If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 , DaffyDŽ 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! |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.
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) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE.
In message , DaffyDŽ
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I hate win me | msredd | General | 6 | January 11th 07 02:03 AM |
I miss you guys! | sf | General | 23 | February 24th 06 02:36 AM |
We'll miss you, Alex... | Gary S. Terhune | General | 27 | March 11th 05 08:30 PM |
I Hate my H/P Intergraded winblows ME. | Foster | General | 1 | October 1st 04 05:33 AM |
Does ME hate DOS? | Foster | Monitors & Displays | 1 | September 3rd 04 08:03 AM |