Old Scanner/Software - New OS (XP)

[TR]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

I have a problem that someone on here might have come up against that
might be able to shine some light on which direction I need to take.

Current:
Windows 98SE
Visioneer 6100b Flatbed Scanner (5 years old)
ScanSoft Pro v7.0 (4 years old, retail up to 9.0 now)

I put the scanner and software on an XP machine and while it will run
the scanner fine for a preview, it will not run the scanner for a
scan.

Now, the problem is no doubt that either the scanner drivers or
ScanSoft Software v7.0 is not XP friendly. The Visioneer site has
driver upgrades but not specifically for XP (tried them and no joy).
The ScanSoft site does not support version 7.0 any longer and has no
FAQs as to XP compliance with versions prior to version 8.0. They
also do NOT offer a test drive release of their latest version.

I do not wish to buy a new scanner if it is only a scanning software
problem. With scansoft not offering a test drive release, then I am
not willing to shell out for new software if that is not the problem.

Anyone got any ideas or suggestions.

Regards,
TR

 

[Snoopy]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

You're probably SOL. Maybe you can dual boot to use the scanner with the
old software?


"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
news:4j4o701199ib0sel6h4pckp0brgukibi2d@4ax.com...
> I have a problem that someone on here might have come up against that
> might be able to shine some light on which direction I need to take.
>
> Current:
> Windows 98SE
> Visioneer 6100b Flatbed Scanner (5 years old)
> ScanSoft Pro v7.0 (4 years old, retail up to 9.0 now)
>
> I put the scanner and software on an XP machine and while it will run
> the scanner fine for a preview, it will not run the scanner for a
> scan.
>
> Now, the problem is no doubt that either the scanner drivers or
> ScanSoft Software v7.0 is not XP friendly. The Visioneer site has
> driver upgrades but not specifically for XP (tried them and no joy).
> The ScanSoft site does not support version 7.0 any longer and has no
> FAQs as to XP compliance with versions prior to version 8.0. They
> also do NOT offer a test drive release of their latest version.
>
> I do not wish to buy a new scanner if it is only a scanning software
> problem. With scansoft not offering a test drive release, then I am
> not willing to shell out for new software if that is not the problem.
>
> Anyone got any ideas or suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> TR
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
news:4j4o701199ib0sel6h4pckp0brgukibi2d@4ax.com...
> I have a problem that someone on here might have come up against that
> might be able to shine some light on which direction I need to take.
>
> Current:
> Windows 98SE
> Visioneer 6100b Flatbed Scanner (5 years old)
> ScanSoft Pro v7.0 (4 years old, retail up to 9.0 now)
>
> I put the scanner and software on an XP machine and while it will run
> the scanner fine for a preview, it will not run the scanner for a
> scan.
>
> Now, the problem is no doubt that either the scanner drivers or
> ScanSoft Software v7.0 is not XP friendly. The Visioneer site has
> driver upgrades but not specifically for XP (tried them and no joy).
> The ScanSoft site does not support version 7.0 any longer and has no
> FAQs as to XP compliance with versions prior to version 8.0. They
> also do NOT offer a test drive release of their latest version.
>
> I do not wish to buy a new scanner if it is only a scanning software
> problem. With scansoft not offering a test drive release, then I am
> not willing to shell out for new software if that is not the problem.
>
> Anyone got any ideas or suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> TR
>

I went through this scenario with a friend's Dell when I upgraded it from Me
to XP. Basically, if your Visioneer scanner does not have a USB port, you're
out of luck as far as XP is concerned.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to changes in the
underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go. This has happened time
and time and time again. With EVERY major new Windows release some devices are
made obsolete. This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes with
hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.

Just think what will happen in the year 2020 when your automobile has Windows
2015 running inside it, and you download and install the latest security fix for
the GPS controller or the latest Windows 2021. Oops! And the car crashes and
kills you. But YOU never read the End User Licensing Agreement which absolves
the manufacturer of the software of all responsibility. Tough luck.

It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows 95 also
worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben Myers

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:07:54 -0400, "Sideshow Bob"
<mergatroid@_nospam_.bigfoot.com> wrote:

