Philip Pemberton wrote:
> Bart Wientjes wrote:
>
>> USB 1.1 defenitely is too slow.
>>
> That's no problem. My desktop machine has USB2.0 on all eight (!) USB ports.
>
The problem my be on the other end. Early USB ports on film scanners
were 1.1. For example, my FS4000 has USB 1.1 and SCSI interfaces. It
doesn't matter that the computer has HS USB 2.0, if I were to use USB,
it would slow things down considerably. By the way, are you aware that
there are two versions of USB 2.0? Unless it says High Speed, it's no
faster than 1.1. I read why they did this, but don't remember the rationale.
>> What OS are you using? I seem to recollect that Windoze XP has problems with
>> (older) SCSI scanners.
>>
It's not the age of the scanner, its the card. Newer SCSI cards are plug 'n
play on XP. Older cards were a problem, but there is a piece of Adaptec
software that acts as a driver layer to make any SCSI card work with XP,
regardless of whether there is an XP driver or not. Been there, done both ways.
>> Would FireWire interface be an option for you? Adapters can be had cheapish.
Again, the problem is on the other end. This started out as a thread
about an older, inexpensive scanner for a student budget. That means no
Firewire and that distinctions between USB implementations is significant.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|