# Testing a webcam in XP



## Smallville (Jul 9, 2005)

Hi everyone, 

I have an Intel CS430 webcam that I've been trying to use with XP. The software that came with it, Create and Share, wasn't for use with XP, but Intel tech support says that XP should have all the drivers built in to use this camera without needing the software. 

My question to anyone who can help is how to actually use the camera without the software, and how can you tell if the camera is working at all? When I plugged it into the usb port, the camera was recognized, but there's no place I can see to test the camera out. To make matters worse, when I did try the cam out on a Win 98 system, the software seemed to work ok, but the camera output was just a series of lines and colors. It looks very much like a tv that is going out. How can I tell if it is the camera at fault, or if it is something else entirely? Intel no longer provides support for this camera. Anyone here had this problem before? Help would be very appreciated. I'm stumped!


----------



## tumbler (Jun 12, 2005)

if the camera is working, you'll see it under the control panel > system > hardware > device manager as a usb entry. I would install drivers for it, then plug it in and XP should allocate those drivers to it.


----------



## Johnny Faster (Apr 25, 2005)

*Also...*

I wouldn't just assume that because the (if I read your post right) application software for the camera wasn't made FOR WinXP that it won't run under it.

That MAY have been what the Tech was telling you. In short, you may need more than just WinXP's "drivers" to run the thing; you also need to install and run the software that came with it.

Which may be a bit involved. If it fails to run "straight", you can modify the executible to to run in (what's it called..) "emulated" mode or whatever. Basically you tell XP to run the program as if XP was Win98, or whatever...


There's a third option. Some folks are nice enough (and knowldegable enough) to find "workaround" solutions to running programs under O/S's that they were not built for. For example, I am running a game called "Fallout" that wasn't designed for XP OR 2000 under 2000 by just modifying one of the installation files and installing manually, rather than letting Windows do it automatically.

This type of information can be found in Discussion Forums and sometimes at the software manufacturer's web-site by doing a (Google) word search which inlcudes the name of the O/S and the name of the application.

Example: Using search-words "Win2000 Fallout" might result in links to web-sites with either discusion forum posts or FAQ's that provide information on how to run the game "Fallout" under "Win2000".


----------



## merichardson (Jul 31, 2005)

I have a similar problem. I have an Intel CS630 webcam. Windows XP does not recognize it as a webcam. It only sees it as a digital camera. I can take pictures and download them but can't use the video side of it at all. It worked up until I installed SP2. I've done too much since then to roll back. Any suggestions?


----------



## Johnny Faster (Apr 25, 2005)

*Suggestion...*

You have a much higher likelihood of getting technically superior advise by starting your own thread. The newest threads get read first, and the most active threads get read most often.

Also, pay close attention to how you title the thread. Wailing "HEEEEELLLPPP" isn't going to attract the attention of a highly qualified "tech" interested in a challenge. Also, HOW you ask the question indicates both your level of intelligence and motivation. Stupid and lazy people do not arouse the interest of helpful and technically qualified people.

So, opening your post like

"erm... like I wuz gaming in my favorite site and ZAM like the colors on my action hero dimmed to the point where I couldn't fiddle with my RAM. Or watever..."

Isn't going to encourage a serious participant to help you. These problems can be very involved and take a significant amount of time to troubleshoot. The only "payoff" is when the problem is solved (a shared goal with the User).

If the User proves themself to be to stupid to help themself, it makes no sense to waste time on them only to fail to help them. So motivation to help themselves is MOST important, and either intelligence or (at the very least) a sincere desire to learn.

Finally, never give up. That's something you can do all by yourself, and is an absolute essential when learning about computers "on the fly" and in real-time.


----------



## merichardson (Jul 31, 2005)

Thank you for the advice Johnny but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for. 

I'm not a newbie. I predate the commercial introduction of MS-DOS and got my start using a teletype and punch cards. Being technically qualified myself, albeit not in the intricacies of Windows XP and especially not SP2, I felt it was safe to skip the story and just state the facts. I was hoping some "qualified tech" would have seen this problem before and possibly have some experience to share. 

As far as being motivated and not lazy, I have done plenty of searching through forums and have seen this problem many times before but have never seen a good answer. In fact, the only answer I have ever seen is "get a new webcam" which is not an acceptable answer. That is on the order of getting a new car because you don't know how to change the radio station on the old one. 

As for starting my own thread, why do that when this one seems somewhat appropriate and my post directly relates to the previous post? I don't know about you but it annoys me to have to sift through dozens and dozens of VERY similar threads that rightfully should have been constrained to one.

I think my BS and MS in Comp Sci and my 19 years in the field would indicate that I am not "learning about computers on the fly". Granted, you wouldn't know about my experience but, on the other hand, I don't know what your experience is either.

So .... if you can offer a pointer to the answer or at least a pointer to the path to the answer, I would greatly appreciate it. Your lecture was a good one but was wasted on me.


----------



## Johnny Faster (Apr 25, 2005)

*Wasted....*

LOL, you are right it was wasted. Lemme say it a different way. Forum Rules prohibit having two separate conversations regarding two problems in the same thread. This is not a "conversation" Forum, it is a Technical Troubleshooting forum, and the Rule is "One problem, One Thread". Having more than one User's problem being discussed simultaneously confuses both issues and takes attention away from the Thread Initiator's problem.

It's called "Thread Hijacking" here. And "Smallville's" Thread has been Hijacked by you, despite all your degrees, credentials and years of experience. Guess it kinda shows we can all learn something. I would have thought that someone with as large an education as yourself might have at least read the Stickies, like everyone else does.



> As for starting my own thread, why do that when this one seems somewhat appropriate and my post directly relates to the previous post? I don't know about you but it annoys me to have to sift through dozens and dozens of VERY similar threads that rightfully should have been constrained to one.