>
>"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
>news:4j4o701199ib0sel6h4pckp0brgukibi2d@4ax.com...
>> I have a problem that someone on here might have come up against that
>> might be able to shine some light on which direction I need to take.
>>
>> Current:
>> Windows 98SE
>> Visioneer 6100b Flatbed Scanner (5 years old)
>> ScanSoft Pro v7.0 (4 years old, retail up to 9.0 now)
>>
>> I put the scanner and software on an XP machine and while it will run
>> the scanner fine for a preview, it will not run the scanner for a
>> scan.
>>
>> Now, the problem is no doubt that either the scanner drivers or
>> ScanSoft Software v7.0 is not XP friendly. The Visioneer site has
>> driver upgrades but not specifically for XP (tried them and no joy).
>> The ScanSoft site does not support version 7.0 any longer and has no
>> FAQs as to XP compliance with versions prior to version 8.0. They
>> also do NOT offer a test drive release of their latest version.
>>
>> I do not wish to buy a new scanner if it is only a scanning software
>> problem. With scansoft not offering a test drive release, then I am
>> not willing to shell out for new software if that is not the problem.
>>
>> Anyone got any ideas or suggestions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> TR
>>
>
>I went through this scenario with a friend's Dell when I upgraded it from Me
>to XP. Basically, if your Visioneer scanner does not have a USB port, you're
>out of luck as far as XP is concerned.
>
>

 

[TR]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Thanks to all three of you for your swift reply. That was what I was
afraid of.... I'm SOL.


On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:10:30 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:

>Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to changes in the
>underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go.

Then the reason the hardware producers didn't upgrade their existing
drivers to handle XP was so they could force you into having to buy
next version up in hardware, right? On other words, if it is a
hardware driver problem, then the simplest and cheapest thing (for the
consumer) would have been to make an XP driver for the old existing
hardware.

>This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
>to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes with
>hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.

Don't forget colluding with the government also because if you
remember, the MS vs. Government thing that was on the news every night
all of a sudden disappeared from view and almost nothing was said any
more about it except that the Gov and Bill reached some sort of
settlement. That "settlement" doesn't have the consumer's best
interest in mind one bit I'll bet you a bloody thin dime.

>It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows 95 also
>worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben Myers

Again, I don't think I can blame MS for that (even though I despise
MS) because I think the info was out there for all hardware
manufacturers so they could make driver updates for all their hardware
in order to make it XP compliant.

I think there is nothing wrong with my scanner's ability to operate
under XP except for the fact that Visioneer decided to not offer an XP
compliant driver for it so as to try and force me into purchasing a
newer scanner.

Because of that, I will be getting a newer scanner but NOT a
Visioneer. I am told that the older Canon and HP scanners (the ones
as old as my Visioneer) have XP upgraded drivers available so it looks
as if Canon and HP didn't pull the same trash on its clients as
Visioneer did thus..... One Lost Customer for Visioneer. No that
will not break Visioneer but I can be happy in the fact that I will be
personally responsible for their next quarter's books being around
$200 smaller than it could have been.

Regards,
TR

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

TR, Don't count on HP, as they left me high and dry with a $400+ paper
weight, er a, used to be a corporate sheet feed scanner! Others had the
same problems after going to XP.

Pat Conover
Remove *nospam* to e-mail me.
*nospam*patconover@comcast.net


"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
news:6rqo70phb08g863ug1oj7ha97p7ljndtfq@4ax.com...
>
> Thanks to all three of you for your swift reply. That was what I was
> afraid of.... I'm SOL.
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:10:30 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
> >Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to changes
in the
> >underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go.
>
> Then the reason the hardware producers didn't upgrade their existing
> drivers to handle XP was so they could force you into having to buy
> next version up in hardware, right? On other words, if it is a
> hardware driver problem, then the simplest and cheapest thing (for the
> consumer) would have been to make an XP driver for the old existing
> hardware.
>
> >This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
> >to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes with
> >hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.
>
> Don't forget colluding with the government also because if you
> remember, the MS vs. Government thing that was on the news every night
> all of a sudden disappeared from view and almost nothing was said any
> more about it except that the Gov and Bill reached some sort of
> settlement. That "settlement" doesn't have the consumer's best
> interest in mind one bit I'll bet you a bloody thin dime.
>
> >It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows 95
also
> >worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben Myers
>
> Again, I don't think I can blame MS for that (even though I despise
> MS) because I think the info was out there for all hardware
> manufacturers so they could make driver updates for all their hardware
> in order to make it XP compliant.
>
> I think there is nothing wrong with my scanner's ability to operate
> under XP except for the fact that Visioneer decided to not offer an XP
> compliant driver for it so as to try and force me into purchasing a
> newer scanner.
>
> Because of that, I will be getting a newer scanner but NOT a
> Visioneer. I am told that the older Canon and HP scanners (the ones
> as old as my Visioneer) have XP upgraded drivers available so it looks
> as if Canon and HP didn't pull the same trash on its clients as
> Visioneer did thus..... One Lost Customer for Visioneer. No that
> will not break Visioneer but I can be happy in the fact that I will be
> personally responsible for their next quarter's books being around
> $200 smaller than it could have been.
>
> Regards,
> TR

 

[TR]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:10:33 -0400, "Pat Conover"
<*nospam*patconover@comcast.net> wrote:

>TR, Don't count on HP, as they left me high and dry with a $400+ paper
>weight, er a, used to be a corporate sheet feed scanner! Others had the
>same problems after going to XP.

