Wintendo fanbois use PCs in rough-framed attics.

> now pretending like it knows something about Windows\' system files.

I was hex-editing win95 system files 25 years ago. You, a mere handful
of years back, asked in the Win10 group if you were *allowed* to install
an older Win10 that didn\'t have the latest update!

It\'s not even a logical argument... \"Programmers replace Windows\'
DLLs without good cause,

I once had to choose between Windows programs because each wiped out the
competitor, couldn\'t have both installed on the same machine.

therefore unskilled Windows users should replace Windows DLLs
without good cause.\" (paraphrased)

Dope! There\'s no way to know if a dud dll is one from Microsoft, or
if it came from somewhere else.

When Adobe\'s newest Flash plugin failed to support non-SSE2 Athlon CPUs,
I learned which version of Google\'s Chrome had the last working
libflashplayer.so, installed it, grabbed the file for Firefox, then
dumped Chrome.

You\'re so timid, and under Microsoft\'s thumb, you\'re afraid to explore
possibilities all by yourself.

 

[Don Y]

On 6/9/2022 4:33 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

A somewhat moronic question but well, perhaps someone has been there
and done it.
My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my lab
when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop) began to lose
its presence at times (gets back on app restart but well, I need it to
work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

The old one is malfunctioning? And, it\'s not caused by software rot?
(i.e., have you tried it on a clean install of XP -- saving your
current disk so you can return to that point, later)

Presumably, no option to purchase an identical replacement
(eBay/used)? I.e., did you buy something different because
you wanted to \"upgrade\" -- or, because you had no choice in
the matter?

Wasted me a whole day today and no chance for xp to recognize it.
On the windows 10 laptop it just works; on the xp it stays unrecognized.
I tried all the obvious, installed various drivers etc., nothing.
Found a much longer version of upnphosts.dll (something like 300k,
mine was 182 or so), nothing.
I guess I\'ll give up on it and get another but... it does claim to work
with XP. Haven\'t tried to talk to the makers, I already wasted enough
time on that as it is.

You can \"ask\" (XP) what the \"Hardware IDs\" are for the \"unrecognized\"
device as well as the old, recognized camera. You can then, possibly,
trick XP into using an existing driver (one that *it* knows about and is known
to work with it) for the new camera -- possibly requiring an edit of
a .INF file, somewhere, to add an entry for that hardware ID.

[I\'m presently in this boat with a USB3 hub; original model works fine,
new iteration of the same model is not bound to the USB3 driver -- so,
runs at USB2 speeds]

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some particular
driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows freak, I can manage
little more than what is obvious to me.

Another option is to run Linux on that machine -- dual boot for
the times when you need the camera to be \"available\"

The windows xp is 32 bit as far as I can tell, the laptop is acer
extensa 5630Z (has no inbuilt camera, it is > 10 years old and its
main - if not sole - function is to operate the camera.....).
I know there are many alternative ways to do it, but it would be
nice if this thing would eventually work.

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 6/10/2022 9:19, Charlie+ wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 02:33:43 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote as underneath :

snip
Why not ask in an appropriate ng?
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Still active - you might get some sensible answers there! C+

Oh I have seen answers on such groups and they are 100% useless,
of the kind unplug it and plug it again etc.

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 6/10/2022 17:15, Don Y wrote:

On 6/9/2022 4:33 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
A somewhat moronic question but well, perhaps someone has been there
and done it.
My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my lab
when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop) began to lose
its presence at times (gets back on app restart but well, I need it to
work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

The old one is malfunctioning?  And, it\'s not caused by software rot?
(i.e., have you tried it on a clean install of XP -- saving your
current disk so you can return to that point, later)

Presumably, no option to purchase an identical replacement
(eBay/used)?  I.e., did you buy something different because
you wanted to \"upgrade\" -- or, because you had no choice in
the matter?

Of course there are plenty of options. I got greedy seeing this one
was 1080p and got it (the rest are 640x480, like the old one).

Wasted me a whole day today and no chance for xp to recognize it.
On the windows 10 laptop it just works; on the xp it stays unrecognized.
I tried all the obvious, installed various drivers etc., nothing.
Found a much longer version of upnphosts.dll (something like 300k,
mine was 182 or so), nothing.
I guess I\'ll give up on it and get another but... it does claim to work
with XP. Haven\'t tried to talk to the makers, I already wasted enough
time on that as it is.

You can \"ask\" (XP) what the \"Hardware IDs\" are for the \"unrecognized\"
device as well as the old, recognized camera.  You can then, possibly,
trick XP into using an existing driver (one that *it* knows about and is
known
to work with it) for the new camera -- possibly requiring an edit of
a .INF file, somewhere, to add an entry for that hardware ID.

