sharing a flatbed scanner in the same way you share a printer.

Discussion in 'Windows XP Hardware' started by Vernon Huff, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. Vernon Huff

    Vernon Huff Guest

    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, Mar 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Vernon Huff

    Papa Guest

    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, Mar 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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 ->
    --
     
    Shenan Stanley, Mar 19, 2004
    #3
  4. Vernon Huff

    Robert Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Mar 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Vernon Huff

    *Vanguard* Guest

    "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.
     
    *Vanguard*, Mar 19, 2004
    #5
  6. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:ALq6c.8476$...
    > 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.
    > ....
     
    Colon Terminus, Mar 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Vernon Huff

    D.Currie Guest

    "*Vanguard*" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "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.
     
    D.Currie, Mar 19, 2004
    #7
  8. Vernon Huff

    techno Guest

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

    On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:57:42 GMT, "Colon Terminus"
    <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >news:ALq6c.8476$...
    >> 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.
    >> ....

    >
     
    techno, Mar 19, 2004
    #8
  9. "Vernon Huff" <> wrote in message
    news:ALq6c.8476$...
    > 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.
     
    Mike Brown - Process Manager, Mar 19, 2004
    #9
  10. 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" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > "Vernon Huff" <> wrote in message
    > news:ALq6c.8476$...
    > > 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.
     
    Gadget Guy Bob, Mar 20, 2004
    #10
  11. 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 workers (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" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > "Vernon Huff" <> wrote in message
    > news:ALq6c.8476$...
    > > 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.
     
    Gadget Guy Bob, Mar 20, 2004
    #11
  12. Vernon Huff

    Papa Guest

    Not to flame you, but just a friendly comment for your consideration:
    name-calling ("so anti-social they have never been able to hold a job",
    "insulting appears to be their commodity") does nothing to enhance a
    discussion. That is the same mistake many politicians make. Winning a debate
    is usually accomplished by just sticking to the pertinent points.

    Actually there are very good reasons for NOT networking a scanner - see my
    original post. I have spent a significant number of years in an office
    environment employing large numbers of desk top computers. We have found
    that it is really not cost-effective to network them, and the scanner
    manufacturers - for the most part - have recognized that fact and have
    therefore not incorporated network capability into their designs.

    Best regards.

    Oops, almost forgot. You can minimize incoming spam by not using your real
    email address in newsgroup posts.
     
    Papa, Mar 20, 2004
    #12
  13. Vernon Huff

    Vance Green Guest

    Wow.

    You're never gonna sell any of your stuff
    with this kinda attitude. (don't try to pretend
    you don't work for Remote-whatever)

    If the sock puppet who put up the
    original post had just admitted he worked for the
    company he purports NOT to, instead of lying to us,
    we might have been kinder, or at least just
    ignored him.

    And developers who REALLY feel that their product
    is valuable do NOT resort to name calling when flaws
    in said product or purpose of said product are brought up...

    they ADDRESS those issues in a sane and reasonable way,
    and incorporate the feedback.


    "Gadget Guy Bob" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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"

    <> wrote in message
    news:<>...
    > > "Vernon Huff" <> wrote in message
    > > news:ALq6c.8476$...
    > > > 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.
     
    Vance Green, Mar 20, 2004
    #13
  14. Vernon Huff

    Papa Guest

    I checked about a dozen newsgroups. The only posts this guy has ever made is
    about scanners. Guess what that tells us?

    Regards.

    "Vance Green" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wow.
    >
    > You're never gonna sell any of your stuff
    > with this kinda attitude. (don't try to pretend
    > you don't work for Remote-whatever)
    >
     
    Papa, Mar 20, 2004
    #14
  15. Vernon Huff

    *Vanguard* Guest

    "D.Currie" said in news:c3e5qr$263lgn$-berlin.de:
    <snip>
    > The fights would be worse than the ones over who took the last of the
    > coffee and should brew another pot.


    Actually we go on hunting parties to find out who to embarass that
    didn't start the next batch of coffee. Coffee is the elixir of life.
    Other than aspirin (to let us keep going), coffee makes us go (in more
    ways than one). No other drugs are allowed onsite. We MUST have our
    coffee!!! Never EVER take the last cup without starting the next pot.
    Soon we will be mounting trophy heads of those that disobey.
     
    *Vanguard*, Mar 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Vernon Huff

    *Vanguard* Guest

    "Gadget Guy Bob" said in
    news::
    <snip>
    >
    > 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."