Thanks for the info Pat..... I guess we all must be vigilant in this
as we must all remember that we are less than 2 years away from M$'s
next level of OS hitting the streets (Longhorn). I don't want to have
to throw everything I buy between now and then away again because of
an OS upgrade.

Now, some will say that if I am that concerned about having to buy all
new again, then just don't upgrade the OS. Believe me, I fought going
from 98SE to XP as hard as I could and thank goodness I never got
caught up in M$'s Windows ME Abortion. But, I took a liking to XP
which came on my GW 450 Laptop. The 4 year old GW Desktop had 98SE
and could not be upgraded to XP because of some hardware limitations
(there's that problem again) that would have to be addressed.

Sooooo, I put a crowbar in my wallet yesterday and pried it open far
enough to squeeze enough green out to have what I consider a righteous
system built on a local level by a reputable local builder. I'm
finished with these bulk box assemblers like GW and Dell. And I will
not have to talk to someone from Outer Mongolia that doesn't have a
clue except for what's on their prompt screen if I need tech support.
Tech support will be a mile from here and FACE TO FACE!

Anyway, that is the reason I was trying to see if there would be any
way to use that existing scanner that was used with the old GW 98SE
system on the new system.

Now the question will be for anyone willing to jump in here:

What Manufacturer has the best track record of driver support for
their scanners, ie. supports older scanner models back in time the
farthest with new drivers compliant with newer OS's?

And..... as alluded to before, I assume a USB scanner will remain
compliant longer than a parallel fed scanner, right?

Regards,
TR

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Your best hope is with one of the companies that still makes its own
scanners - Epson makes its own,
and so do Microtek and for the most part, Canon (though Canon has been known
to drop support for scanners needing updated OS drivers).

HP is a marketing company - its scanners and printers are made by
contractors (not unlike Dell, which contracts its printers out to Lexmark
and Samsung).

When you consider that you can get a good scanner for $100-150, and that a
full copy of Microsoft office costs 3X that and has a life expectancy
(before replacement) that's shorter, the scanner comes up a bigger bargain.



"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
news:ldto70l7vd7ia6kqo0ie7nks2f9rgb5lt1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:10:33 -0400, "Pat Conover"

> What Manufacturer has the best track record of driver support for
> their scanners, ie. supports older scanner models back in time the
> farthest with new drivers compliant with newer OS's?
>
> And..... as alluded to before, I assume a USB scanner will remain
> compliant longer than a parallel fed scanner, right?

 

[TR]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Wow Ben, thanks for the history lesson! Actually, I found it very
informative.

>And if
>that is bastardization, you have no idea what I think of piggybacking two (or
>even more) devices on a single parallel port, with one of them operating as a
>passthough device, such as a ZIP drive.

As a matter of fact, the Visioneer 6100b scanner that will be heading
to the grave yard is a parallel passthrough device. However, my HP
952C DeskJet didn't like that one bit. The 952c was a parallel/USB
printer so I just opted to run it USB and forget the scanner
passthrough.

>No floppies? On one hand, 1.44MB does not get you very far with today's large
>programs and data files.

Except the GW Essential that I am replacing did incorporate an
emergency boot floppy into its restoration process. Now, my GW 450
laptop does not use such in its restoration process and this local
build I am getting will do have a restoration CD/DVD but will have a
Mirror Image DVD made of the system as it comes from the builder.
I've never done a restoration with a Mirror image so that will be a
new learning experience (I do a minimum of 2 restoration/year on all
my systems)

>HP has done a fairly pathetic job of carrying forward its software in support of
>its scanners. But I'm not sure that the other scanner manufacturers are any
>better.

From what Pat said about the $400+ HP paper weight and now you on HP,
I think I will stay clear of them for the new scanner. However, I
have simply loved that 952c DeskJet and it is going on 4 years old.
Right now, with what little info I have, I'm sort of leaning toward
Canon for the scanner.

>As an occasional white-box dealer myself, I can only applaud a decision to buy a
>white-box computer. They are not cheap, but the result is better workmanship
>and generally better parts for a higher price.

They are not all that more expensive either. Even thought the MB,
Processor and Chipset and nice metal full tower case could not be
matched by GW or Dell, the system only cost a couple hundred more than
anything comparable from the major box assemblers.

>I'm curious as to what the hardware or BIOS or other issue was with the Gateway
>that could not be upgraded to Windows XP.

Actually the only direct GW system problem was the 384meg memory limit
problem. The other problems were no available drivers or
incompatibility problems with the graphics card (as you suggested) and
the sound card drivers and software.

