I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.

The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
the scanner software that the program may not run as expected with this
version of Windows. My solution was to buy a USB scanner off Ebay that works
with 2000 and my hope is that the new scanner driver will still interface
with the printer driver. The rest of my answer is below.


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
news
In message , DaffyD®
writes

"philo" wrote in message
...
[]
You may want to try the free image viewer Irfanview
and use the import function and specify your scanner...
then see if you can adjust the image quality.

100 - 150 dpi should give you good results

Philo, the problem is between the scanner and the printer. In fact,
when
I open up the scanner software I get a message "This program might not
run
as expected on this version of Windows."
I need a parallel port Windows 2000 driver and Visioneer doesn't offer
one,
just for the USB model. I had the opposite problem with the external hard
drive I bought. That particular model didn't have a compatible 98SE
driver,
but an older model did.


Do you mean that the problems are because the scanner is connected
between the PC and the printer, in the "parallel port" lead?

The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
the scanner software that the program may not run as expected with this
version of Windows.

Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?

Yes.

Can you scan images such that they look OK on screen (e. g. by using
IrfanView as Philo suggests, or some other software) - I suppose we need
to know if the scanner interface (software) is TWAIN-type (assuming
Windows 2000 uses TWAIN, I don't know).

Yes, it is a TWAIN interface. Windows 2000 does use it.

If either of these is no (either you can't print _any_ image OK, or you
can't scan OK _to screen_), do either of them change to yes if you have
only the scanner or only the printer connected? If so, then either
Philo's suggestion of a USB-to-parallel port, or (my preference) a
second parallel port (they're pretty cheap - probably cheaper than the
USB-to-parallel adapter), might solve the problem - those
scanner-in-series-with-the-printer arrangements, while they could be got
working trouble-free, often _are_ the cause of problems. (And with two
parallel ports, [a] it might be faster and [b] you should be able to
print even when the scanner isn't powered, which wasn't always the case
otherwise.)

Using an adapter wouldn't have solved the scanner 98 driver/Windows 2000
incompatiblity. My solution was to buy a USB scanner off Ebay that works
with 2000 and my hope is that the new scanner driver will work with the
printer driver. There was never a problem with my old 98 machine using the
parallel port between the scanner and the printer so that's why, to me, the
problem is with the OS. In fact, Visioneer has made 2000-compatible drivers
for just about all of their scanners except for the parallel port scanner I
own.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
PCs. **

Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!

It is safe from remote attacking. If someone has physical access to the
Windows 98 Second Edition you are sunk unless you have external software
programs to keep it safe. A user can very easily mess up Windows 98 Second
Edition and it does not have all the user restrictions so it is not practical
in a business setting except as part of the safety and security network
monitoring the incoming flow of information to the businesses and
governments. In other words, it works well as a Gateway to the Network. In
addition, I would trust only a few individuals with the Windows 98 Second
Edition operating system as part of a business and as part of a defense
network for a government. If the businesses and governments can use
customized closed source Windows 98 Second Edition operating systems as well
as open source operating systems like Ubuntu Linux as part of their defense
networks it would go a long way towards preventing DNS Pollution of servers
because of the limitations of 98 Second Edition and because it has been so
hardened by Microsoft who has patched the operating system from 1998-2006.
Also, as long as the users use tools such as SpywareBlaster, Mozilla Firefox
with its 256 bit AES encryption and are careful then it can solve a lot of
problems that we currently have with technology. Furthermore, one must
remember the external components of Windows 98 Second Edition are now mostly
useless if you are connected to the Internet because they present the
appropriate and easily attackable vectors that a hacker can access to cause
the denial of service and/or freeze of the network(s). Programs such as
Internet Explorer are replaced by Mozilla Firefox, Windows Media Player by
the proper program, Outlook Express by another good newsgroup, and so forth.
Finally, realize that Windows 98 Second Edition can sometimes use Windows ME
drivers fine as well as Windows 2000 Professional drivers and do not install
Windows Scripting Host because it automates scripts and can present the
appropriate attack vector for hackers. I hope these tips help you John as
well as others.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , Dan
writes
[]
ended VPN connection to the elementary school. The funny thing is that Steve
Riley of Microsoft likes to say how much better XP Professional is then 98
Second Edition and it is true to a point but the larger surface area because
of more services makes it easier to hack as well as the fact of having remote
access which is another attack vector. In addition, because Windows 98

That is my feeling too (XP is in theory safer but a much bigger target).
Also, since XP is much commoner, it's the target of choice in most
cases.

Second Edition has Disk Operating System as an underlying maintenance
operating system it is very safe internally according correctly to Chris

Do you mean safe from attack, or safe from (unintentional owner)
corruption of important files?
[]
Edition back in the day. I find the future will be most exciting for Windows
and computing and electronics in general and hopefully we will all learn from
the lessons of the past to help us with the future. Finally, Windows 7 will
be NT based but hopefully the new source code Microsoft is working on will be
awesome and maybe it can really bring business, home and government under one
true awesome source code but that may only end up being a pipe dream. I will
wait and see if Microsoft can really deliver when its brand new operating
system with the source code it is currently working on makes it to the
shelves and it certainly is an exciting time for all of us involved with
computers.

Yes.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
writer (1864-1910)

In message , DaffyD®
writes

The scanned image looks fine on the monitor. It was distorted on the
printer. I still think the problem was that the scanner driver was designed
for Windows 98, not Windows 2000. A message box would pop up when starting
[]
Can you print OK, images that are from sources other than the scanner?

Yes.
[]
Using an adapter wouldn't have solved the scanner 98 driver/Windows 2000
[]
So. You can use the scanner OK on its own (images from the scanner look
OK on screen - right?), and you can use the printer OK on its own
(images from some other source print OK); it's only when you use the two
at once that you get problems - presumably when printing at the same
time as scanning?

If you save the scanned image to disc, then do something else (maybe
including a restart), then print them back out - still OK, or still
distorted? If still distorted, try saving them in a different format
(gif/jpg/png/bmp/whatever), reloading them, and _then_ printing. If this
_still_ gives distorted results, then very puzzling!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"********," said Pooh, being more forthright than usual.