In a message dated 11/19/2003 5:33:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, bowsersa@pa.net writes: > I'm sure a modern digital camera would give the best results for still > pictures. > Trying to get a picture of my grandparent's old barn is turning into a real challenge. We got a shot of the old barn with our new digital camera out of the family album on our visit to the farmhouse but it wasn't a very good one . . . the one captured on camcorder out of the album in 1992 was much better, but we couldn't find that particular one again during our visit unfortunately. Then the digital camera broke while we were on vacation. We had purchased it online through Cosco in April, so we were able to take it back and get all our money back. We also had to return the memory card that came with it but they had to erase the pictures off of it. Then we turned around and bought the upgrade (5 mega pixal) with a lens protector and a clip on looped rope handle to carry it with rather than the case to slip it in. So we'll see how this one lasts. We used the other one extensively -- about 200 photos from April to October. Used the viewer and magnification a lot too. Since my cataract surgery in June, I can't make out the photos on the viewer without the magnification. All of that worked great . . . and the battery held up real well (we carried the docking station with us though to keep it charged). I will be undergoing the second cataract procedure in Dec/Jan. Then maybe in another month, I can get reading glasses that work! I've been using my computer glasses and a magnifying glass to read small print. I had the PRK (laser correction of my nearsightedness) done about 6 years ago so that I could see without contacts. They undercorrected my right eye so that I wouldn't need reading glasses right away. Six months later the inner lens started going and I had to get reading glasses . . . then night driving glasses . . . then computer glasses with anti glare and after that, a pair of transitionals so I would have all the corrections plus sunglasses. You can imagine how frustrating it was to find out that after all that investment that I was starting to develop cataracts. This too shall pass. I consider myself very fortunate and that I can see very well for the most part. I'm the eye surgeon's first PRK patient that had the PRK procedure . . . I guess I'm a trendsetter ;o) They said I'm on the young side of having cataracts (it's in our genes), and because I'm still very active, the insurance will cover the removal in the earlier stages. Lucky me. Lois Hetrick Stewart

Hi Lois: I guess I'm just plain lucky that so far I only need glasses for reading, close up, and working with small stuff. I had a monitor go out on the old computer about a month ago. I have the computers packed into a small space, and the normal monitors stick out so far in the back I hardly have room for them between them and the wall behind them. It's handy in a way, because I work extensively with census CD disks, and I usually have 1900 & 1880 on the newer computer on the screen directly in front of me; and 1870 & 1860 (or 1850) on the old computer, so it's easy to move between the 4 disks. The census screens are pretty hard on the eyes, I think; so I decided to get one of the flat screens. Walmart in Chambersburg had one for $349 for a 17" diagonal; way down from what they were a year or two ago. (Early this week we got a Walmart flyer in the mail advertising the same monitor at "the everyday low price" of $398.) This was a KDS RAD 7 model. I thought it might be a little easier on the eyes, and would fit better in the limited space I have, so I bought it. I think it might be a little easier on the eyes. The best thing is still just to get up and walk away after a short time. After I got it home and looked it over I found a couple of other advantages. It runs off of a 9 volt transformer instead of 120V, so electric consumption is way down, which is a bonus for us, because out here in the country we pay double for electricity what people pay in town. Also, they say radiation emissions are just about nil; no doubt due to the lower electrical consumption. I think that's probably a worthwhile advantage; maybe the radiation factor isn't good for the eyes either, I don't know. The monitor came with speakers built in the sides. They're tinny, tiny little speakers. I would rather have one without the speakers and use standard speakers if I listened to CD's while working on the computer, but I seldom do, so that's not a big deal. I hooked this thing up last Friday morning. When Windows came up it asked me if I wanted to search the internet for a device driver, so I went ahead and left it do it. The driver installed ok and the screen came up fine. The Windows sounds (.WAV) played (which I had turned off before), but when I tried to play an audio CD it wouldn't play; so I though 'now what'; do I need a new driver for the CD, or what? You can just about count on something not working right any time you install a new piece of equipment, and it's always going to be not having the proper driver. So I had that much figured out, but I was still stumped as to what was going on, because the CD was playing and working properly; just no sound coming out of the monitor speakers and I got an error message saying the .ACD file extension (Audio CD) was not a recognized format. Just by dumb luck I guess, I decided to check for an upgrade for Windows Media Payer. Windows told me it was "highly suggested" I upgrade to Media Player 7; which I did. A one hour download. They said WMP 9 was available, but would only work with Windows XP. I still run '98. The monitor speakers worked ok after I upgraded to version 7. So last Sat. morning I decided to upgrade the old computer to version 7 also. When I went online to do that, Sat. morning, lo & behold they had a Version 9 for Win 98; which I swear wasn't there the day before. Another 1 hour + download. Then I went back and also upgraded the other computer (again) to Version 9. Anyway, that's my story. Maybe it will help if you decide to go for a flat screen. Sam TRPLUS@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/19/2003 5:33:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, > bowsersa@pa.net writes: > > > I'm sure a modern digital camera would give the best results for still > > pictures. > > > Trying to get a picture of my grandparent's old barn is turning into a real > challenge. > > We got a shot of the old barn with our new digital camera out of the family > album on our visit to the farmhouse but it wasn't a very good one . . . the one > captured on camcorder out of the album in 1992 was much better, but we > couldn't find that particular one again during our visit unfortunately. Then the > digital camera broke while we were on vacation. > > We had purchased it online through Cosco in April, so we were able to take it > back and get all our money back. We also had to return the memory card that > came with it but they had to erase the pictures off of it. Then we turned > around and bought the upgrade (5 mega pixal) with a lens protector and a clip on > looped rope handle to carry it with rather than the case to slip it in. So we'll > see how this one lasts. We used the other one extensively -- about 200 photos > from April to October. Used the viewer and magnification a lot too. Since my > cataract surgery in June, I can't make out the photos on the viewer without > the magnification. All of that worked great . . . and the battery held up real > well (we carried the docking station with us though to keep it charged). > > I will be undergoing the second cataract procedure in Dec/Jan. Then maybe in > another month, I can get reading glasses that work! I've been using my > computer glasses and a magnifying glass to read small print. I had the PRK (laser > correction of my nearsightedness) done about 6 years ago so that I could see > without contacts. They undercorrected my right eye so that I wouldn't need reading > glasses right away. Six months later the inner lens started going and I had > to get reading glasses . . . then night driving glasses . . . then computer > glasses with anti glare and after that, a pair of transitionals so I would have > all the corrections plus sunglasses. You can imagine how frustrating it was to > find out that after all that investment that I was starting to develop > cataracts. This too shall pass. I consider myself very fortunate and that I can see > very well for the most part. I'm the eye surgeon's first PRK patient that had > the PRK procedure . . . I guess I'm a trendsetter ;o) They said I'm on the > young side of having cataracts (it's in our genes), and because I'm still very > active, the insurance will cover the removal in the earlier stages. Lucky me. > > Lois Hetrick Stewart > > ==== MDGARRET Mailing List ==== > If you need help with this list, make sure to email the list administrator, Carol Hepburn, at chepburn@cox.net.