Never looked into a .inf file, will try this.
The new camera on XP is seen as \"unknown device\",
USB\\VID_0000&PID_0000\\5&142FC231&0&3
On windows 10 it is seen as
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&REV_0001&MI_00
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&MI_00

[I\'m presently in this boat with a USB3 hub; original model works fine,
new iteration of the same model is not bound to the USB3 driver -- so,
runs at USB2 speeds]

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some particular
driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows freak, I can manage
little more than what is obvious to me.

Another option is to run Linux on that machine -- dual boot for
the times when you need the camera to be \"available\"

That would be more hassle than I am inclined to settle for.
Then the old camera is not hanging while I am out (but invariably
hangs the *first* time I start \"timershot\" with plenty of disk
activity, after I kill it and restart it it works.... may be
not the camera\'s fault at all, likely so really now after I saw
it happen in front of me).

Anyway, I\'ll look if I can guess something around these .inf
files one of these days - unless I abandon that camera completely,
as things are looking at the moment.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 10/06/2022 00:33, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

A somewhat moronic question but well, perhaps someone has been there
and done it.
My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my lab
when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop) began to lose
its presence at times (gets back on app restart but well, I need it to
work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

Wasted me a whole day today and no chance for xp to recognize it.
On the windows 10 laptop it just works; on the xp it stays unrecognized.

You could ask the Win10 machine to identify the chipset and drivers.

I tried all the obvious, installed various drivers etc., nothing.
Found a much longer version of upnphosts.dll (something like 300k,
mine was 182 or so), nothing.
I guess I\'ll give up on it and get another but... it does claim to work
with XP. Haven\'t tried to talk to the makers, I already wasted enough
time on that as it is.

Your best bet is a crude second hand or remaindered webcam with
contemporaneous official XP drivers. The newest drivers may make
assumptions about what x86 SIMD extended instructions are available.

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some particular
driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows freak, I can manage
little more than what is obvious to me.
The windows xp is 32 bit as far as I can tell, the laptop is acer
extensa 5630Z (has no inbuilt camera, it is > 10 years old and its
main - if not sole - function is to operate the camera.....).
I know there are many alternative ways to do it, but it would be
nice if this thing would eventually work.

I\'d try another dirt cheap webcam out of your junk box instead.
(or cadge a redundant one off someone who has upgraded theirs)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 6/10/2022 7:39 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 6/10/2022 17:15, Don Y wrote:
On 6/9/2022 4:33 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
A somewhat moronic question but well, perhaps someone has been there
and done it.
My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my lab
when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop) began to lose
its presence at times (gets back on app restart but well, I need it to
work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

The old one is malfunctioning? And, it\'s not caused by software rot?
(i.e., have you tried it on a clean install of XP -- saving your
current disk so you can return to that point, later)

Presumably, no option to purchase an identical replacement
(eBay/used)? I.e., did you buy something different because
you wanted to \"upgrade\" -- or, because you had no choice in
the matter?

Of course there are plenty of options. I got greedy seeing this one
was 1080p and got it (the rest are 640x480, like the old one).

Ah, that may be the kiss of death as lower resolution was more
typical for old offerings. I\'m not sure folks build drivers
that adapt to the capabilities of the camera...

Wasted me a whole day today and no chance for xp to recognize it.
On the windows 10 laptop it just works; on the xp it stays unrecognized.
I tried all the obvious, installed various drivers etc., nothing.
Found a much longer version of upnphosts.dll (something like 300k,
mine was 182 or so), nothing.
I guess I\'ll give up on it and get another but... it does claim to work
with XP. Haven\'t tried to talk to the makers, I already wasted enough
time on that as it is.

You can \"ask\" (XP) what the \"Hardware IDs\" are for the \"unrecognized\"
device as well as the old, recognized camera. You can then, possibly,
trick XP into using an existing driver (one that *it* knows about and is known
to work with it) for the new camera -- possibly requiring an edit of
a .INF file, somewhere, to add an entry for that hardware ID.

Never looked into a .inf file, will try this.

You can get the device IDs for the old camera and grep *.inf for any
mention of them. It will declare which files/DLLs to bind to the device
during the probe().

[You can see which driver file is bound to it by examining the properties
of the old camera \"device\"]

The new camera on XP is seen as \"unknown device\",
USB\\VID_0000&PID_0000\\5&142FC231&0&3
On windows 10 it is seen as
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&REV_0001&MI_00
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&MI_00

VID = vendor identification. Somewhere, there\'s a master catalog of
these (\"8086\" is intel).
PID is product identification. This is a vendor-specific designation
of the particular device/model.

After an \"insertion event\", windows goes looking through its set of
INF files to see if it can find any information about that particular device.
If so, it activates the named files, updates registry entries, etc.
Then, announces the device as ready for use.

