Guest Angie Jones Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Hi All I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm why? Regards Ang MCP, MCDST
Guest Tom [Pepper] Willett Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Because it's a separate program put out by Kodak? "Angie Jones" <angie@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:eUrTDHv$HHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | Hi All | | I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm | why? | | Regards | Ang | MCP, MCDST | |
Guest Detlev Dreyer Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? "Angie Jones" <angie@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm why? Because this was third-party software and the current owner does not give it away for free anymore. See also "Kodak imaging for Windows is not included with Windows XP" http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308979/en-us "G360 Imaging for Windows" http://www.global360.com/products/g360_imaging/ -- d-d
Guest Bob I Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? The owner of the program increased the licensing fees that Microsoft would have had to pay to include it in XP. You can buy it from them direct if you want. Link below. http://www.global360.com/us/products/imaging/ Angie Jones wrote: > Hi All > > I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm > why? > > Regards > Ang > MCP, MCDST > >
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? On Sep 24, 4:27 pm, "Angie Jones" <an...@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm > why? I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why?
Guest Telstar Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%23Km6xVv$HHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > The owner of the program increased the licensing fees that Microsoft would > have had to pay to include it in XP. You can buy it from them direct if > you want. Link below. > > http://www.global360.com/us/products/imaging/ > > Angie Jones wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >> confirm why? >> >> Regards >> Ang >> MCP, MCDST > They must really think they have a product...it costs more than the OS.
Guest Telstar Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? "Uncle Grumpy" <pauld1943@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1190671293.120995.255410@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 24, 4:27 pm, "Angie Jones" <an...@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > >> I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >> confirm >> why? > > I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? > The writers wanted more money than MS would pay. So it was bumped off. They now want $170 per seat for this.
Guest cornedbeef007-groups@yahoo.com.au Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? On Sep 25, 8:01 am, Uncle Grumpy <pauld1...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 24, 4:27 pm, "Angie Jones" <an...@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > > I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm > > why? > > I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? Because if they were small round and white they'd be asprin. Duh!
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Angie Jones wrote: > Hi All > > I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm > why? > Perhaps because it's not a Microsoft product and Kodak didn't license their product for 3rd-party distribution? -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
Guest HeyBub Posted September 24, 2007 Posted September 24, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Uncle Grumpy wrote: > > I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? They have to be SOME color?
Guest Unknown Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? For "correct" answer to that you would have to ask the CEOs of Microsoft and Kodak. "Uncle Grumpy" <pauld1943@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1190671293.120995.255410@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 24, 4:27 pm, "Angie Jones" <an...@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > >> I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >> confirm >> why? > > I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? >
Guest Eric P. Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Unknown wrote: > For "correct" answer to that you would have to ask the CEOs of Microsoft and > Kodak. > "Uncle Grumpy" <pauld1943@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1190671293.120995.255410@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >>On Sep 24, 4:27 pm, "Angie Jones" <an...@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> >>wrote: >> >> >>>I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>confirm >>>why? >> >>I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? >> > > > Kodak imaging for Windows is not included with Windows XP http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979
Guest Unknown Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? That site does NOT explain 'WHY'. OP wants to know why. "Eric P." <EricP.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:uJ610$4$HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Unknown wrote: >> For "correct" answer to that you would have to ask the CEOs of Microsoft >> and Kodak. >> "Uncle Grumpy" <pauld1943@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1190671293.120995.255410@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >>>On Sep 24, 4:27 pm, "Angie Jones" <an...@astromagpies.freeserve.co.uk> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>>confirm >>>>why? >>> >>>I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? >>> >> >> >> > Kodak imaging for Windows is not included with Windows XP > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979
Guest Jack Ass Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Uncle Grumpy wrote: > > I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? Because Jesus Christ wanted to charge more for the license to use any other color!
Guest Tom [Pepper] Willett Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? "Jack Ass" <Jack.Ass@example.com> wrote in message news:46F9656B.81D59976@NEWSGROUPS.COM... | | | Uncle Grumpy wrote: | > | > I'm aware that elephants are gray. Can anyone confirm why? | | Because Jesus Christ wanted to charge more for the license to use any | other color! No, it's because Noah was color blind.
