I thought I should pass this on: I had been told by microsoft that it is
not possible to network a scanner (ie, share a flatbed scanner between
users on a network in the way that printers are shared and networked),
but it turns out with some new 3rd party software called RemoteScan from
http://www.remote-scan.com it is now easy to do so.

Text from the article in PC Magazine where I found out about RemoteScan
sums things up nicely: "RemoteScan's new RemoteScan Server makes any
scanner a network scanner. Just install the server application on the
computer to which the scanner is attached. Now any computer running the
RemoteScan client can use the scanner over the network" --
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1537345,00.asp

I am not connected with the company, but I wanted to share this since
it was a HUGE frustation -- not being able to share scanners -- and the
software seems to be the only solution avialble today. Saved me and my
clients money (in that one scanner now meets the needs of an entire
office), you might like to try it out too.

Vernon H.
-Age not imoprtant.
-Sex more so.
-Race only matters if you win.
.....

This subject comes up frequently, and it always puzzles me as to why anyone
would want to do this, because the reality is:

1. The user must walk to where the scanner is located and insert the
original.
2. The user must then walk back to his/her computer desk and type in the
scanner commands.
3. The user must then do something with the scanned image, such as inserting
it into a Word document or saving it to a file.
4. The user must walk back to the scanner and retrieve the original.
5. Finally, the user must walk back to his/her computer desk.

Since the user has to walk over to the scanner anyway (to insert the
original), he/she might just as well perform the scanner commands with the
computer that is connected to that scanner - then save it to a shared
folder, retrieve the original, and walk back to his/her desk. Only one trip
to the scanner required!

Granted that you may have to wait if someone else is seated at the computer
for a non-networked scanner. But you would also have to wait anyway (to
insert the original) if another user was using a networked scanner.

Papa wrote:
> This subject comes up frequently, and it always puzzles me as to why
> anyone would want to do this, because the reality is:
>
> 1. The user must walk to where the scanner is located and insert the
> original.
> 2. The user must then walk back to his/her computer desk and type in
> the scanner commands.
> 3. The user must then do something with the scanned image, such as
> inserting it into a Word document or saving it to a file.
> 4. The user must walk back to the scanner and retrieve the original.
> 5. Finally, the user must walk back to his/her computer desk.
>
> Since the user has to walk over to the scanner anyway (to insert the
> original), he/she might just as well perform the scanner commands
> with the computer that is connected to that scanner - then save it to
> a shared folder, retrieve the original, and walk back to his/her
> desk. Only one trip to the scanner required!
>
> Granted that you may have to wait if someone else is seated at the
> computer for a non-networked scanner. But you would also have to wait
> anyway (to insert the original) if another user was using a networked
> scanner.

You are correct, but this is what I see a lot..

User has an assistant that scans for them, but they come in on a day the
assistant is not.. They must scan themselves and either cannot use the
machine the scanner is hooked to (don't have rights) or they don't know they
can. It's easier to sometimes just share in this case.

Also, a lot of people have assistants (or student workers in my case) that
run things to and from the scanner in question. heh

--
<- Shenan ->
--

It works if all the computers are in one room. I have a small office and my
officejet already supports this but it is a nice feature to have. It
doesn't limit one computer for that function only.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
"Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> This subject comes up frequently, and it always puzzles me as to why
anyone
> would want to do this, because the reality is:
>
> 1. The user must walk to where the scanner is located and insert the
> original.
> 2. The user must then walk back to his/her computer desk and type in the
> scanner commands.
> 3. The user must then do something with the scanned image, such as
inserting
> it into a Word document or saving it to a file.
> 4. The user must walk back to the scanner and retrieve the original.
> 5. Finally, the user must walk back to his/her computer desk.
>
> Since the user has to walk over to the scanner anyway (to insert the
> original), he/she might just as well perform the scanner commands with the
> computer that is connected to that scanner - then save it to a shared
> folder, retrieve the original, and walk back to his/her desk. Only one
trip
> to the scanner required!
>
> Granted that you may have to wait if someone else is seated at the
computer
> for a non-networked scanner. But you would also have to wait anyway (to
> insert the original) if another user was using a networked scanner.
>
>

"Robert" said in news:uLt6c.11487$xg.6464@fed1read04:
> It works if all the computers are in one room. I have a small office
> and my officejet already supports this but it is a nice feature to
> have. It doesn't limit one computer for that function only.