[I\'m presently in this boat with a USB3 hub; original model works fine,
new iteration of the same model is not bound to the USB3 driver -- so,
runs at USB2 speeds]

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some particular
driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows freak, I can manage
little more than what is obvious to me.

Another option is to run Linux on that machine -- dual boot for
the times when you need the camera to be \"available\"

That would be more hassle than I am inclined to settle for.

Understandable. A big advantage of Linux is that you can HOPE
that someone previously had your camera (or other device)
and figured out how to recognize it and use it.

And, the interface from the driver to the system can keep
that device usable long after MS (or the vendor) has decided
they want to support it.

I\'m building a new XP laptop to support my video digitizing
hardware/software as W7 doesn\'t recognize the hardware nor support
the software.

Similarly, I have some of my older film scanners wired to NetBSD
boxen as the software doesn\'t run on W7 (but I can get that
functionality using other tools supported by NetBSD).

Then the old camera is not hanging while I am out (but invariably
hangs the *first* time I start \"timershot\" with plenty of disk
activity, after I kill it and restart it it works.... may be
not the camera\'s fault at all, likely so really now after I saw
it happen in front of me).

If reverting to a pristine Windows image was easy (I save an
image of each machine just after \"building\" it), I\'d suggest
that, just in case something mucked with <something> that the
camera needed.

An XP VM would be another alternative. But, each of these
approaches mean you have to have made an investment, previously.

[But, a clean install, from scratch, is often too painful to
incur for all but the really important things!]

Anyway, I\'ll look if I can guess something around these .inf
files one of these days - unless I abandon that camera completely,
as things are looking at the moment.

Another option might be to use an IP camera?

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 6/10/2022 22:29, Don Y wrote:

On 6/10/2022 7:39 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 6/10/2022 17:15, Don Y wrote:
On 6/9/2022 4:33 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
A somewhat moronic question but well, perhaps someone has been there
and done it.
My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my lab
when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop) began to lose
its presence at times (gets back on app restart but well, I need it to
work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

The old one is malfunctioning?  And, it\'s not caused by software rot?
(i.e., have you tried it on a clean install of XP -- saving your
current disk so you can return to that point, later)

Presumably, no option to purchase an identical replacement
(eBay/used)?  I.e., did you buy something different because
you wanted to \"upgrade\" -- or, because you had no choice in
the matter?

Of course there are plenty of options. I got greedy seeing this one
was 1080p and got it (the rest are 640x480, like the old one).

Ah, that may be the kiss of death as lower resolution was more
typical for old offerings.  I\'m not sure folks build drivers
that adapt to the capabilities of the camera...

I started to think that way, too. In fact one of the suspicions is that
because the laptop has only a 1280x800 TFT display windows decides
a 1920x1080 camera would be too much and declines to recognize it
at all to save calls, hassle etc. I have tried this laptop with
the TV-set at 1920x1080 but many years ago, won\'t go through this
now. I just leave that camera for my own future USB exercises...

Wasted me a whole day today and no chance for xp to recognize it.
On the windows 10 laptop it just works; on the xp it stays
unrecognized.
I tried all the obvious, installed various drivers etc., nothing.
Found a much longer version of upnphosts.dll (something like 300k,
mine was 182 or so), nothing.
I guess I\'ll give up on it and get another but... it does claim to work
with XP. Haven\'t tried to talk to the makers, I already wasted enough
time on that as it is.

You can \"ask\" (XP) what the \"Hardware IDs\" are for the \"unrecognized\"
device as well as the old, recognized camera.  You can then, possibly,
trick XP into using an existing driver (one that *it* knows about and
is known
to work with it) for the new camera -- possibly requiring an edit of
a .INF file, somewhere, to add an entry for that hardware ID.

Never looked into a .inf file, will try this.

You can get the device IDs for the old camera and grep *.inf for any
mention of them.  It will declare which files/DLLs to bind to the device
during the probe().

[You can see which driver file is bound to it by examining the properties
of the old camera \"device\"]

The new camera on XP is seen as \"unknown device\",
USB\\VID_0000&PID_0000\\5&142FC231&0&3
On windows 10 it is seen as
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&REV_0001&MI_00
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&MI_00

VID = vendor identification.  Somewhere, there\'s a master catalog of
these (\"8086\" is intel).
PID is product identification.  This is a vendor-specific designation
of the particular device/model.
After an \"insertion event\", windows goes looking through its set of
INF files to see if it can find any information about that particular
device.
If so, it activates the named files, updates registry entries, etc.
Then, announces the device as ready for use.

Where does the 0000 comes from? Does windows set it like this because
it read something it did not like or what? (answer that only if you
have it ready, I am not dealing with the camera any more).

