| 12:35 pm on Mar 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Could be the native support for USB.
I believe that the OEM version had better support than the upgrade for USB. It's been awhile though since I read that industry article.
| 10:07 pm on Mar 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just installed an Epson 1650 onto an ME machine with no problem whatsoever. I think that a 98 upgrade with all of the service packs would probably work fine. Unfortunately, if you run into a problem and have to call Epson, they'll probably just say it's not supported. :(
I like the 1650 Photo pretty well (after a few hours of playing with it). I wanted a flatbed scanner for general use plus one that had a slide/negative scanning feature. (I couldn't really justify the expense of a real slide scanner.) The HP in the same price range (5470? - Has the loose lightbox attachment for slides/negs) got some pretty bad reviews when it came to slide scanning. The autorecognition on the 1650 is pretty cool - if you throw a filmstrip or one or more slides in the carrier (the backlight is in the lid, and the carrier is a little frame that lays on the glass), the scanner will automatically figure out what it has (e.g., four positive transparencies, six color negatives, one color photo, etc.), scan 'em, and present the finished scans in a light-box type display. I'm pretty happy with the scan quality, although I don't have anything for a side-by-side comparison.
The only downside is the speed (or lack thereof) for the detailed scans (slides and negatives) - this is really an activity to do while multitasking on another computer or other activity. Watching paint dry is slightly more exciting than watching the thermomoter bar creep across the screen. Also, I haven't yet figured out how to marry the automated processing with customized settings (if that's possible).
| 1:25 am on Mar 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have a Perfection 1200, and just installed a 1250 on another machine. USB support in 98 is problematic - had to upgrade (98SE minimum, but would check on motherboard age, support). The problem is that a lot of computers with 98 were made with "provision for usb support" that didn't work in practice. An up to date bios also a good idea. In short, can be a real problem.
| 2:08 am on Mar 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Scanners in general can be very buggy. I just installed a new one, it did not work following the directions out of the box. After visiting the manufacturer's web site, I found out the directions are wrong. The order that you installed the software was very important. The scanner would not work if anything was installed in the wrong order or a very specific procedure was not followed.
Check the website before you do anything.
| 11:16 am on Mar 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, I took the plunge and purchased a Perfection 1650 on a PC running WIN98SE upgrade. I had already flashed the BIOS with the latest and greatest from Dell. The 1650 seems to run without a problem. A great quality improvement over my Umax although it doesn't seem to be a lot faster. I don't do enough scanning to make that a problem. Thanks for the advice.
| 4:10 pm on Mar 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
glad it worked out...I spotted the thread late...but I've had three different Epson scanners running of my 98SE box at different times...I've never had a problem with any of them (bought two for clients and tried them out first to see what the software was like...and to avoid the embarrasment of turning up in their offices with hardware that I couldn't get to work)
| 6:43 pm on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
How good is the Epson driver and related software mnw?
hp scanners - good software - a touch slow/bloated, but easy to use.
Umax scanners - didn't care for the software one bit - never again.
| 6:49 pm on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My Epson Perfection is very fast, and the software offers a good level of control over the scanner output... Cuts down photoshop time on a lot of images by quite a bit.
| 6:50 pm on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I had a UMAX scsi scanner and it was fantastic but the lazy bums didn't bother with W2K drivers for it (it was the cutoff model - everything newer had drivers). Needless to say it was problematic on W2K so I ditched it and swore off UMAX due to their crappy support - the scanner wasn't that old and I paid $250 for it.
Now I have one of those tiny little Canon scanners and it's pretty sweet. Installed in about 30 seconds and only one cable - no power brick.
That's gotta be one my biggest peeves with USB hardware - they advertise it as USB only, hot swappable and all that crap and then you open the box and there's power cable with that big brick inline. Seems that they are missing a big part of the point of USB don't it.
| 7:25 pm on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>big brick inline
Wait a sec!? I thought you were in canada? Where "brick power supply" is spelled "foot warmers"?
| 7:46 pm on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Those skinny Canons are really great looking... truly impressive size compared to the competition, makes everyone else look outmoded & clunky.
One thing I've been learning is that a key part of a scanner purchase is the software that comes with it. Not the cheesy photo editing stuff, but the control panel that interacts with the scanner hardware and built-in (or external) applications. If you are scanning out of an app like Omnipage or Fireworks, it won't make much difference. On the other hand, having a scanner control panel that gives you one-click "copy" or "scan to file" that will auto-recognize the original type, auto-scan, auto-crop, etc., is pretty handy.
| 7:56 pm on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"brick power supply" is spelled "foot warmers"
A person only needs so many foot warmers, Brett. With a laptop and two power-brick accessories, you've got a lap warmer and two toasty tootsies... Beyond that, extra power bricks are just clutter.
I've never seen a scanner with a power brick though... All the ones I bought just had regular cords. I guess that's the trade off you make for a low-profile design?
| 8:25 pm on Mar 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Brett - The Epson software is easy to use. The Scanner seems a little slow but I was scanning multiple 35mm prints on an 8.5" x 11" @ 600dpi. The only other scan I did was a cover of Fine Woodworking @1200 dpi. The quality is better than my Umax and my wife thought the quality was also better than the HP she has at work. I have taken it off "Automatic" which scans at 300 dpi and scans the entire 8.5"x 11" whether I want it or not. My only complaint was that none of the other ones I was looking would scan legal size unless I wanted to spend a lot more than $149 the 1650 cost.
| 10:45 am on Mar 16, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>control panel that interacts with the scanner hardware and built-in (or external) applications.
That's my feeling too. Some of the scanner stuff is getting rather precocious in taking over the machine. That is my complaint with the umax stuff. I think it is overboard to leave scanner driver software up and running 24x7 when I use it once a month.