Is the Epson Perfection 3200 with USB2.0 really faster than USB1.1?

Hi,

I connected my Epson 3200 Perfection Photo first to the USB 1.1 of my
computer. Later I added a USB2.0 interface with driver to the computer
(Windows 98 SE).
But I cannot see any speed improvement if the scanner is connected to
USB2.0
Is there really no difference, or is my USB2.0 interface only running
with low speed?.

Regards
Dieter Oberle

In order to take advantage of the 2.0 speed, the computer must have
a USB 2.0 device. Since you have an old USB, it runs at the old speed.

J

> I connected my Epson 3200 Perfection Photo first to the USB 1.1 of my
> computer. Later I added a USB2.0 interface with driver to the computer
> (Windows 98 SE).
> But I cannot see any speed improvement if the scanner is connected to
> USB2.0
> Is there really no difference, or is my USB2.0 interface only running
> with low speed?.
>

I found there is very little difference unless you are scanning at very high
resolution on something like medium format negs. Even then it only seemed
about 50% faster.

Bob

"Hans-Dieter Oberle" <Hans-Dieter.Oberle@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:40115704.43ACC498@t-online.de...
> Hi,
>
> I connected my Epson 3200 Perfection Photo first to the USB 1.1 of my
> computer. Later I added a USB2.0 interface with driver to the computer
> (Windows 98 SE).
> But I cannot see any speed improvement if the scanner is connected to
> USB2.0
> Is there really no difference, or is my USB2.0 interface only running
> with low speed?.
>
> Regards
> Dieter Oberle
>
>

In article <40115704.43ACC498@t-online.de>, Hans-Dieter Oberle
<Hans-Dieter.Oberle@t-online.de> writes
> Hi,
>
>I connected my Epson 3200 Perfection Photo first to the USB 1.1 of my
>computer. Later I added a USB2.0 interface with driver to the computer
>(Windows 98 SE).
>But I cannot see any speed improvement if the scanner is connected to
>USB2.0

It probably seems obvious with hindsight, but improving the bus
bandwidth (eg going from USB1.1 to USB2.0) will only reduce the scan
time if the bus bandwidth was limiting the scan speed in the first
place. Usually, you can tell if this is the case because the scanner
will pause regularly during the scan while it transfers the limited data
it stores locally in its buffers to your PC memory. If it doesn't pause
then the buffer is being emptied across the bus into your PC memory
faster than the scanner can fill it up, meaning that the bus transfer is
not limiting your scan speed. In addition, even if the bus is the
limit, then the maximum gain you will get in the scan time is just the
total amount of time the scanner has paused during the scan process, and
if you then generate data fast enough to saturate even the faster bus,
the scan time won't reduce by as much as you expected.

The way to make the scanner generate data more quickly and thus force
the bus to be the primary bottleneck is to scan a wider swathe, or scan
at higher resolution or at greater bit depth and preferably all three.
So scanning a 4" width swathe at 3200ppi with 16bits per colour will
produce data 384x faster than scanning a 1" swath at 200ppi and 8bits
greyscale. USB2.0 would not make any difference to the scan time of the
latter image, but it would make quite a bit of difference to the former.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

When I first purchased my Microtek Scanmaker 5900, it took me over 20 minutes to
scan a 6x9 frame. This scanner is USB 2.0 enabled, but my HP had only USB 1.1 ports.
I then purchased a Belkin USB 2.0 card, hoping for an improvement.
It floored me when my scan times dropped to aproximately 6 minutes.

Is it possible that win 98SE is not fully USB 2.0 enabled? My HP is running Win
XP Home Edition.

Jeff.

Hans-Dieter Oberle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I connected my Epson 3200 Perfection Photo first to the USB 1.1 of my
> computer. Later I added a USB2.0 interface with driver to the computer
> (Windows 98 SE).
> But I cannot see any speed improvement if the scanner is connected to
> USB2.0
> Is there really no difference, or is my USB2.0 interface only running
> with low speed?.
>
> Regards
> Dieter Oberle
>
>

In article <yEjQb.7053$rW5.711502@news20.bellglobal.com>,
tokom@sympatico.ca says...
> When I first purchased my Microtek Scanmaker 5900, it took me over 20 minutes to
> scan a 6x9 frame. This scanner is USB 2.0 enabled, but my HP had only USB 1.1 ports.
> I then purchased a Belkin USB 2.0 card, hoping for an improvement.
> It floored me when my scan times dropped to aproximately 6 minutes.
>
> Is it possible that win 98SE is not fully USB 2.0 enabled? My HP is running Win
> XP Home Edition.
>
> Jeff.

The OS isn't, but drivers with 2.0 cards make it so.
I run Maxtor 2.0 external harddrive with 98 SE and addon 2.0 card, no
probs.

Mac