350D not recognized on Vista??

The_Caper · Nov 17, 2007

Good day all:

I bought a new laptop with windows Vista. I went out today on a hike and took a few shots. When I plugged the USB cable in to my laptop from my 350D it said software was not there and to insert my EOS CD. I did and it could not locate the proper driver??

So it sent me on line to the canon site to download the windows Vista driver which happens to be 6.0.0. I downloaded the driver and it is still not recognizing my Camera? The box opens asking me which program I want to use to download the pictures, Eos utility for example but when I click on the program to download the pictures it keeps saying camera not recognized or no pictures found in device depending on which option I pick to download the pictures.

Anyone else experience this problem?

Thanks for any help out there.

Paul.

usayit · Nov 17, 2007

yeh.. vista is bad...

BUT

the workaround is to use a card ready to read the photos off of your compact flash directly. Its probably easier and faster than connecting your camera directly.

Garbz · Nov 17, 2007

Nikon had the same issue with their software. Just because the latest camera drivers are installed doesn't mean their software works with it, so update to the latest software too.

On a side note I am not sure how canon's work but the Nikons give the option of connecting to the computer via USB p-p mode or USB Mass Storage device mode. The latter should be universally accepted in any computer and not need drivers so if you can set it in that mode.

The difference is the camera will appear as a removable disk drive instead of an image acquisition device.

Mike_E · Nov 17, 2007

Pull vista out by it's throat and replace it with XP or something with a Penguin.

Pirate · Nov 20, 2007

I have Vista Premium and had a similar problem, I did the download to no avail, I gave up. Then I rebooted and I've had no problem since then. I use Zoombrowser for the downloads, and I have an xt and an xti

nossie · Nov 20, 2007

Vista64 on a QuadDuo with 4GB fast ram: mmmmmmmhhmmmmm sure is a good thang. Cry your eyes out bidchis coz it works 100% for me :pimp:

Sideburns · Nov 20, 2007

Pirate said:
I have Vista Premium and had a similar problem, I did the download to no avail, I gave up. Then I rebooted and I've had no problem since then. I use Zoombrowser for the downloads, and I have an xt and an xti

No kidding....lol.

You NEED to restart. That's why it tells you to any time you install software on your windows computer.

Also, for what reason people expect things on Vista to work like they did on XP is beyond me...
I don't take my XP games and try and run them on OS X do I? They're completely different operating systems, and therefore you need to install new drivers, and software....and yes...you need to restart before it'll work.

nossie said:
Vista64 on a QuadDuo with 4GB fast ram: mmmmmmmhhmmmmm sure is a good thang. Cry your eyes out bidchis coz it works 100% for me

I'm not crying...
I am perfectly content with knowing that I actually know what any of that means...unlike you who doesn't even know the name of his processor...and calls ram "fast" lol.

nossie · Nov 20, 2007

Sideburns said:
Also, for what reason people expect things on Vista to work like they did on XP is beyond me...
I don't take my XP games and try and run them on OS X do I? They're completely different operating systems, and therefore you need to install new drivers, and software....and yes...you need to restart before it'll work.

You should because in many cases they are backward compatible, in particular on Vista32. In some cases a patch maybe needed because of how certain systems are handled such as the graphics etc but WHO needs to care about that so long as you know that your good old XP software will in most cases run on Vista right? Well apart from YOU I mean?

Sideburns said:
I'm not crying...
I am perfectly content with knowing that I actually know what any of that means...unlike you who doesn't even know the name of his processor...and calls ram "fast" lol.

Right well I'm obviously dealing with what the Irish call a "gobshyte". Probably an envious gobshyte at that. Now it's common enough on the web to see the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz to be referred to as a duoQuad or a QuadDuo. Only a Gobshyte would split hairs on that one, hence you being called a gobshyte! (normally with an i).

Fast RAM refers to the latency timings of the actual chips on the RAM. These numbers refer to how many cycles it takes for the RAM to be accessed. As CPU clock speeds matter then one should also think so does the speed of the RAM since one wouldn't want to waste CPU clock ticks waiting on the RAM. Now RAM such as the OCZ 2GB PC2-8500 Reaper with latency timings of 5-5-5-15 running at 1066MHz as opposed to let's say your typical DDR333MHz crap that you'd have in your cheapo DELL would be considered "FAST" RAM. Further to that higher grade products as mentioned can also be overclocked to gain even more performance. These higher grade products tend to be better built and therefor instead of costing 10bucks per GB they'll cost more like 150. All of that explanation (and lots more besides that I wouldn't waste on a gobshyte) can be compressed down to simply be called "FAST RAM".
Would you expect someone to explain what a turbo charged car was everytime the referred to it? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you pulled me on that. Gettit? Do I need to break it down a bit more for you? Still laughing? Gobshyte!