    Boy, talk about limited working experience. Must be a guy that works in
    a regional insurance office comprised of a single room with desks piled
    up against the walls. I work in Quality Assurance. We share
    EVERYTHING, mostly because we have to borrow much, even people when we
    finagle the manpower. 600 employees, a computer tech computer company,
    $7M in just our part of our alpha lab, and yet no one has been screaming
    for a networked scanner. Wonder why.

    How long have you used this scanner "solution"? How many must share the
    solution? What happens when multiple people want to use it? That is
    how is prioritization handled amongst people standing in a line? Boss
    goes first or whomever would have the most impact on generating revenue?

    This RemoteScan is a software solution. There is no network attached
    hardware for that connects the scanner, like a JetDirect for printers or
    NAS (network access storage; i.e., hard drives on a NIC). You still
    need to install the "server" program on a host that has to be left
    running all the time. If that host is turned off, rebooted (for
    updates), or crashes then no one is going to be using that scanner until
    the host is brought back up. So what did it solve? You still have the
    scanner attached to a host. You really need more software to route it
    to a client host somewhere else when you can do that right from the
    scanner or the software that came with it that got installed on that
    scanner's host. To eliminate annoyance from everyone else trying to use
    one employee's PC to do scans, are you really going to waste the money
    for a dedicated host on which to run the RemoteScan server?

    If this was such a great idea, why is it only now that this non-solution
    has finally arrived? Because someone figured marketing hype could
    overpower logic and rake in some money for awhile, and that there are
    lots more dummies than there are users that understand their scanner
    software, networking, and shared resources. This is a solution in
    search of a problem - and hoping you don't already realize the solution
    already exists!

    You asked if the community finds value in this "solution." The
    consensus is no. Other solutions already exist and this one isn't
    innovative beyond those existing solutions. I can share a scanner NOW
    over the network using the scanner software and TCP, NetBEUI, or
    Computer Browser to shared directories. It's connected to a host
    computer just as would be your Remote-Scan "solution". The user decides
    where to push the scan file rather than having to double up their hiking
    back and forth (my solution = walk to scanner, scan, hike back to desk;
    your solution = walk to scanner, insert doc and scan, walk back to desk,
    use client program to pull the scan file, walk back to scanner to
    retrieve document, hike back to desk). Maybe RemoteScan's server lets
    you push to its client program that must be running on a client host so
    you really don't have all that extra hiking, but neither do you have any
    less hiking, so there's no benefit.

    And when you read their Uses web page and see them trying to usurp the
    benefits of wireless networks as their benefit then you know they are
    desparate to prove their product. The benefits of WiFi are the benefits
    provided by the wireless NICs and hubs, NOT by some software that
    happens to run on those WiFi hosts! Using the same illogic, RemoteScan
    could also claim it makes Windows usable simply because RemoteScan is
    installed under Windows. It's really cost effective to put a scanner in
    some public access cubicle that has to have a dedicated PC to run its
    server program? Guess that is a small-sized but extreme scanner use
    environment that I've never seen. Hey, it could hawpen, sure, yubetcha.
     
    *Vanguard*, Mar 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Vernon Huff

    D.Currie Guest

    "*Vanguard*" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > "D.Currie" said in news:c3e5qr$263lgn$-berlin.de:
    > <snip>
    > > The fights would be worse than the ones over who took the last of the
    > > coffee and should brew another pot.

    >
    > Actually we go on hunting parties to find out who to embarass that
    > didn't start the next batch of coffee. Coffee is the elixir of life.
    > Other than aspirin (to let us keep going), coffee makes us go (in more
    > ways than one). No other drugs are allowed onsite. We MUST have our
    > coffee!!! Never EVER take the last cup without starting the next pot.
    > Soon we will be mounting trophy heads of those that disobey.
    >


    Heh. One place I worked, one woman somehow managed to always end up making
    coffee. I think she must have timed it that way. She'd stop by my desk and
    spend 15 minutes complaining about how she had no time to make coffee
    because she was so busy.
     
    D.Currie, Mar 21, 2004
    #17
  18. If you google this guy you will find out that the only messages he has ever
    posted are about this scanner sharing "solution". I suspect (but cannot
    prove) that he is somehow connected to the company hawking the software.

    'nuff said. :)

    --
    Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x]
    * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
    * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
    * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


    "*Vanguard*" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Gadget Guy Bob" said in
    > news::
    > <snip>
    > >
    > > 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."