[I\'m presently in this boat with a USB3 hub; original model works fine,
new iteration of the same model is not bound to the USB3 driver -- so,
runs at USB2 speeds]

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some
particular
driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows freak, I can manage
little more than what is obvious to me.

Another option is to run Linux on that machine -- dual boot for
the times when you need the camera to be \"available\"

That would be more hassle than I am inclined to settle for.

Understandable.  A big advantage of Linux is that you can HOPE
that someone previously had your camera (or other device)
and figured out how to recognize it and use it.

Many years ago (10?) I had made this laptop (the xp) dual-boot,
had some ubuntu as a choice next to its xp. Good thing I knew to
be cautious writing to sector 0 (all these years doing it for dps
during/causing innumerable disasters) so I had saved it
beforehand, had learned how to use dd for the purpose and used
a linux CD to boot from.... had to restore it a few times before things
eventually worked.

And, the interface from the driver to the system can keep
that device usable long after MS (or the vendor) has decided
they want to support it.

I\'m building a new XP laptop to support my video digitizing
hardware/software as W7 doesn\'t recognize the hardware nor support
the software.

Similarly, I have some of my older film scanners wired to NetBSD
boxen as the software doesn\'t run on W7 (but I can get that
functionality using other tools supported by NetBSD).

Then the old camera is not hanging while I am out (but invariably
hangs the *first* time I start \"timershot\" with plenty of disk
activity, after I kill it and restart it it works.... may be
not the camera\'s fault at all, likely so really now after I saw
it happen in front of me).

If reverting to a pristine Windows image was easy (I save an
image of each machine just after \"building\" it), I\'d suggest
that, just in case something mucked with <something> that the
camera needed.

An XP VM would be another alternative.  But, each of these
approaches mean you have to have made an investment, previously.

Oh I could install windows 10 on this laptop or whatever but no,
I am done with this camera now. I have a VM on the windows 10
laptop, vmware something, worked initially for what I wanted it,
then after a few windows updates the function I was interested in
stopped (on an emulated xp machine). Was easier to keep using the
xp laptop for that (needed once a year or so) than to start digging
to fix it.

[But, a clean install, from scratch, is often too painful to
incur for all but the really important things!]

Anyway, I\'ll look if I can guess something around these .inf
files one of these days - unless I abandon that camera completely,
as things are looking at the moment.

Another option might be to use an IP camera?

Of course it is an option. I first started using this laptop with
a camera in early 2015 (had to visit Lucy at a hospital, that was
before the really serious thing). I had to leave the house unattended
and all I had was this 640x480 webcam. So I found something called
\"timershot\", made it take a shot often enough, store as jpeg to disk
and I looked at it via ftp with my phone... Now I can still do that
but I did a script for my dps machine which ftp-s the shot from
the laptop (on the same LAN) then ftp-s it to an unlinked directory
in my website domain - so I can just refresh a browser to see it.
Like everything else in (my?) life things just happen on the go...

 

[server]

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:t7uq57$1t0$4@dont-email.me:

Subject: Re: OT: plug and pray webcam on windows xp
From: John Dope <always.look@message.header
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam

This ignorant nym-shifting troll is unaware of the fact
programmers and gamers use PCs in low light, now pretending like
it knows something about Windows\' system files.

It\'s not even a logical argument... \"Programmers replace Windows\'
DLLs without good cause, therefore unskilled Windows users should
replace Windows DLLs without good cause.\" (paraphrased)

Regularly proving why it must nym-shift...

Those were the xp days. Can\'t do that with the newer OS releases.

Not that you would have any clue one way or the other.

Stop adding retarded follow-up groups, you pussified jackass.

 

[a a]

On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 22:42:36 UTC+2, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 6/10/2022 22:29, Don Y wrote:
On 6/10/2022 7:39 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 6/10/2022 17:15, Don Y wrote:
On 6/9/2022 4:33 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
A somewhat moronic question but well, perhaps someone has been there
and done it.
My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my lab
when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop) began to lose
its presence at times (gets back on app restart but well, I need it to
work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

The old one is malfunctioning? And, it\'s not caused by software rot?
(i.e., have you tried it on a clean install of XP -- saving your
current disk so you can return to that point, later)

Presumably, no option to purchase an identical replacement
(eBay/used)? I.e., did you buy something different because
you wanted to \"upgrade\" -- or, because you had no choice in
the matter?

Of course there are plenty of options. I got greedy seeing this one
was 1080p and got it (the rest are 640x480, like the old one).