It's good reasoning, and in part I agree with you. Obviously your experience has been with forums that are "built" on this model. One reason why I am active on THIS forum, and not most of the others that are run this way, is that it really is all about the individual thread start and their problem. There's no guarantee that people will pay attention to you here, nor that your problem will be solved, but this rule you have violated DOES guarantee that at least the thread and it's topic is ALL yours. It also makes it easier for Techs to follow the Thread Initiator's problem, and also remember the background of the Thread Initiator's situation, as these threads can sometimes run on for days or even weeks.

Further, your reasoning is predicated on the notion that you (or another User) is qualified to make the technical determination that your (or their) problem is the "same" or "similar" as someone else's. And your not qualified to make that determination and risk the "continuity" of someone else's thread, despite your degrees and experience. And discovering your (or someone else's) lack of qualification degrades the quality of assistance given to the Thread Initiator. And a confused, convoluted thread degrades the "Tech's" motivation as well, and most-often BOTH problems go unresolved.

So,

Start your own thread, Title it well, ask your questions clearly and do just about everything else I or other qualified people suggest and I guarantee your problem will get solved, eventually. Bring an attitude and act like you somehow deserve to be "catered to" and I also guarantee you that people that know what you need to know will ignore you with malice.


----------



## merichardson (Jul 31, 2005)

Touche ... LOL I guess the old rule of not replying to posts when you are tired and cranky is there for a good reason. Sorry!

Anyway, I'm not hijacking since my situation and Smallville's are almost identical. We just have different models of Intel webcams. 

My webcam was originally on a Win98 system where it worked. I did have some problems like Smallville with the lines and so on. It's been several years but I seem to remember reinstalling a few times before it worked since Win98 was pretty flaky. I switched the webcam to a new WinXP PC and it worked with Microsoft's drivers until SP2 was applied. Since then zilch except for the photo download part. The Intel software is nothing more than a collection of utilities that aren't required and there are much better utilities available elsewhere.

If Smallville is running WinXP with SP2, then our problems are the same and it has something to do with what SP2 did .. most probably closing a port or changing some security setting since SP2 also killed my home network right away (thank God for routers with MAC cloning). I fixed the network but unfortunately I haven't found the webcam answer yet on my own or in any of the other forums I have visited. 

So again ... if you can offer a pointer to the answer or at least a pointer to the path to the answer, I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## volito (Jul 30, 2005)

Johnny Faster said:


> You have a much higher likelihood of getting technically superior advise by starting your own thread. The newest threads get read first, and the most active threads get read most often.
> 
> Also, pay close attention to how you title the thread. Wailing "HEEEEELLLPPP" isn't going to attract the attention of a highly qualified "tech" interested in a challenge. Also, HOW you ask the question indicates both your level of intelligence and motivation. Stupid and lazy people do not arouse the interest of helpful and technically qualified people.
> 
> ...



Well Said "needed to be quoted"


----------



## BMR777 (Apr 27, 2005)

How have you tested the camera on XP? If it is the drivers, have you uninstalled and reinstalled? Also, have you tried using the video part of the camera in a program such as the Windows Movie Maker? If it works in Movie Maker it should be ok.

BMR777


----------



## V0lt (Sep 14, 2002)

Johnny, chill out. It's not the end of the world that a month old thread gets hijacked. And there's no reason to be condescending about it. Either give the advice or ignore the thread, don't give with one hand and take with the other.


----------



## Johnny Faster (Apr 25, 2005)

*Infinite Time*

One of the advantages of having a (what I like to call) "Time Sense" is a healthy patience. And, when presented with a choice betweein the "hard" issue of a Technical Problem and the "soft" issue of Interpersonal Friction, it is an interesting exersize to observe the choices people make when they have the opportunity to respond to one or the other.

In a Technical Forum, one would assume that the Technical Issues would predominate, and the Interpersonal Issues would go ignored to the greatest extent possible.

For me and my "development" as a person that tries to help people solve their Technical Issues, one of the biggest challenges has been to not get caught up in the Interpersonal Issues and stay focused on the Technical, and it is even more difficult for me when Users seem to be deteremined to stay focused on the Interpersonal Issues, at the expense of their own Technical problems.

But the MOST difficult situation for me is when people who (at least ought to be) "experienced" enough to have this awareness, choose instead to allow Users and their preoccupation with Interpersonal Friction to influence their responses. They lend credibility to the notion that what is happening here is a personal dispute, rather than two completely separate Technical Issues, one of which should be being addressed somewhere else.



> And a confused, convoluted thread degrades the "Tech's" motivation as well, and most-often BOTH problems go unresolved.


Here is a good example of that. Despite the Interpersonal contortions and opinionating, neither of these Technical problems seems to have been resolved.

Finally, I would like to make a comment regarding the "bad news". Sometimes the bad news is that the User has a broken piece of hardware, or corrupt data. Sometimes the bad news is that the User has habits that cause computer problems, like failing to provide adequate malware protection, bad surfing habits or doing risky things like over-clocking.

And sometimes the bad news is that the reason why the Technical Issue is not resolved is because the User has either asked the wrong question, asked the question badly, in the wrong place or has failed to provide adequate information. And, like a straightforward discussion about "1's and 0's" of software, or the voltages of hardware, having an honest discussion about how to better approach solving the technical problems can also be considered "Technical". There are better and worse ways to go about solving Technical problems, and some ways can be considered to be either right or wrong.

Failing to appreciate this is Technically WRONG, and rebuking the bearer of this "Bad News" on an Interpersonal level does not change that simple fact, no matter how "good" it may "feel" at the time.


----------