Incidentally here's the full spec and I assure you I know exactly what it all means since I hand picked it myself...
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 95W G0 Stepping
4 GB of OCZ 2GB PC2-8500 Reaper HPC 1066MHz, CL 5-5-5-15
Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6 Socket 775 Motherboard iP35 Express, S 775, PCI-E(x16), DDR2 1066/533/667/800, SATA II, SATA RAID, ATX
Asus Extreme 8800GT 512MB
C: 2 x 160GB in RAID1 ( 1 maxtor + 1 seagate)
D: 3 x 500GB in RAID5 (1 maxtor+ 1 seagate + 1 w/digital)
E : ASUS Quiettrack DVD RW
Xilence 1000W Modular PSU
All snuggled together in a lovely new CoolerMaster 832
And it sits under my little ol' DELL 30"
but here's the kicker... Vista64 runs flawlessly on it and it's gooooood! It's sooooo goooood!!

jstuedle · Nov 20, 2007

Gee, are we bragging now? Hmmmmm. And I thought that job was the sole domain of the Mac and Cheese'rs

Raw processor speed should have little to do with compatibility as long as it meets the OS publishers recommendations. I myself am no fan of Mr. Softie but use his products to run on my hardware of choice. I actually prefer WIN2000 to XP or Vista. Unfortunately support for that OS is dwindling. Our newest laptop has Vista on it and is full of bugs. Maybe Mr. Gates should have waited another 5 or so years to get the bugs out.

As an aside, why mix HD brands in RAID arrays? Not logical to this old hard headed German.

But none of this is answering the original question by T-C. Bottom line, yes. Many of use have had issues with Vista and hopefully someone will have a solution for you. I assume you rebooted and still have the issue. I waited almost a year after Vistas intro and still see issues frequently. Sorry to hijack your thread and offer little help for your specific problem.

Sideburns · Nov 20, 2007

nossie said:
You should because in many cases they are backward compatible, in particular on Vista32. In some cases a patch maybe needed because of how certain systems are handled such as the graphics etc but WHO needs to care about that so long as you know that your good old XP software will in most cases run on Vista right? Well apart from YOU I mean?

Right well I'm obviously dealing with what the Irish call a "gobshyte". Probably an envious gobshyte at that. Now it's common enough on the web to see the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz to be referred to as a duoQuad or a QuadDuo. Only a Gobshyte would split hairs on that one, hence you being called a gobshyte! (normally with an i).

Fast RAM refers to the latency timings of the actual chips on the RAM. These numbers refer to how many cycles it takes for the RAM to be accessed. As CPU clock speeds matter then one should also think so does the speed of the RAM since one wouldn't want to waste CPU clock ticks waiting on the RAM. Now RAM such as the OCZ 2GB PC2-8500 Reaper with latency timings of 5-5-5-15 running at 1066MHz as opposed to let's say your typical DDR333MHz crap that you'd have in your cheapo DELL would be considered "FAST" RAM. Further to that higher grade products as mentioned can also be overclocked to gain even more performance. These higher grade products tend to be better built and therefor instead of costing 10bucks per GB they'll cost more like 150. All of that explanation (and lots more besides that I wouldn't waste on a gobshyte) can be compressed down to simply be called "FAST RAM".
Would you expect someone to explain what a turbo charged car was everytime the referred to it? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you pulled me on that. Gettit? Do I need to break it down a bit more for you? Still laughing? Gobshyte!

Incidentally here's the full spec and I assure you I know exactly what it all means since I hand picked it myself...
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 95W G0 Stepping
4 GB of OCZ 2GB PC2-8500 Reaper HPC 1066MHz, CL 5-5-5-15
Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6 Socket 775 Motherboard iP35 Express, S 775, PCI-E(x16), DDR2 1066/533/667/800, SATA II, SATA RAID, ATX
Asus Extreme 8800GT 512MB
C: 2 x 160GB in RAID1 ( 1 maxtor + 1 seagate)
D: 3 x 500GB in RAID5 (1 maxtor+ 1 seagate + 1 w/digital)
E : ASUS Quiettrack DVD RW
Xilence 1000W Modular PSU
All snuggled together in a lovely new CoolerMaster 832
And it sits under my little ol' DELL 30"
but here's the kicker... Vista64 runs flawlessly on it and it's gooooood! It's sooooo goooood!!