Ah, that may be the kiss of death as lower resolution was more
typical for old offerings. I\'m not sure folks build drivers
that adapt to the capabilities of the camera...
I started to think that way, too. In fact one of the suspicions is that
because the laptop has only a 1280x800 TFT display windows decides
a 1920x1080 camera would be too much and declines to recognize it
at all to save calls, hassle etc. I have tried this laptop with
the TV-set at 1920x1080 but many years ago, won\'t go through this
now. I just leave that camera for my own future USB exercises...

Wasted me a whole day today and no chance for xp to recognize it.
On the windows 10 laptop it just works; on the xp it stays
unrecognized.
I tried all the obvious, installed various drivers etc., nothing.
Found a much longer version of upnphosts.dll (something like 300k,
mine was 182 or so), nothing.
I guess I\'ll give up on it and get another but... it does claim to work
with XP. Haven\'t tried to talk to the makers, I already wasted enough
time on that as it is.

You can \"ask\" (XP) what the \"Hardware IDs\" are for the \"unrecognized\"
device as well as the old, recognized camera. You can then, possibly,
trick XP into using an existing driver (one that *it* knows about and
is known
to work with it) for the new camera -- possibly requiring an edit of
a .INF file, somewhere, to add an entry for that hardware ID.

Never looked into a .inf file, will try this.

You can get the device IDs for the old camera and grep *.inf for any
mention of them. It will declare which files/DLLs to bind to the device
during the probe().

[You can see which driver file is bound to it by examining the properties
of the old camera \"device\"]

The new camera on XP is seen as \"unknown device\",
USB\\VID_0000&PID_0000\\5&142FC231&0&3
On windows 10 it is seen as
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&REV_0001&MI_00
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&MI_00

VID = vendor identification. Somewhere, there\'s a master catalog of
these (\"8086\" is intel).
PID is product identification. This is a vendor-specific designation
of the particular device/model.
After an \"insertion event\", windows goes looking through its set of
INF files to see if it can find any information about that particular
device.
If so, it activates the named files, updates registry entries, etc.
Then, announces the device as ready for use.
Where does the 0000 comes from? Does windows set it like this because
it read something it did not like or what? (answer that only if you
have it ready, I am not dealing with the camera any more).

[I\'m presently in this boat with a USB3 hub; original model works fine,
new iteration of the same model is not bound to the USB3 driver -- so,
runs at USB2 speeds]

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some
particular
driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows freak, I can manage
little more than what is obvious to me.

Another option is to run Linux on that machine -- dual boot for
the times when you need the camera to be \"available\"

That would be more hassle than I am inclined to settle for.

Understandable. A big advantage of Linux is that you can HOPE
that someone previously had your camera (or other device)
and figured out how to recognize it and use it.
Many years ago (10?) I had made this laptop (the xp) dual-boot,
had some ubuntu as a choice next to its xp. Good thing I knew to
be cautious writing to sector 0 (all these years doing it for dps
during/causing innumerable disasters) so I had saved it
beforehand, had learned how to use dd for the purpose and used
a linux CD to boot from.... had to restore it a few times before things
eventually worked.

And, the interface from the driver to the system can keep
that device usable long after MS (or the vendor) has decided
they want to support it.

I\'m building a new XP laptop to support my video digitizing
hardware/software as W7 doesn\'t recognize the hardware nor support
the software.

Similarly, I have some of my older film scanners wired to NetBSD
boxen as the software doesn\'t run on W7 (but I can get that
functionality using other tools supported by NetBSD).

Then the old camera is not hanging while I am out (but invariably
hangs the *first* time I start \"timershot\" with plenty of disk
activity, after I kill it and restart it it works.... may be
not the camera\'s fault at all, likely so really now after I saw
it happen in front of me).

If reverting to a pristine Windows image was easy (I save an
image of each machine just after \"building\" it), I\'d suggest
that, just in case something mucked with <something> that the
camera needed.

An XP VM would be another alternative. But, each of these
approaches mean you have to have made an investment, previously.
Oh I could install windows 10 on this laptop or whatever but no,
I am done with this camera now. I have a VM on the windows 10
laptop, vmware something, worked initially for what I wanted it,
then after a few windows updates the function I was interested in
stopped (on an emulated xp machine). Was easier to keep using the
xp laptop for that (needed once a year or so) than to start digging
to fix it.

[But, a clean install, from scratch, is often too painful to
incur for all but the really important things!]

Anyway, I\'ll look if I can guess something around these .inf
files one of these days - unless I abandon that camera completely,
as things are looking at the moment.

Another option might be to use an IP camera?
Of course it is an option. I first started using this laptop with
a camera in early 2015 (had to visit Lucy at a hospital, that was
before the really serious thing). I had to leave the house unattended
and all I had was this 640x480 webcam. So I found something called
\"timershot\", made it take a shot often enough, store as jpeg to disk
and I looked at it via ftp with my phone... Now I can still do that
but I did a script for my dps machine which ftp-s the shot from
the laptop (on the same LAN) then ftp-s it to an unlinked directory
in my website domain - so I can just refresh a browser to see it.
Like everything else in (my?) life things just happen on the go...