So instead of using the scan software on the host to which the scanner
is attached and sending the file across your network to where you want
to use that file, you scan from the same host where you intend to use
the file but need to use special software to do that. So instead of
pushing the file using standard TCP/IP protocols and shared directories,
you yank the file using proprietary software. Like the others, guess
I'm missing where the ease-of-use actually occurs. The push method
doesn't cost any money and is just as fast as the pull method that
requires buying more software. If you aren't the one that has to
install the proprietary software (both the server and client programs)
on multiple hosts and you aren't the one that has to pay for it then,
yes, there might be a perceived ease-of-use only in a rather tightly
spaced multiple host environment. But someone had to install the server
and client programs for that software that provides its own proprietary
protocol and someone had to pay for it. Plus it add more software
between you and the scanner to reduce liability and, of course, we all
know that to generate continued revenue that there will be upgrades
later.

Wow! What a cool idea.

How is it that mere people can be so ****ing stupid?

Network scanning ... the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.


"Vernon Huff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ALq6c.8476$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I thought I should pass this on: I had been told by microsoft that it is
> not possible to network a scanner (ie, share a flatbed scanner between
> users on a network in the way that printers are shared and networked),
> but it turns out with some new 3rd party software called RemoteScan from
> http://www.remote-scan.com it is now easy to do so.
>
> Text from the article in PC Magazine where I found out about RemoteScan
> sums things up nicely: "RemoteScan's new RemoteScan Server makes any
> scanner a network scanner. Just install the server application on the
> computer to which the scanner is attached. Now any computer running the
> RemoteScan client can use the scanner over the network" --
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1537345,00.asp
>
> I am not connected with the company, but I wanted to share this since
> it was a HUGE frustation -- not being able to share scanners -- and the
> software seems to be the only solution avialble today. Saved me and my
> clients money (in that one scanner now meets the needs of an entire
> office), you might like to try it out too.
>
> Vernon H.
> -Age not imoprtant.
> -Sex more so.
> -Race only matters if you win.
> ....

"*Vanguard*" <no-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:SM-dnRkraIBMDsfdRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Robert" said in news:uLt6c.11487$xg.6464@fed1read04:
> > It works if all the computers are in one room. I have a small office
> > and my officejet already supports this but it is a nice feature to
> > have. It doesn't limit one computer for that function only.
>
> So instead of using the scan software on the host to which the scanner
> is attached and sending the file across your network to where you want
> to use that file, you scan from the same host where you intend to use
> the file but need to use special software to do that. So instead of
> pushing the file using standard TCP/IP protocols and shared directories,
> you yank the file using proprietary software. Like the others, guess
> I'm missing where the ease-of-use actually occurs. The push method
> doesn't cost any money and is just as fast as the pull method that
> requires buying more software. If you aren't the one that has to
> install the proprietary software (both the server and client programs)
> on multiple hosts and you aren't the one that has to pay for it then,
> yes, there might be a perceived ease-of-use only in a rather tightly
> spaced multiple host environment. But someone had to install the server
> and client programs for that software that provides its own proprietary
> protocol and someone had to pay for it. Plus it add more software
> between you and the scanner to reduce liability and, of course, we all
> know that to generate continued revenue that there will be upgrades
> later.
>

I can imagine a few (very few) scenarios where sharing a scanner would make
sense. A school media center, for example, where someone would be monitoring
what the students were scanning.

But otherwise, you have to GO to the scanner to put in whatever you want
scanned. Going back to your computer to work the software seems silly. And
in the meantime, a co-worker puts their own photo in the scanner, you press
scan, get their photo...it just sounds unwieldy. The fights would be worse
than the ones over who took the last of the coffee and should brew another
pot.

And consider that many scanners have a "scan" button. It would be pretty
simple to set up the scanner to send the scans to a common network folder.
You go to the scanner, put the photo in, press scan, remove the photo. And
when you get back to your computer, you retrieve the scan from the network
folder.