Guest The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Angie Jones wrote: > Hi All > > I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone confirm > why? > > Regards > Ang > MCP, MCDST > > It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the image viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. -- Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer rights in the digital age are not frivolous." - Maura Corbett
Guest Unknown Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Can you verify that? "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... > Angie Jones wrote: >> Hi All >> >> I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >> confirm why? >> >> Regards >> Ang >> MCP, MCDST > > It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the image > viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. > > > -- > Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: > http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html > > "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free > speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the > creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer > rights in the digital age are not frivolous." > - Maura Corbett
Guest The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Unknown wrote: > Can you verify that? Not specifically, but I think you helped confirm it by the link you posted: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979 "The third-party products that are discussed in this article are manufactured by companies that are independent of Microsoft." They do that with many elements of the OS, for example they also do it with the defrag tool. This all points out that MS either subcontracts or licenses 3rd party products for inclusion into it's software. The 'going for the cheapest bidder' part was just a guess, but it is the only smart business decision to make in this situation. > "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" > <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... >> Angie Jones wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>> confirm why? >>> >>> Regards >>> Ang >>> MCP, MCDST >>> >> It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the image >> viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. >> -- Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer rights in the digital age are not frivolous." - Maura Corbett
Guest Unknown Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? I posted no link! I stated original poster wanted to know "WHY". Only reliable answer is one coming from the CEO of Microsoft or Kodak. "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fde48p$o4i$1@aioe.org... > Unknown wrote: >> Can you verify that? > > Not specifically, but I think you helped confirm it by the link you > posted: > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979 > > "The third-party products that are discussed in this article are > manufactured by companies that are independent of Microsoft." > > They do that with many elements of the OS, for example they also do it > with the defrag tool. This all points out that MS either subcontracts or > licenses 3rd party products for inclusion into it's software. The 'going > for the cheapest bidder' part was just a guess, but it is the only smart > business decision to make in this situation. > >> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >> <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... >>> Angie Jones wrote: >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>> confirm why? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Ang >>>> MCP, MCDST > >>> >>> It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the >>> image viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. >>> > > > -- > Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: > http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html > > "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free > speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the > creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer > rights in the digital age are not frivolous." > - Maura Corbett
Guest Bob I Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? I suppose the actual absolutely correct answer would be that "there was no "Kodak Imaging" at the time Windows XP was released. Unknown wrote: > I posted no link! I stated original poster wanted to know "WHY". Only > reliable answer is one coming from the CEO of Microsoft or Kodak. > "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" > <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fde48p$o4i$1@aioe.org... > >>Unknown wrote: >> >>>Can you verify that? >> >>Not specifically, but I think you helped confirm it by the link you >>posted: >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979 >> >>"The third-party products that are discussed in this article are >>manufactured by companies that are independent of Microsoft." >> >>They do that with many elements of the OS, for example they also do it >>with the defrag tool. This all points out that MS either subcontracts or >>licenses 3rd party products for inclusion into it's software. The 'going >>for the cheapest bidder' part was just a guess, but it is the only smart >>business decision to make in this situation. >> >> >>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >>><none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... >>> >>>>Angie Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi All >>>>> >>>>>I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>>>confirm why? >>>>> >>>>>Regards >>>>>Ang >>>>>MCP, MCDST >>>>> >>>> >>>>It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the >>>>image viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. >>>> >> >> >>-- >>Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: >>http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html >> >>"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free >>speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the >>creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer >>rights in the digital age are not frivolous." >>- Maura Corbett > > >
Guest Unknown Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Hey that's great. You may be 100% correct. BUT supposing Microsoft didn't want to include it with their XP release? "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%23IfZGUHAIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >I suppose the actual absolutely correct answer would be that "there was no >"Kodak Imaging" at the time Windows XP was released. > > Unknown wrote: > >> I posted no link! I stated original poster wanted to know "WHY". Only >> reliable answer is one coming from the CEO of Microsoft or Kodak. >> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >> <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fde48p$o4i$1@aioe.org... >> >>>Unknown wrote: >>> >>>>Can you verify that? >>> >>>Not specifically, but I think you helped confirm it by the link you >>>posted: >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979 >>> >>>"The third-party products that are discussed in this article are >>>manufactured by companies that are independent of Microsoft." >>> >>>They do that with many elements of the OS, for example they also do it >>>with the defrag tool. This all points out that MS either subcontracts or >>>licenses 3rd party products for inclusion into it's software. The 'going >>>for the cheapest bidder' part was just a guess, but it is the only smart >>>business decision to make in this situation. >>> >>> >>>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >>>><none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... >>>> >>>>>Angie Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi All >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>>>>confirm why? >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards >>>>>>Ang >>>>>>MCP, MCDST >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the >>>>>image viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. >>>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: >>>http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html >>> >>>"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free >>>speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the >>>creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer >>>rights in the digital age are not frivolous." >>>- Maura Corbett >> >> >> >