LMFAO!

I'm getting preached to about computers. Pal...do not educate me. I was simply saying what you said was wrong. QuadDuo is simply incorrect.

Core2Quad is the only term used online other than by you.

Now I'm sure you didn't know this...but I am also Sideburns on Overclock.net. 8000 posts and 600 Rep. Being there for 2 years or so and doing many hardware/software mods and at one point having the highest 3dmark06 score on the site with a voltmodded and overclocked 7900GT and an opteron dual core with heatspreader removed...

I obviously know your computer is fast...but envious? Sorry, no.

Also, I know all about "fast" ram. TCCD ring any bells? Geil ONE?
1.5-2-2-5 @ 200 and 2.5-4-3-6 at 310. Ahh the good old days.

I was not trying to be douchecake-ish at all in my post...but if you're going to be whipping out the big guns...perhaps make sure you're not dealing with someone who knows even more than yourself.

Let's please go back to the actual topic of the post...

Just because YOU think Vista should be backwards compatible...doesn't mean EVERYTHING is.
I don't know if you've ever changed from 95 or 98 to XP when that all happened...but almost half of the stuff on the old windows wouldn't transfer over. Same with windows 3.1 to 95...which I also had lots of grief with...
There's always ways to do it, sure...but dont' expect old software to work forever.

I was trying to be helpful....sorry if it got lost in translation to Irish. lol

PS - Vista is fine...but I do still use XP. It still works for me...and until they make a bunch of Direct X 10 games...I'm perfectly fine with spending my money on lenses instead of Vista and other computer hardware I want.

Buszaj · Nov 20, 2007

what massive programs r u running at the same time that u need 4GB of RAM?

Sideburns · Nov 20, 2007

Buszaj said:
what massive programs r u running at the same time that u need 4GB of RAM?

No regular program needs 4gb of ram.
Photoshop and Maya could both use that much if you tried...but.

I'm not going to say he doesn't need it...cause he might. But industry is moving that way right now, so investing in 4gb is not a horrible idea...though maybe a tad premature (and in the world of computers...it could be the norm in ~1 year maybe)...so not that far off.

However, most of it will go unused. The only downside with ram, is that if you want more than 2gb..you basically have to go to 4gb to keep the dual channel capability of having an even number of sticks...they don't make 1.5gb sticks so you could have 3gb. Losing dual channel means your bandwidth is dropped.

So it's kind of like 1gb, 2gb, 4gb...that's your options if you care about bleeding edge performance...

So, he may not be using even 3gb...which is probably accurate...but he has it for when games come out and apps come out that realize people have massive quantities of ram now...

For reference...I have 1gb of ram on the computer I'm currently sitting at...and this is the one I do all my photoshop work on without any slowdown...so you could imagine how much you'd have to be doing to load up all 4gb.

Buszaj · Nov 20, 2007

i guess...

monkeykoder · Nov 20, 2007

Penguins are great for running your computers... I always get annoyed when I have to run that operating system that keeps trying to tell me what to do and that I should PAY for it.

nossie · Nov 21, 2007

jstuedle said:
Gee, are we bragging now?...

As an aside, why mix HD brands in RAID arrays? Not logical to this old hard headed German.

Bragging no not really, just a bit of a pissing contest with Sideburns to tone down his snide LOL @ people.
The 2nd question and in fact all other questions I'm surprised to find that Sideburns hasn't answered for you on my behalf but we'll deal with that in a mo. Harddrive manufacturers put a life expectancy on particular product. So let's just say for simplicity that Seagate HD lasts 3 years, w/digital 4 years, maxtor 5 years. RAID5 in my configuration will recover from a single harddrive failure without loss if one drive fails. So the idea is that if I had 2x seagate drives they would both fail at 3 years resulting in data loss. Also a series of drives might have a run of faulty controller boards/ motors etc so you are also avoiding having problems from the same batch.

Buszaj said:
what massive programs r u running at the same time that u need 4GB of RAM?