Now the graphics card and sound card could be replaced but being stuck
with an upper limit of 384meg memory was what put the final nail in
the coffin for this old work horse. I had even been able to bump the
processor from 500m to 1.4g with a powerleap upgrade even though I was
still stuck with a 100 FSB.

We have a local Children's Wish List organization where local children
without means submit wishes for the community to fill. The GW
Essential will be heading off to a new home with a wonderful little 12
year old wheel chair ridden girl that was been wishing for a computer
for going on a year now. My Aviation company will also be supplying
her a year's account with our local dialup ISP. This weekend, they
will be bringing her to the hanger and we will give her a couple
hour's flight on a Cessna Citation (another one of her wishes to fly
in a plane) and when she gets off the plane, the computer will be
presented to her. My partner and the manager of the local DialUp ISP
will be going home with her so as to set it all up for her. The ISP
will take over the cost of the account after the first year so she
will never have to pay for an Internet account. We tried to get
Adelphia involved with a broadband account but those people are smucks
and could care less (Screw'em).

Anyway, I think she will offer a good home for this GW Essential. Its
been a fine computer but has reached its upgradeable limits.

Regards,
TR

 

[Snoopy]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

DUAL BOOT!


"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
news:ftqq70hqgdd7gu3cipc29vjbd2069oe49j@4ax.com...
> Wow Ben, thanks for the history lesson! Actually, I found it very
> informative.
>
> >And if
> >that is bastardization, you have no idea what I think of piggybacking two
(or
> >even more) devices on a single parallel port, with one of them operating
as a
> >passthough device, such as a ZIP drive.
>
> As a matter of fact, the Visioneer 6100b scanner that will be heading
> to the grave yard is a parallel passthrough device. However, my HP
> 952C DeskJet didn't like that one bit. The 952c was a parallel/USB
> printer so I just opted to run it USB and forget the scanner
> passthrough.
>
> >No floppies? On one hand, 1.44MB does not get you very far with today's
large
> >programs and data files.
>
> Except the GW Essential that I am replacing did incorporate an
> emergency boot floppy into its restoration process. Now, my GW 450
> laptop does not use such in its restoration process and this local
> build I am getting will do have a restoration CD/DVD but will have a
> Mirror Image DVD made of the system as it comes from the builder.
> I've never done a restoration with a Mirror image so that will be a
> new learning experience (I do a minimum of 2 restoration/year on all
> my systems)
>
> >HP has done a fairly pathetic job of carrying forward its software in
support of
> >its scanners. But I'm not sure that the other scanner manufacturers are
any
> >better.
>
> From what Pat said about the $400+ HP paper weight and now you on HP,
> I think I will stay clear of them for the new scanner. However, I
> have simply loved that 952c DeskJet and it is going on 4 years old.
> Right now, with what little info I have, I'm sort of leaning toward
> Canon for the scanner.
>
> >As an occasional white-box dealer myself, I can only applaud a decision
to buy a
> >white-box computer. They are not cheap, but the result is better
workmanship
> >and generally better parts for a higher price.
>
> They are not all that more expensive either. Even thought the MB,
> Processor and Chipset and nice metal full tower case could not be
> matched by GW or Dell, the system only cost a couple hundred more than
> anything comparable from the major box assemblers.
>
> >I'm curious as to what the hardware or BIOS or other issue was with the
Gateway
> >that could not be upgraded to Windows XP.
>
> Actually the only direct GW system problem was the 384meg memory limit
> problem. The other problems were no available drivers or
> incompatibility problems with the graphics card (as you suggested) and
> the sound card drivers and software.
>
> Now the graphics card and sound card could be replaced but being stuck
> with an upper limit of 384meg memory was what put the final nail in
> the coffin for this old work horse. I had even been able to bump the
> processor from 500m to 1.4g with a powerleap upgrade even though I was
> still stuck with a 100 FSB.
>
> We have a local Children's Wish List organization where local children
> without means submit wishes for the community to fill. The GW
> Essential will be heading off to a new home with a wonderful little 12
> year old wheel chair ridden girl that was been wishing for a computer
> for going on a year now. My Aviation company will also be supplying
> her a year's account with our local dialup ISP. This weekend, they
> will be bringing her to the hanger and we will give her a couple
> hour's flight on a Cessna Citation (another one of her wishes to fly
> in a plane) and when she gets off the plane, the computer will be
> presented to her. My partner and the manager of the local DialUp ISP
> will be going home with her so as to set it all up for her. The ISP
> will take over the cost of the account after the first year so she
> will never have to pay for an Internet account. We tried to get
> Adelphia involved with a broadband account but those people are smucks
> and could care less (Screw'em).
>
> Anyway, I think she will offer a good home for this GW Essential. Its
> been a fine computer but has reached its upgradeable limits.
>
> Regards,
> TR

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

> The 4 year old GW Desktop had 98SE and could not be upgraded to XP because of some hardware limitations (there's that problem again) that would have to be addressed.