Guest Bob I Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Immaterial, since it technically didn't exist. ;-) Sorta like saying "I don't want to fly to the moon." Since it isn't technically possible, it doesn't matter whether I want to or not! Unknown wrote: > Hey that's great. You may be 100% correct. BUT supposing Microsoft didn't > want to include it with their XP release? > "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:%23IfZGUHAIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >>I suppose the actual absolutely correct answer would be that "there was no >>"Kodak Imaging" at the time Windows XP was released. >> >>Unknown wrote: >> >> >>>I posted no link! I stated original poster wanted to know "WHY". Only >>>reliable answer is one coming from the CEO of Microsoft or Kodak. >>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >>><none@none.not> wrote in message news:fde48p$o4i$1@aioe.org... >>> >>> >>>>Unknown wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Can you verify that? >>>> >>>>Not specifically, but I think you helped confirm it by the link you >>>>posted: >>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979 >>>> >>>>"The third-party products that are discussed in this article are >>>>manufactured by companies that are independent of Microsoft." >>>> >>>>They do that with many elements of the OS, for example they also do it >>>>with the defrag tool. This all points out that MS either subcontracts or >>>>licenses 3rd party products for inclusion into it's software. The 'going >>>>for the cheapest bidder' part was just a guess, but it is the only smart >>>>business decision to make in this situation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >>>>><none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Angie Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi All >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>>>>>confirm why? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Regards >>>>>>>Ang >>>>>>>MCP, MCDST >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the >>>>>>image viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: >>>>http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html >>>> >>>>"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free >>>>speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the >>>>creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer >>>>rights in the digital age are not frivolous." >>>>- Maura Corbett >>> >>> >>> > >
Guest Unknown Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? True, but how can you positively say it did not exist? "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:eeUbF%23HAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Immaterial, since it technically didn't exist. ;-) Sorta like saying "I > don't want to fly to the moon." Since it isn't technically possible, it > doesn't matter whether I want to or not! > > Unknown wrote: > >> Hey that's great. You may be 100% correct. BUT supposing Microsoft didn't >> want to include it with their XP release? >> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:%23IfZGUHAIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >>>I suppose the actual absolutely correct answer would be that "there was >>>no "Kodak Imaging" at the time Windows XP was released. >>> >>>Unknown wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I posted no link! I stated original poster wanted to know "WHY". Only >>>>reliable answer is one coming from the CEO of Microsoft or Kodak. >>>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >>>><none@none.not> wrote in message news:fde48p$o4i$1@aioe.org... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Unknown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Can you verify that? >>>>> >>>>>Not specifically, but I think you helped confirm it by the link you >>>>>posted: >>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979 >>>>> >>>>>"The third-party products that are discussed in this article are >>>>>manufactured by companies that are independent of Microsoft." >>>>> >>>>>They do that with many elements of the OS, for example they also do it >>>>>with the defrag tool. This all points out that MS either subcontracts >>>>>or licenses 3rd party products for inclusion into it's software. The >>>>>'going for the cheapest bidder' part was just a guess, but it is the >>>>>only smart business decision to make in this situation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina >>>>>>DiBoy'" <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Angie Jones wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi All >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>>>>>>confirm why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Regards >>>>>>>>Ang >>>>>>>>MCP, MCDST >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the >>>>>>>image viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: >>>>>http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html >>>>> >>>>>"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on >>>>>free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of >>>>>the creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. >>>>>Consumer rights in the digital age are not frivolous." >>>>>- Maura Corbett >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >
Guest Bob I Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 Re: Why Is There No Kodak Imaging with XP? Kodak sold it to eistream. You can look at the copyrights, Kodak thru 1999, then gone, eistream starts in 2000 and goes forward. It doesn't exist after Windows 2000, and wasn't in Windows ME which was realeased right after Windows 2000. Thats where the transfer took place. Unknown wrote: > True, but how can you positively say it did not exist? > "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:eeUbF%23HAIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >>Immaterial, since it technically didn't exist. ;-) Sorta like saying "I >>don't want to fly to the moon." Since it isn't technically possible, it >>doesn't matter whether I want to or not! >> >>Unknown wrote: >> >> >>>Hey that's great. You may be 100% correct. BUT supposing Microsoft didn't >>>want to include it with their XP release? >>>"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>news:%23IfZGUHAIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> >>> >>>>I suppose the actual absolutely correct answer would be that "there was >>>>no "Kodak Imaging" at the time Windows XP was released. >>>> >>>>Unknown wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I posted no link! I stated original poster wanted to know "WHY". Only >>>>>reliable answer is one coming from the CEO of Microsoft or Kodak. >>>>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'" >>>>><none@none.not> wrote in message news:fde48p$o4i$1@aioe.org... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Unknown wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Can you verify that? >>>>>> >>>>>>Not specifically, but I think you helped confirm it by the link you >>>>>>posted: >>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308979 >>>>>> >>>>>>"The third-party products that are discussed in this article are >>>>>>manufactured by companies that are independent of Microsoft." >>>>>> >>>>>>They do that with many elements of the OS, for example they also do it >>>>>>with the defrag tool. This all points out that MS either subcontracts >>>>>>or licenses 3rd party products for inclusion into it's software. The >>>>>>'going for the cheapest bidder' part was just a guess, but it is the >>>>>>only smart business decision to make in this situation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina >>>>>>>DiBoy'" <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fdbs0t$2il$5@aioe.org... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Angie Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi All >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I'm aware that Kodak Imaging is not included with XP but can anyone >>>>>>>>>confirm why? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Regards >>>>>>>>>Ang >>>>>>>>>MCP, MCDST >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's because MS goes with the cheapest bidder to subcontract for the >>>>>>>>image viewer, and this time around Kodak was not the cheapest bidder. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: >>>>>>http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html >>>>>> >>>>>>"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on >>>>>>free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of >>>>>>the creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. >>>>>>Consumer rights in the digital age are not frivolous." >>>>>>- Maura Corbett >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > >
Recommended Posts