And that scenario would work just as well in the media center example. The
scanner person scans the photo or whatever, then hands the photo back
immediately. Either there's a shared folder, or the media center worker
sends the file to the student's computer.

First, I wonder why this thread was posted to 7 newsgroups?

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:57:42 GMT, "Colon Terminus"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Wow! What a cool idea.
>
>How is it that mere people can be so ****ing stupid?

An inferiority complex for sure. I think you should take your pills
and find a different hobby.

Far, far, far away from human contact.

>Network scanning ... the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.
>
>
>"Vernon Huff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:ALq6c.8476$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I thought I should pass this on: I had been told by microsoft that it is
>> not possible to network a scanner (ie, share a flatbed scanner between
>> users on a network in the way that printers are shared and networked),
>> but it turns out with some new 3rd party software called RemoteScan from
>> http://www.remote-scan.com it is now easy to do so.
>>
>> Text from the article in PC Magazine where I found out about RemoteScan
>> sums things up nicely: "RemoteScan's new RemoteScan Server makes any
>> scanner a network scanner. Just install the server application on the
>> computer to which the scanner is attached. Now any computer running the
>> RemoteScan client can use the scanner over the network" --
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1537345,00.asp
>>
>> I am not connected with the company, but I wanted to share this since
>> it was a HUGE frustation -- not being able to share scanners -- and the
>> software seems to be the only solution avialble today. Saved me and my
>> clients money (in that one scanner now meets the needs of an entire
>> office), you might like to try it out too.
>>
>> Vernon H.
>> -Age not imoprtant.
>> -Sex more so.
>> -Race only matters if you win.
>> ....
>

"Vernon Huff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ALq6c.8476$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I thought I should pass this on: I had been told by microsoft that it is
> not possible to network a scanner (ie, share a flatbed scanner between
> users on a network in the way that printers are shared and networked),
> but it turns out with some new 3rd party software called RemoteScan from
> http://www.remote-scan.com it is now easy to do so.

Or you could buy a scanner that has network support, like the Network
Scanjet.

The advantage of using RemoteScan is:
1) It is a software solution that works with all scanners, not just
scanners that are already network enabled.

2) Is much less expensive than buying a hardware scanner.

There are very clear reasons why sharing a scanner on a network makes
a lot of sense. The reasons wont make sense to anyone who works alone
on their own computer, but for anyone who shares office space and
resources, sharing a scanner is a good thing. Just as now it is 2nd
nature to share printers.

When you have a scanner that is not shared, anytime anyone needs to
use it, they have to take over the use of the computer where the
scanner is attached. By networking a scanner, anyone can use the
scanner without having to dedicate a single computer just to scanning.
By locating the scanner on a counter or table where it is near to
several office works (exactly as printers are located in offices), a
person would place their document in the scanner and then use their
own computer and their own software applications and acquire the image
directly into their application.

Also, if you are in a large scale, industrial environment where
Terminal Services are in use, RemoteScan seems to be the only
non-hardware solution that allows software running on the Terminal
Server to use scanners attached to client machines.

All the posts above blasting the "idea" of sharing scanners as lame
are clearly coming from people who are so anti-social they have never
been able to hold a job in an environment where it is necessary to
work with others; thus to them the idea of "sharing" is as foreign as
"networking." Lurkers don't need to share, just as they don't really
need to worry about saving time or money, as insulting appears to be
their commodity that allows them to subsist ad infinitum.

For anyone else, I suggest if you need to network your scanner, you
check out the cool new software from http://www.remote-scan.com

GadetGuy.

"Mike Brown - Process Manager" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> "Vernon Huff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ALq6c.8476$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I thought I should pass this on: I had been told by microsoft that it is
> > not possible to network a scanner (ie, share a flatbed scanner between
> > users on a network in the way that printers are shared and networked),
> > but it turns out with some new 3rd party software called RemoteScan from
> > http://www.remote-scan.com it is now easy to do so.
>
> Or you could buy a scanner that has network support, like the Network
> Scanjet.