That what I have too, a 450Mhz Gateway Essential that I got back in
early 2000, though it has since been upgraded to a 1.0GHz Slot1 P3,
80Gig HD with 768MB of SDRAM (three 256MB dimms, which are expensive
and hard to find nowadays) running Windows 2000. Now it is my 2nd
most powerful desktop and serves as my backup system, alongside my
2.4GHz homebuilt setup.

 

[TR]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:47:36 GMT, "Edward J. Neth"
<ejn63@netscape.com> wrote:

>Your best hope is with one of the companies that still makes its own
>scanners - Epson makes its own,
>and so do Microtek and for the most part, Canon (though Canon has been known
>to drop support for scanners needing updated OS drivers).

Well, I had been looking at the Canons but I will do a bit of research
on the Epsons. Thanks for the feedback Edward....

Regards,
TR

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

TR

My old IBM scanner works fine with the XP's generic twain drivers.
I was afraid it wouldn't as IBM has no drivers listed on their site for this
or any scanner.

PWY


"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
news:6rqo70phb08g863ug1oj7ha97p7ljndtfq@4ax.com...
>
> Thanks to all three of you for your swift reply. That was what I was
> afraid of.... I'm SOL.
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:10:30 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
> >Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to changes
in the
> >underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go.
>
> Then the reason the hardware producers didn't upgrade their existing
> drivers to handle XP was so they could force you into having to buy
> next version up in hardware, right? On other words, if it is a
> hardware driver problem, then the simplest and cheapest thing (for the
> consumer) would have been to make an XP driver for the old existing
> hardware.
>
> >This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
> >to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes with
> >hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.
>
> Don't forget colluding with the government also because if you
> remember, the MS vs. Government thing that was on the news every night
> all of a sudden disappeared from view and almost nothing was said any
> more about it except that the Gov and Bill reached some sort of
> settlement. That "settlement" doesn't have the consumer's best
> interest in mind one bit I'll bet you a bloody thin dime.
>
> >It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows 95
also
> >worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben Myers
>
> Again, I don't think I can blame MS for that (even though I despise
> MS) because I think the info was out there for all hardware
> manufacturers so they could make driver updates for all their hardware
> in order to make it XP compliant.
>
> I think there is nothing wrong with my scanner's ability to operate
> under XP except for the fact that Visioneer decided to not offer an XP
> compliant driver for it so as to try and force me into purchasing a
> newer scanner.
>
> Because of that, I will be getting a newer scanner but NOT a
> Visioneer. I am told that the older Canon and HP scanners (the ones
> as old as my Visioneer) have XP upgraded drivers available so it looks
> as if Canon and HP didn't pull the same trash on its clients as
> Visioneer did thus..... One Lost Customer for Visioneer. No that
> will not break Visioneer but I can be happy in the fact that I will be
> personally responsible for their next quarter's books being around
> $200 smaller than it could have been.
>
> Regards,
> TR

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

What sort of hardware interface does the old IBM scanner have? SCSI? USB?
Likely the former, and likely not parallel port... Ben Myers

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:34:15 GMT, "PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote:

>TR
>
>My old IBM scanner works fine with the XP's generic twain drivers.
>I was afraid it wouldn't as IBM has no drivers listed on their site for this
>or any scanner.
>
>PWY
>
>
>"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
>news:6rqo70phb08g863ug1oj7ha97p7ljndtfq@4ax.com...
>>
>> Thanks to all three of you for your swift reply. That was what I was
>> afraid of.... I'm SOL.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:10:30 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
>> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>>
>> >Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to changes
>in the
>> >underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go.
>>
>> Then the reason the hardware producers didn't upgrade their existing
>> drivers to handle XP was so they could force you into having to buy
>> next version up in hardware, right? On other words, if it is a
>> hardware driver problem, then the simplest and cheapest thing (for the
>> consumer) would have been to make an XP driver for the old existing
>> hardware.
>>
>> >This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
>> >to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes with
>> >hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.
>>
>> Don't forget colluding with the government also because if you
>> remember, the MS vs. Government thing that was on the news every night
>> all of a sudden disappeared from view and almost nothing was said any
>> more about it except that the Gov and Bill reached some sort of
>> settlement. That "settlement" doesn't have the consumer's best
>> interest in mind one bit I'll bet you a bloody thin dime.
>>
>> >It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows 95
>also
>> >worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben Myers
>>
>> Again, I don't think I can blame MS for that (even though I despise
>> MS) because I think the info was out there for all hardware
>> manufacturers so they could make driver updates for all their hardware
>> in order to make it XP compliant.
>>
>> I think there is nothing wrong with my scanner's ability to operate
>> under XP except for the fact that Visioneer decided to not offer an XP
>> compliant driver for it so as to try and force me into purchasing a
>> newer scanner.
>>
>> Because of that, I will be getting a newer scanner but NOT a
>> Visioneer. I am told that the older Canon and HP scanners (the ones
>> as old as my Visioneer) have XP upgraded drivers available so it looks
>> as if Canon and HP didn't pull the same trash on its clients as
>> Visioneer did thus..... One Lost Customer for Visioneer. No that
>> will not break Visioneer but I can be happy in the fact that I will be
>> personally responsible for their next quarter's books being around
>> $200 smaller than it could have been.
>>
>> Regards,
>> TR
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

