[plug] scanner experience

[Leon Brooks]

Jason Nicholls wrote:
>> Why is SCSI needed?

> I have a SCSI controller, and SCSI scanners tend to be much faster
> than a parallel port scanner. I hate waiting for things ;)

And more reliable, if that is an issue.

>> I have not used a scanner with Linux, but, from what I understand, the parallel
>> port HP Scanjets, such as this, work well with Linux, using SANE.

> Perhaps, the sane web site doesn't seem to like parallel port scanners
> that much. It does go on to say that progress is being made with USB
> support for various (higher end) HP scanners.

Parallel port data transfer is dodgy from the ground up, too many things
to go wrong, high demand on the processor. USB is fast enough and a
little more predictable than that (although I suspect that USB-2 will be
seriously dodgy). Neither of them will replace dear old SCSI and I long
for FireWire peripherals (one advantage to running Linux on an iMac).
One thing I am curious about is why nobody sells an ethernet (UTP)
scanner, with the retail price of a scummy ethernet card now below $20.

>> From reviews, from what I understand, this level of HP scanners give results as
>> good as, or better than, scanners that cost over $1000.

> Yeah, we had the 6350C at work and it was brilliant.

Might see if I can make that statement about an Acer 620S, the only
known-to-work Acer scanner (and SCSI too), available locally for $120.
(-: