OT: plug and pray webcam on windows xp

John Dope snipped-for-privacy@message.header wrote in news:t7u2g7$3pj$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Wow... you are such an expert. NOT!

Taking advice from an idiot like you "could be" the problem. Nope, it most certainly WOULD BE the problem.

John Dope snipped-for-privacy@message.header wrote in news:t7u2pb$3pj$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

"Or whatever"?

John Dope is an idiot, no or whatevers about it.

XP is no longer supported by MicroSoft. Virus updates are still happening, but you don't have the big download zone like when it was still supported.

It is no wonder you are unaware of that. You do not make a good XP consultant at all.

First and foremost do not take any advice from John Dope.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022

08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.7% 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 1592 articles to USENET. Of which 171 have been pure insults and 748 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

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

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

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 04:28:03 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t7uh8j$10c$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

JCyNZ8Tc5/mh

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

posted Thu, 26 May 2022

12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Doe stated:

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.7% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at least 1592 articles to USENET. Of which 171 have been pure insults and 748 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

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

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

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 04:29:17 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t7uhat$10c$ snipped-for-privacy@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.

OHIUOcekgtvw

No, it's a good idea. Software makers often enough include their own versions of dlls, using the same name as everyone else's version, with no concern about breaking another program that was already there before its dll got overwritten.

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

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

Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022

08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.8% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at least 1596 articles to USENET. Of which 171 have been pure insults and 752 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

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

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

And yet, the clueless Troll Doe has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 06:47:32 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t7upe4$1t0$ snipped-for-privacy@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.

wXigZ5RtP1Oq

Further, John Dope stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022

08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.8% 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 1596 articles to USENET. Of which 171 have been pure insults and 752 have been John Dope "troll format" postings.

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

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

And yet, the clueless Troll Doe has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 06:47:44 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t7upef$1t0$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

fcZREM0QFe0z

Further, John Dope stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022

08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

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$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Dope troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

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$1t0$ snipped-for-privacy@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

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022

08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

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$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

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

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$1t0$ snipped-for-privacy@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

John DoPe:

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

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!

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

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.

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?

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]

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

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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"]

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.

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).

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!]

Another option might be to use an IP 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...

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).

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.

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.

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...

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022

08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

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$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

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

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$hp7$ snipped-for-privacy@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