Just to make you aware - Microsoft Photo Information

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Rob - 25 Jan 2007 00:10 GMT

If interested you may like to have a look here.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/prophoto/photoinfo.mspx

Seems a logical step.

r

Reply to this Message

davmel - 25 Jan 2007 03:03 GMT

> If interested you may like to have a look here.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> r

Has anyone managed to install the software?
I've tried on two separate PC's and the installer reports an error
before completing that a software component did not finish as expected
and the installation is aborted.
I suspect the real name for the product is Microsoft Photo Info Beta.

Reply to this Message

Rob - 25 Jan 2007 05:24 GMT

>> If interested you may like to have a look here.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> and the installation is aborted.
> I suspect the real name for the product is Microsoft Photo Info Beta.

System Requirements

* Supported Operating Systems: Windows Vista; Windows XP

Microsoft Photo Info requires 32-bit versions of Windows Vista or
Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or later and the Microsoft .NET Framework
2.0 runtime installed.

dotnetfx is the file necessary and about 22mb

I have no problems with the install and it works on three computers.

Reply to this Message

davmel - 25 Jan 2007 07:01 GMT

>>> If interested you may like to have a look here.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> I have no problems with the install and it works on three computers.

I already had .Net v2.0 installed and just for the hell of it downloaded
the installed it again but no luck. I still get an error message.

Reply to this Message

Biggus..... - 25 Jan 2007 23:33 GMT

In M$'s eyes, then you have a successful installation LOL

>I already had .Net v2.0 installed and just for the hell of it downloaded
>the installed it again but no luck. I still get an error message.

Reply to this Message

Noons - 30 Jan 2007 02:39 GMT

> Microsoft Photo Info requires 32-bit versions of Windows Vista or
> Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or later and the Microsoft .NET Framework
> 2.0 runtime installed.
>
> dotnetfx is the file necessary and about 22mb

Holy cow! That's yet another piece of crap off Redmond I won't be
installing...
Plenty of free software around with nowhere near the same unrealistic
requirements, and a lot faster too.

> I have no problems with the install and it works on three computers.

Good for you, boss. I prefer to not have to waste time and space with
dotnot. Anything that depends on it goes to the round filing cabinet.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 30 Jan 2007 04:40 GMT

> > Microsoft Photo Info requires 32-bit versions of Windows Vista or
> > Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or later and the Microsoft .NET Framework
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Good for you, boss. I prefer to not have to waste time and space with
> dotnot. Anything that depends on it goes to the round filing cabinet.

HA, a LOT of commercial software is being written using MS .NET framework.
The only difference is that it's probably on the CD and installed without
you being aware. In fact before downloading dotnetfx, you need to check you
don't already have it installed.
Then of course there is the fact that computer magazines often include it
free on their cover disks each month if you can't afford a 22MB download.
Microsoft consider it a standard part of the Windows operating system these
days. Many choose to use Linux instead of course, the choice is yours.

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Noons - 30 Jan 2007 12:44 GMT

> HA, a LOT of commercial software is being written using MS .NET framework.

HA, a LOT of commercial software is NOT being written using that
crap.
Your point?

> The only difference is that it's probably on the CD and installed without
> you being aware.

no it isn't.

> In fact before downloading dotnetfx, you need to check you
> don't already have it installed.

I don't.

> Then of course there is the fact that computer magazines often include it
> free on their cover disks each month if you can't afford a 22MB download.

culdn't care less. I don't use software from computer magazines.

> Microsoft consider it a standard part of the Windows operating system these
> days.

And that is going to change my opinion of it because...?

> Many choose to use Linux instead of course, the choice is yours.

Indeed. as well as many other options, including Windoze *without*
dotnot.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 31 Jan 2007 01:14 GMT

> > HA, a LOT of commercial software is being written using MS .NET framework.
>
> HA, a LOT of commercial software is NOT being written using that
> crap.
> Your point?

A lot IS, and a lot isn't.
YOUR point?

> > The only difference is that it's probably on the CD and installed without
> > you being aware.
>
> no it isn't.

Funny that I have a few then.

> > Then of course there is the fact that computer magazines often include it
> > free on their cover disks each month if you can't afford a 22MB download.
>
> culdn't care less. I don't use software from computer magazines.

And why should I should care what you choose to do?

> > Microsoft consider it a standard part of the Windows operating system these
> > days.
>
> And that is going to change my opinion of it because...?

And I should care what your opinion of it is because...?

> > Many choose to use Linux instead of course, the choice is yours.
>
> Indeed. as well as many other options, including Windoze *without*
> dotnot.

Exactly, YOU have the choice, why bitch about it then?

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Noons - 31 Jan 2007 04:41 GMT

> A lot IS, and a lot isn't.
> YOUR point?

that YOU don't have a point

> Funny that I have a few then.

probably...

> And why should I should care what you choose to do?

don't ask me, you should know: after all, YOU replied.

> And I should care what your opinion of it is because...?

... you are replying to me?

> Exactly, YOU have the choice, why bitch about it then?

because it is my choice to bitch. Ain't it obvious?

:-)

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 31 Jan 2007 06:57 GMT

> > Exactly, YOU have the choice, why bitch about it then?
>
> because it is my choice to bitch. Ain't it obvious?
> :-)

Yep, there isn't anything else in your post.

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Jad - 29 Jan 2007 02:07 GMT

> > Has anyone managed to install the software?
> I've tried on two separate PC's and the installer reports an error
> before completing that a software component did not finish as expected
> and the installation is aborted.
> I suspect the real name for the product is Microsoft Photo Info Beta.

Had the same problem - almost finishes the install, then an error.

Looks like will have to wait for v1.1

Reply to this Message

Rob - 29 Jan 2007 02:33 GMT

>>>Has anyone managed to install the software?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Looks like will have to wait for v1.1

Takes a while before it finishes. I didn't have any errors coming up tho.

Reply to this Message