SOLUTION to your problem from the internet !!

you need to install usb3.0 PCI controller to support your full HD camera under WinXP

https://www.bing.com/search?q=can+usb+2.0+support+full+HD+camera&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=can+usb+2.0+support+full+hd+camera&sc=0-34&qs=n&sk=

==
A 1080p60 source delivered as 8-bit RGB with 4:4:4 sampling is about 3.0 Gbps, so you need at least 10:1 compression to make using USB 2 even possible. On the other hand, 5 Gbps USB 3.0 is almost plausible, and 10 Gbps USB 3.1 should be good.

 

[John Doe]

Here, Always Wrong is incorrectly attributing an argument to me.

And acting like I might care less what it thinks I should do...


DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:t7uq57$1t0$4@dont-email.me:

Subject: Re: OT: plug and pray webcam on windows xp
From: John Dope <always.look@message.header
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam

This ignorant nym-shifting troll is unaware of the fact
programmers and gamers use PCs in low light, now pretending like
it knows something about Windows\' system files.

It\'s not even a logical argument... \"Programmers replace Windows\'
DLLs without good cause, therefore unskilled Windows users should
replace Windows DLLs without good cause.\" (paraphrased)

Regularly proving why it must nym-shift...

Those were the xp days. Can\'t do that with the newer OS releases.

Not that you would have any clue one way or the other.

Stop adding retarded follow-up groups, you pussified jackass.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164904625100) posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022
08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 58.3% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1627 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
776 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

The Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless Troll Doe has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:54:28 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t80ljk$hp7$3@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll\'s contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

V2fuIbkaroAd

 

[Don Y]

On 6/10/2022 1:42 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my lab
when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop) began to lose
its presence at times (gets back on app restart but well, I need it to
work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

The old one is malfunctioning? And, it\'s not caused by software rot?
(i.e., have you tried it on a clean install of XP -- saving your
current disk so you can return to that point, later)

Presumably, no option to purchase an identical replacement
(eBay/used)? I.e., did you buy something different because
you wanted to \"upgrade\" -- or, because you had no choice in
the matter?

Of course there are plenty of options. I got greedy seeing this one
was 1080p and got it (the rest are 640x480, like the old one).

Ah, that may be the kiss of death as lower resolution was more
typical for old offerings. I\'m not sure folks build drivers
that adapt to the capabilities of the camera...

I started to think that way, too. In fact one of the suspicions is that
because the laptop has only a 1280x800 TFT display windows decides
a 1920x1080 camera would be too much and declines to recognize it
at all to save calls, hassle etc. I have tried this laptop with
the TV-set at 1920x1080 but many years ago, won\'t go through this
now. I just leave that camera for my own future USB exercises...

No doubt, in your limitless FREE TIME! <grin>

You can get the device IDs for the old camera and grep *.inf for any
mention of them. It will declare which files/DLLs to bind to the device
during the probe().

[You can see which driver file is bound to it by examining the properties
of the old camera \"device\"]

The new camera on XP is seen as \"unknown device\",
USB\\VID_0000&PID_0000\\5&142FC231&0&3
On windows 10 it is seen as
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&REV_0001&MI_00
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&MI_00

VID = vendor identification. Somewhere, there\'s a master catalog of
these (\"8086\" is intel).
PID is product identification. This is a vendor-specific designation
of the particular device/model.
After an \"insertion event\", windows goes looking through its set of
INF files to see if it can find any information about that particular device.
If so, it activates the named files, updates registry entries, etc.
Then, announces the device as ready for use.

Where does the 0000 comes from? Does windows set it like this because
it read something it did not like or what? (answer that only if you
have it ready, I am not dealing with the camera any more).

Dunno. I would think it would still have to show the *detected* IDs,
even if it doesn\'t recognize the device (i.e., can\'t bind a driver to it).

For example, I have an \"Other Device\" listed on this machine with
Manufacture \"unknown\" (Properties | General). But, the hardware IDs
tell me it\'s an Intel device (VIN=8086) and give a product ID. It\'s
just that there is nothing (.INF) telling the OS what to do with this
particular device instance.

[I\'m presently in this boat with a USB3 hub; original model works fine,
new iteration of the same model is not bound to the USB3 driver -- so,
runs at USB2 speeds]

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some particular
driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows freak, I can manage
little more than what is obvious to me.

Another option is to run Linux on that machine -- dual boot for
the times when you need the camera to be \"available\"

That would be more hassle than I am inclined to settle for.

