Re: filmscanners: OT :Fast, decent, low res scans

["Richard N. Moyer" <dickmoyer@mail.earthlink.net>]

Well, you have identified two of them.

On looking at the post header, which reads:
From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18) 
Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0

I note Windows 95, Mozilla/5.0. I would have to go back and check a 
few things, but OutLook Express which shipped bundled with Windows 95 
was the most notorious violator of the MIME Standard. All this has 
been documented. In MS's defense, they claimed that the group that 
was responsible for OutLook was under "undue" time constraints, and 
"did not have ample time to complete the job." which they belatedly 
tried to fix with a series of patches. But never did, and by the time 
Windows 98 came out, they simply came out with a new version.

If you are using Netscape 6 (and Messenger)., the above does not apply.
And UMAX was notorious - -. There are two more biggies with stunted 
SCSI cards, both with inadequate firmware which couldn't be flash 
upgraded - all of which resulted in a merry-go-round of finger 
pointing.

All of this I observed having a Mac system and not directly impacted. 
But my son, whose business livelihood depended on a workable Windows 
system, working remotely from home base was "ready to be 
institutionalized".


>Richard N. Moyer wrote:
>
>>One of the things to remember is this: Not all so-called PCI (SCSI) 
>>cards are really SCSI cards. What I mean is that many companies 
>>include "SCSI" cards which are/were not conformant with the 
>>standards. This is very important (conformance with the Standard), 
>>and goes back to the discussion about "Open" and "Control". The 
>>IEEE standards are long and complex, and technical, including the 
>>various ramifications of the SCSI Standard. Companies have often 
>>offered "abbreviated" SCSI (really shouldn't even use the term 
>>SCSI) cards which leave out portions of the standard, to cheapen 
>>the cost of the card - meaning fewer components. They didn't tell 
>>you this. This was particularly a problem for PC users, who, more 
>>often than Mac users, needed SCSI attachment capability. Most of 
>>these "stunted" cards would connect only the scanner included in 
>>the package, and would never connect more than one device on a 
>>chain in accordance with the SCSI standard. I can name names of 
>>companies who did this, some might surprise you. They did what they 
>>thought they could get away with; cost foremost in mind. Only to 
>>find out "that a penny saved - - - -". The same thing has happened 
>>with software. Yes there are Standards at play here to, one of 
>>which you are using now - MIME used in e-mail. And the biggest 
>>abuser was - - guess who?
>>
>Could it be.... Satan?  (Many know him as Bill?)
>
>
>The above situation is what I suspected might be the case, but, I'll 
>give an example of the other side.  My UMAX scanner came with a DTC 
>card, which Umax indicated would only work with their scanner.  UMAX 
>North America's web site claimed the same thing.  However, on 
>researching further the UMAX UK site was kind enough to mention that 
>with a different driver, the card would work with most SCSI products 
>and support up to 6 other devices, also.  It took some work to 
>configure, since it required some jumpers be moved (I was luck that 
>my card had the jumpers, apparently many versions didn't and one 
>would have to cut or solder wires).  It does work, and I'm running 
>my Zip drive on it, and my UMAX scanner.
>
>Art