TR, Sorry for jumping in late, but I've been under the weather :-( Thanks
to Edward J. Neth, I ended up getting an Epson Perfection 2400 for less than
$130, with Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 included. Love the scanner and the
software, which retails for about $80 by itself. HTH

Pat Conover
Remove *nospam* to e-mail me.
*nospam*patconover@comcast.net

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:407ddfce.24656059@news.charter.net...
> What sort of hardware interface does the old IBM scanner have? SCSI?
USB?
> Likely the former, and likely not parallel port... Ben Myers
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:34:15 GMT, "PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote:
>
> >TR
> >
> >My old IBM scanner works fine with the XP's generic twain drivers.
> >I was afraid it wouldn't as IBM has no drivers listed on their site for
this
> >or any scanner.
> >
> >PWY
> >
> >
> >"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
> >news:6rqo70phb08g863ug1oj7ha97p7ljndtfq@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Thanks to all three of you for your swift reply. That was what I was
> >> afraid of.... I'm SOL.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:10:30 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> >> (Ben Myers) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to
changes
> >in the
> >> >underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go.
> >>
> >> Then the reason the hardware producers didn't upgrade their existing
> >> drivers to handle XP was so they could force you into having to buy
> >> next version up in hardware, right? On other words, if it is a
> >> hardware driver problem, then the simplest and cheapest thing (for the
> >> consumer) would have been to make an XP driver for the old existing
> >> hardware.
> >>
> >> >This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
> >> >to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes
with
> >> >hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.
> >>
> >> Don't forget colluding with the government also because if you
> >> remember, the MS vs. Government thing that was on the news every night
> >> all of a sudden disappeared from view and almost nothing was said any
> >> more about it except that the Gov and Bill reached some sort of
> >> settlement. That "settlement" doesn't have the consumer's best
> >> interest in mind one bit I'll bet you a bloody thin dime.
> >>
> >> >It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows
95
> >also
> >> >worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben
Myers
> >>
> >> Again, I don't think I can blame MS for that (even though I despise
> >> MS) because I think the info was out there for all hardware
> >> manufacturers so they could make driver updates for all their hardware
> >> in order to make it XP compliant.
> >>
> >> I think there is nothing wrong with my scanner's ability to operate
> >> under XP except for the fact that Visioneer decided to not offer an XP
> >> compliant driver for it so as to try and force me into purchasing a
> >> newer scanner.
> >>
> >> Because of that, I will be getting a newer scanner but NOT a
> >> Visioneer. I am told that the older Canon and HP scanners (the ones
> >> as old as my Visioneer) have XP upgraded drivers available so it looks
> >> as if Canon and HP didn't pull the same trash on its clients as
> >> Visioneer did thus..... One Lost Customer for Visioneer. No that
> >> will not break Visioneer but I can be happy in the fact that I will be
> >> personally responsible for their next quarter's books being around
> >> $200 smaller than it could have been.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> TR
> >
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Sorry Ben, it is Parallel Port.