Understandable. A big advantage of Linux is that you can HOPE
that someone previously had your camera (or other device)
and figured out how to recognize it and use it.

Many years ago (10?) I had made this laptop (the xp) dual-boot,
had some ubuntu as a choice next to its xp. Good thing I knew to
be cautious writing to sector 0 (all these years doing it for dps
during/causing innumerable disasters) so I had saved it
beforehand, had learned how to use dd for the purpose and used
a linux CD to boot from.... had to restore it a few times before things
eventually worked.

Yeah, MS doesn\'t tend to \"play nice\" with other OSs. But, you
can coerce the two to share a bed...

If reverting to a pristine Windows image was easy (I save an
image of each machine just after \"building\" it), I\'d suggest
that, just in case something mucked with <something> that the
camera needed.

An XP VM would be another alternative. But, each of these
approaches mean you have to have made an investment, previously.

Oh I could install windows 10 on this laptop or whatever but no,
I am done with this camera now. I have a VM on the windows 10
laptop, vmware something, worked initially for what I wanted it,
then after a few windows updates the function I was interested in
stopped (on an emulated xp machine). Was easier to keep using the
xp laptop for that (needed once a year or so) than to start digging
to fix it.

Yeah, I *really* don\'t like dicking with a machine once it\'s been
set up. No, I don\'t want any OS updates. No, I don\'t want any
application updates. I *know* how THIS works so let\'s just keep
things the way they are!

(Folks with IT departments have more time to waste than I)

Anyway, I\'ll look if I can guess something around these .inf
files one of these days - unless I abandon that camera completely,
as things are looking at the moment.

Another option might be to use an IP camera?

Of course it is an option. I first started using this laptop with
a camera in early 2015 (had to visit Lucy at a hospital, that was
before the really serious thing). I had to leave the house unattended
and all I had was this 640x480 webcam. So I found something called
\"timershot\", made it take a shot often enough, store as jpeg to disk
and I looked at it via ftp with my phone... Now I can still do that
but I did a script for my dps machine which ftp-s the shot from
the laptop (on the same LAN) then ftp-s it to an unlinked directory
in my website domain - so I can just refresh a browser to see it.

OK. As a jpeg, you should be able to have it scaled to fit
any (practical) screen size.

> Like everything else in (my?) life things just happen on the go...

 

[John Doe]

corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote:

> I was hex-editing win95 system files 25 years ago.

Sure you were. And now you are a Mac user...

You, a mere handful of years back, asked in the Win10 group if you were
*allowed* to install an older Win10 that didn\'t have the latest update!

Provide a citation...

I was in the PC hardware group and then in the Windows 10 group, for
decades.

FWIW... I am more conscious than most. Here\'s one Windows 10 bug I
discovered 26 Apr 2017...

\"File Explorer loses focus after deleting a file?\"

Message-ID: <odoqtc$2u5$1@dont-email.me>

Still happens. After a reboot, it happens once, and then, whatever little
flag is properly set so it doesn\'t happen again until the next reboot.

Before that, I also discovered a fun Windows 10 file manager bug having to
do with recursive folder generation. Unfortunately Google doesn\'t archive
the Windows 10 group so it is not so easy to find. Definitely posted to
the Windows 10/whatever group and got some replies. Probably an original
post, but not 100% sure.

 

[corvid]

Attic dweller John Dope:

This nym-shifting troll is obviously not a programmer or even a
gamer.

Not either. Isn\'t obvious, but you\'ll grasp at whatever you can... to
lose that ATTIC.

> Ignorance is where it got this naīve suggestion \"lowlight is a bad

I didn\'t say \"I think the idiot lives in lowlight\", did I?

environment for using a PC\" (paraphrased). Lots of programmers and
gamers do so in low light.

I just brought your attention back to \"rough-framed attics\" and you had
to snip that! You go directly back low light again!

Returning to the topic, I never said that a bad dll must be one that
came from Microsoft, either. But it\'s a bad idea to auto-assume that
Microsoft\'s is the one you want to keep.

\"therefore unskilled Windows users should replace
Windows DLLs without good cause.\" (paraphrased)\" was never part of my
argument, you lied! We\'ll never see an honest followup from you here,
you aren\'t up to it.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Dope stated:

Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 58.7% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
least 1655 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
798 have been John Dope \"troll format\" postings.

The Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless Troll Doe has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:53:20 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t80sig$a1$4@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

RXjm0jLiejgJ

 

[server]

corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote in news:t7vga6$1hgq$1@gioia.aioe.org:

John DoPe:
This ignorant nym-shifting troll is unaware of the fact
programmers and gamers use PCs in low light,

Maybe I was unaware that Wintendo fanbois use PCs in rough-framed
attics.

now pretending like it knows something about Windows\' system
files.