What about redundancy people? Usually there is no single app that's gonna strain the pc. I do a very small mount of video work (planning to do more) but mostly the biggest app I'll run is Photoshop & friends. Open 1 full res photo, add a few layers, make a few changes, fill up the undo buffer and it's not long before it's a Gig just for 1 photo. Add to that the hungry OS, a bunch of services, drivers and fonts and it's not long before you're up to 2 Gig. I'm surprised that gobshyte didn't explain to you that all the fonts in the fonts folder are loaded into memory at startup, so if you do some graphic design work on the PC you're probably gonna have a range of fonts all taking a pinch of memory.
4 GB is typically luxury. It drastically cuts down on the harddrive pagefile accessing. Also the CPU accesses the last free register, so if I open MS Word do something and close it, continue working in PS and then reopen word, it is still in the memory and opens instantly because the CPU leaves that area of memory alone until it needs it.
Also I make my living on this pc so a part of the thinking (you've seen with the harddrive choices) when choosing the 4 x 1GB sticks is to provide redundancy which has already paid off. 1 GB stick of RAM died on me so I had to remove 2 sticks for return because it came in packs of 2. Currently I'm running on 2GB and there is only a tiny bit of drop in performance. You wouldn't notice it unless you'd been running the 4gb for a few weeks as I was. During fault finding, running the pc on 1GB was nasty, a lot slower with lots of harddrive grinding.

By the way, the CPU rarely peaks over 50% either but it is nice to work on all day. I squeezed 9 years out of my last pc before it went toes up and since I'm making my living from this one so I think it's ok that I have a little comfort when working with it for 10ish hours everyday.

I hope that's enough on that.

Now for this little puppy...

I am also Sideburns on Overclock.net. 8000 posts and 600 Rep

and also the Sideburns on TPF with less than 1000 posts so I assume that you don't know much about photography then as you do know about PCs?! Strange reckoning that, isn't it? Someone who talks the most on a forum knows the most. Hehe a self made professor in the virtual world. You're also the sideburns that was posting links to another selfmade professor that blogged qoutes such as "It's time Bill Gates realised that Microsoft must bow to the Mac" or some such unsubstaciated diatribe.

and at one point having the highest 3dmark06 score on the site

Speaks volumes about your greatness!! What was I thinking when you were writing those LOLs and LMFAOs? How dare I question your teenagerish omnipotance. Can this be translated into photography? Can I say that the fella with the most expensive lens is the king photographer? Or what about a benchmark that combined the number of posts with the camera kit to produce a User that shall not be questioned?

Also, I know all about "fast" ram.

but you said it's not called FAST RAM. Aren't you going to take this moment to correct me?!

I was not trying to be douchecake-ish at all in my post

I think trying to laugh at people with your "superior" knowledge, winning benchmark and amazing number of posts behind you is very "douchecake-ish" I might even give you a promotion to "Douchebag" for it. You have notions in your head that you know the most about something and now you're laughing at others - Douchebag!

Then there's your back tracking...
Quote 1

Also, for what reason people expect things on Vista to work like they did on XP is beyond me...

Quote 2

Just because YOU think Vista should be backwards compatible...doesn't mean EVERYTHING is

but some are right? so it's not beyond reason to expect "things" to run on Vista right? I mean I'm personally stumped how my Adobe CS2 works on Vista64, my MS Dev studio 2005 works on Vista64, my Canon software that came with the 350d works on Vista64. I guess the people in Adobe, Canon, Microsoft and so on must have more posts than you on overclocker.net. And they really really know what they're talking about.

I don't know if you've ever changed from 95 or 98 to XP when that all happened...but almost half of the stuff on the old windows wouldn't transfer over. Same with windows 3.1 to 95...which I also had lots of grief with...
There's always ways to do it, sure...but dont' expect old software to work forever.

Are you old enough to remember? I'm playing Transport Tycoon on Vista64 - It's a DOS game Douchebag!! I bought it when I had a 486dx running Widows 3.1. DOOM will run on Vista64. What part of backward compatibility do you not get at this point? I had to patch it to get it to work but I can live with that. Ever hear about DirectX? Do you know what it does? Think about it!

Gobshyte! (FYI "Gob" is an Irish reference to mouth/ shyte would normally be spelled with an i)

BACK to the original post:
Sorry for the Hi-jack but bad manners and filthy arogance tempts me in.
I suggest you use windows update to try and fix your problem, also trawl the Microsoft Knowledge base. In most cases you can expect that you are not the first to experience this problem and there probably are fixes out there already. Good Luck!