--
PWY


<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:407ddfce.24656059@news.charter.net...
> What sort of hardware interface does the old IBM scanner have? SCSI?
USB?
> Likely the former, and likely not parallel port... Ben Myers
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:34:15 GMT, "PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote:
>
> >TR
> >
> >My old IBM scanner works fine with the XP's generic twain drivers.
> >I was afraid it wouldn't as IBM has no drivers listed on their site for
this
> >or any scanner.
> >
> >PWY
> >
> >
> >"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
> >news:6rqo70phb08g863ug1oj7ha97p7ljndtfq@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Thanks to all three of you for your swift reply. That was what I was
> >> afraid of.... I'm SOL.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:10:30 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
> >> (Ben Myers) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to
changes
> >in the
> >> >underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go.
> >>
> >> Then the reason the hardware producers didn't upgrade their existing
> >> drivers to handle XP was so they could force you into having to buy
> >> next version up in hardware, right? On other words, if it is a
> >> hardware driver problem, then the simplest and cheapest thing (for the
> >> consumer) would have been to make an XP driver for the old existing
> >> hardware.
> >>
> >> >This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
> >> >to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes
with
> >> >hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.
> >>
> >> Don't forget colluding with the government also because if you
> >> remember, the MS vs. Government thing that was on the news every night
> >> all of a sudden disappeared from view and almost nothing was said any
> >> more about it except that the Gov and Bill reached some sort of
> >> settlement. That "settlement" doesn't have the consumer's best
> >> interest in mind one bit I'll bet you a bloody thin dime.
> >>
> >> >It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows
95
> >also
> >> >worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben
Myers
> >>
> >> Again, I don't think I can blame MS for that (even though I despise
> >> MS) because I think the info was out there for all hardware
> >> manufacturers so they could make driver updates for all their hardware
> >> in order to make it XP compliant.
> >>
> >> I think there is nothing wrong with my scanner's ability to operate
> >> under XP except for the fact that Visioneer decided to not offer an XP
> >> compliant driver for it so as to try and force me into purchasing a
> >> newer scanner.
> >>
> >> Because of that, I will be getting a newer scanner but NOT a
> >> Visioneer. I am told that the older Canon and HP scanners (the ones
> >> as old as my Visioneer) have XP upgraded drivers available so it looks
> >> as if Canon and HP didn't pull the same trash on its clients as
> >> Visioneer did thus..... One Lost Customer for Visioneer. No that
> >> will not break Visioneer but I can be happy in the fact that I will be
> >> personally responsible for their next quarter's books being around
> >> $200 smaller than it could have been.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> TR
> >
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

This implies that XP's generic TWAIN driver could conceivably be coaxed into
making just about any scanner to work? Interesting... Ben Myers

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:30:55 GMT, "PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote:

>Sorry Ben, it is Parallel Port.
>
>
>--
>PWY
>
>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:407ddfce.24656059@news.charter.net...
>> What sort of hardware interface does the old IBM scanner have? SCSI?
>USB?
>> Likely the former, and likely not parallel port... Ben Myers
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:34:15 GMT, "PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >TR
>> >
>> >My old IBM scanner works fine with the XP's generic twain drivers.
>> >I was afraid it wouldn't as IBM has no drivers listed on their site for
>this
>> >or any scanner.
>> >
>> >PWY
>> >
>> >
>> >"TR" <_@_> wrote in message
>> >news:6rqo70phb08g863ug1oj7ha97p7ljndtfq@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> Thanks to all three of you for your swift reply. That was what I was
>> >> afraid of.... I'm SOL.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:10:30 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
>> >> (Ben Myers) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Sadly, Windows XP has obsoleted a lot of hardware products due to
>changes
>> >in the
>> >> >underpinnings of the drivers that make the hardware go.
>> >>
>> >> Then the reason the hardware producers didn't upgrade their existing
>> >> drivers to handle XP was so they could force you into having to buy
>> >> next version up in hardware, right? On other words, if it is a
>> >> hardware driver problem, then the simplest and cheapest thing (for the
>> >> consumer) would have been to make an XP driver for the old existing
>> >> hardware.
>> >>
>> >> >This is what you get when a company with 90+% market share found
>> >> >to be an unscrupulous monopolist on at least two continents colludes
>with
>> >> >hardware manufacturers in anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions.
>> >>
>> >> Don't forget colluding with the government also because if you
>> >> remember, the MS vs. Government thing that was on the news every night
>> >> all of a sudden disappeared from view and almost nothing was said any
>> >> more about it except that the Gov and Bill reached some sort of
>> >> settlement. That "settlement" doesn't have the consumer's best
>> >> interest in mind one bit I'll bet you a bloody thin dime.
>> >>
>> >> >It was downright amazing when devices which worked well under Windows
>95
>> >also
>> >> >worked perfectly well with 98, and the drivers were the same... Ben
>Myers
>> >>
>> >> Again, I don't think I can blame MS for that (even though I despise
>> >> MS) because I think the info was out there for all hardware
>> >> manufacturers so they could make driver updates for all their hardware
>> >> in order to make it XP compliant.
>> >>
>> >> I think there is nothing wrong with my scanner's ability to operate
>> >> under XP except for the fact that Visioneer decided to not offer an XP
>> >> compliant driver for it so as to try and force me into purchasing a
>> >> newer scanner.
>> >>
>> >> Because of that, I will be getting a newer scanner but NOT a
>> >> Visioneer. I am told that the older Canon and HP scanners (the ones
>> >> as old as my Visioneer) have XP upgraded drivers available so it looks
>> >> as if Canon and HP didn't pull the same trash on its clients as
>> >> Visioneer did thus..... One Lost Customer for Visioneer. No that
>> >> will not break Visioneer but I can be happy in the fact that I will be
>> >> personally responsible for their next quarter's books being around
>> >> $200 smaller than it could have been.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> TR
>> >
>>
>

 

[TR]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:29:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:

>As an occasional white-box dealer myself, I can only applaud a decision to buy a
>white-box computer. They are not cheap, but the result is better workmanship
>and generally better parts for a higher price.