I was hex-editing win95 system files 25 years ago. You, a mere
handful of years back, asked in the Win10 group if you were
*allowed* to install an older Win10 that didn\'t have the latest
update!

It\'s not even a logical argument... \"Programmers replace Windows\'
DLLs without good cause,

I once had to choose between Windows programs because each wiped
out the competitor, couldn\'t have both installed on the same
machine.

therefore unskilled Windows users should replace Windows DLLs
without good cause.\" (paraphrased)

Dope! There\'s no way to know if a dud dll is one from Microsoft,
or if it came from somewhere else.

When Adobe\'s newest Flash plugin failed to support non-SSE2 Athlon
CPUs, I learned which version of Google\'s Chrome had the last
working libflashplayer.so, installed it, grabbed the file for
Firefox, then dumped Chrome.

You\'re so timid, and under Microsoft\'s thumb, you\'re afraid to
explore possibilities all by yourself.

I hate that my modern machine has multiple \'versions\' of dot net or
whatever MS calls it on my machine because different age apps require
different versions. But whatever works as long as it isn\'t taking up
Gigs of drive space.

 

[server]

Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in
news:t7vl38$ard$1@dont-email.me:

On 6/10/2022 17:15, Don Y wrote:
On 6/9/2022 4:33 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
A somewhat moronic question but well, perhaps someone has been
there and done it.
My old (also external) webcam which I use in order to look at my
lab when I am not there (USB connected to an old xp laptop)
began to lose its presence at times (gets back on app restart
but well, I need it to work when I am not there).
So I got a new one,
https://natec-zone.com/product/lori .

The old one is malfunctioning?  And, it\'s not caused by software
rot? (i.e., have you tried it on a clean install of XP -- saving
your current disk so you can return to that point, later)

Presumably, no option to purchase an identical replacement
(eBay/used)?  I.e., did you buy something different because
you wanted to \"upgrade\" -- or, because you had no choice in
the matter?

Of course there are plenty of options. I got greedy seeing this
one was 1080p and got it (the rest are 640x480, like the old one).


Wasted me a whole day today and no chance for xp to recognize
it. On the windows 10 laptop it just works; on the xp it stays
unrecognized. I tried all the obvious, installed various drivers
etc., nothing. Found a much longer version of upnphosts.dll
(something like 300k, mine was 182 or so), nothing.
I guess I\'ll give up on it and get another but... it does claim
to work with XP. Haven\'t tried to talk to the makers, I already
wasted enough time on that as it is.

You can \"ask\" (XP) what the \"Hardware IDs\" are for the
\"unrecognized\" device as well as the old, recognized camera. 
You can then, possibly, trick XP into using an existing driver
(one that *it* knows about and is known
to work with it) for the new camera -- possibly requiring an edit
of a .INF file, somewhere, to add an entry for that hardware ID.

Never looked into a .inf file, will try this.
The new camera on XP is seen as \"unknown device\",
USB\\VID_0000&PID_0000\\5&142FC231&0&3
On windows 10 it is seen as
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&REV_0001&MI_00
USB\\VID_058F&PID_3861&MI_00


[I\'m presently in this boat with a USB3 hub; original model works
fine, new iteration of the same model is not bound to the USB3
driver -- so, runs at USB2 speeds]

So if by some chance someone knows something I can try - some
particular driver etc. - please help. I am far from a windows
freak, I can manage little more than what is obvious to me.

Another option is to run Linux on that machine -- dual boot for
the times when you need the camera to be \"available\"

That would be more hassle than I am inclined to settle for.
Then the old camera is not hanging while I am out (but invariably
hangs the *first* time I start \"timershot\" with plenty of disk
activity, after I kill it and restart it it works.... may be
not the camera\'s fault at all, likely so really now after I saw
it happen in front of me).

Anyway, I\'ll look if I can guess something around these .inf
files one of these days - unless I abandon that camera completely,
as things are looking at the moment.

Boot up a Linux Ubuntu Studio thumb drive and see if it sees it.
If so, you could get an external USB hard drive and put Ubuntu on it
and run that and use that for the camera and those times when you are
there you boot up as normal and use the OS on the machine as it is.
That way you modify nothing on your existing set up.

 

[corvid]

On 6/10/22 18:53, Lying attic dweller John Dope wrote:

I\'m being accused of \"lying\" by nym-shifting troll.

Nope. Anybody can scroll up.

And they\'ll find that your loose \"quote\",

\"Programmers replace Windows\' DLLs
without good cause, therefore unskilled Windows users should replace
Windows DLLs without good cause.\" (paraphrased)

was not paraphrased, it was fabricated.