Well Ben, I'm on that new baby right now. Got it yesterday evening
and have spent last night and this morning putting all my software on
it.... Whew!

1BIT NF7 Motherboard
AMD 2600 CPU
1024meg DDR 2700 Ram
120 gb 7200 rpm ATA133 HD
TDK CD/CD-R/CD-RW/DVD/DVD+-R/DVD+-RW/HD-BURN Combo Drive
40x/24x/8x/4x/4x/2x/24x
Floppy/4 type Smart Card Reader
256mb Geforce FX5200 Video Card
10/100 NIC
56K US Robotics Modem (not win modem)
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro Sound Card
Full Tower Black ATX Nspire Case CSFTA w/ 400 Watt ATX Power Supply
Black MultiMedia Keyboard and scroll optical mouse
Blue Neon Light
Radial IDE/Floppy cables
XP Home
1 year parts and 2 years labor

Hooked up to existing:
17" GW EV700
Creative 5.1 surround sound theater speaker system

I had them install ONLY XP Home and needed system drivers on HD and
then activate XP with M$ and then make a Restoration CD (Mirror) so
every time I do a restoration now, I do not have to deal with M$ for
an activation.

Total Cost: $641.00


Now the part where I got caught.... Remember I got me one of those M$
update CDs that suppose to have all updates on it up to Feb 4, 2004.
Well this was where I was going to get to give it a try but low and
behold..... the people that built the system did all the updates
before making the restoration CD so as to save me time on any future
restorations. That was kind and thoughtful of them but I still
haven't been able to check out that CD and see if it does what M$ said
it is suppose to do..... I'll have to wait until a do a restoration
to my GW 450 laptop.

Regards,
TR

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Yep, that's what I always do for my customers whether it is a new build white
box or a new or refurb name-brand: Download and install all the updates. It's
something I can do painlessly with fast broadband. Start up the update, come
back a while later to restart the system for the required nth time after the nth
update. Don't you just love those reboots after an update? Anyone ever heard
of fail-soft always on 24/7 computing? Not with many Micro$oft critical fixes!

.... Ben Myers

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:51:49 -0400, TR <_@_> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:29:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
>(Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>>As an occasional white-box dealer myself, I can only applaud a decision to buy a
>>white-box computer. They are not cheap, but the result is better workmanship
>>and generally better parts for a higher price.
>
>Well Ben, I'm on that new baby right now. Got it yesterday evening
>and have spent last night and this morning putting all my software on
>it.... Whew!
>
>1BIT NF7 Motherboard
>AMD 2600 CPU
>1024meg DDR 2700 Ram
>120 gb 7200 rpm ATA133 HD
>TDK CD/CD-R/CD-RW/DVD/DVD+-R/DVD+-RW/HD-BURN Combo Drive
> 40x/24x/8x/4x/4x/2x/24x
>Floppy/4 type Smart Card Reader
>256mb Geforce FX5200 Video Card
>10/100 NIC
>56K US Robotics Modem (not win modem)
>Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro Sound Card
>Full Tower Black ATX Nspire Case CSFTA w/ 400 Watt ATX Power Supply
>Black MultiMedia Keyboard and scroll optical mouse
>Blue Neon Light
>Radial IDE/Floppy cables
>XP Home
>1 year parts and 2 years labor
>
>Hooked up to existing:
>17" GW EV700
>Creative 5.1 surround sound theater speaker system
>
>I had them install ONLY XP Home and needed system drivers on HD and
>then activate XP with M$ and then make a Restoration CD (Mirror) so
>every time I do a restoration now, I do not have to deal with M$ for
>an activation.
>
>Total Cost: $641.00
>
>
>Now the part where I got caught.... Remember I got me one of those M$
>update CDs that suppose to have all updates on it up to Feb 4, 2004.
>Well this was where I was going to get to give it a try but low and
>behold..... the people that built the system did all the updates
>before making the restoration CD so as to save me time on any future
>restorations. That was kind and thoughtful of them but I still
>haven't been able to check out that CD and see if it does what M$ said
>it is suppose to do..... I'll have to wait until a do a restoration
>to my GW 450 laptop.
>
>Regards,
>TR