    >
    > Boy, talk about limited working experience. Must be a guy that works in
    > a regional insurance office comprised of a single room with desks piled
    > up against the walls. I work in Quality Assurance. We share
    > EVERYTHING, mostly because we have to borrow much, even people when we
    > finagle the manpower. 600 employees, a computer tech computer company,
    > $7M in just our part of our alpha lab, and yet no one has been screaming
    > for a networked scanner. Wonder why.
     
    Richard G. Harper, Mar 21, 2004
    #18
  19. Vernon Huff

    David Vanug Guest

    Not sure why this long-winded rant was here, but thanks! It led me to
    this thread.

    I actually *had* been trying to figure out a way to connect our
    scanners to the network for a long time (sharing a folder is not an
    option, and we had an investment in application software), so I just
    want to say that RemoteScan works fine, it does exactly what it claims
    to.

    I also looked through their site and can't see where they claim
    anything extraordinary other than just being a clean and simple driver
    for sharing scanners, which, again, is exactly what I was looking for,
    because that was exactly what I needed.

    Seems like someone has an dull ax to grind..... ;~}





    "*Vanguard*" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > "Gadget Guy Bob" said in
    > news::
    > <snip>
    > >
    > > 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."

    >
    > Boy, talk about limited working experience. Must be a guy that works in
    > a regional insurance office comprised of a single room with desks piled
    > up against the walls. I work in Quality Assurance. We share
    > EVERYTHING, mostly because we have to borrow much, even people when we
    > finagle the manpower. 600 employees, a computer tech computer company,
    > $7M in just our part of our alpha lab, and yet no one has been screaming
    > for a networked scanner. Wonder why.
    >
    > How long have you used this scanner "solution"? How many must share the
    > solution? What happens when multiple people want to use it? That is
    > how is prioritization handled amongst people standing in a line? Boss
    > goes first or whomever would have the most impact on generating revenue?
    >
    > This RemoteScan is a software solution. There is no network attached
    > hardware for that connects the scanner, like a JetDirect for printers or
    > NAS (network access storage; i.e., hard drives on a NIC). You still
    > need to install the "server" program on a host that has to be left
    > running all the time. If that host is turned off, rebooted (for
    > updates), or crashes then no one is going to be using that scanner until
    > the host is brought back up. So what did it solve? You still have the
    > scanner attached to a host. You really need more software to route it
    > to a client host somewhere else when you can do that right from the
    > scanner or the software that came with it that got installed on that
    > scanner's host. To eliminate annoyance from everyone else trying to use
    > one employee's PC to do scans, are you really going to waste the money
    > for a dedicated host on which to run the RemoteScan server?
    >
    > If this was such a great idea, why is it only now that this non-solution
    > has finally arrived? Because someone figured marketing hype could
    > overpower logic and rake in some money for awhile, and that there are
    > lots more dummies than there are users that understand their scanner
    > software, networking, and shared resources. This is a solution in
    > search of a problem - and hoping you don't already realize the solution
    > already exists!
    >
    > You asked if the community finds value in this "solution." The
    > consensus is no. Other solutions already exist and this one isn't
    > innovative beyond those existing solutions. I can share a scanner NOW
    > over the network using the scanner software and TCP, NetBEUI, or
    > Computer Browser to shared directories. It's connected to a host
    > computer just as would be your Remote-Scan "solution". The user decides
    > where to push the scan file rather than having to double up their hiking
    > back and forth (my solution = walk to scanner, scan, hike back to desk;
    > your solution = walk to scanner, insert doc and scan, walk back to desk,
    > use client program to pull the scan file, walk back to scanner to
    > retrieve document, hike back to desk). Maybe RemoteScan's server lets
    > you push to its client program that must be running on a client host so
    > you really don't have all that extra hiking, but neither do you have any
    > less hiking, so there's no benefit.
    >
    > And when you read their Uses web page and see them trying to usurp the
    > benefits of wireless networks as their benefit then you know they are
    > desparate to prove their product. The benefits of WiFi are the benefits
    > provided by the wireless NICs and hubs, NOT by some software that
    > happens to run on those WiFi hosts! Using the same illogic, RemoteScan
    > could also claim it makes Windows usable simply because RemoteScan is
    > installed under Windows. It's really cost effective to put a scanner in
    > some public access cubicle that has to have a dedicated PC to run its
    > server program? Guess that is a small-sized but extreme scanner use
    > environment that I've never seen. Hey, it could hawpen, sure, yubetcha.
     
    David Vanug, Mar 22, 2004
    #19
  20. Vernon Huff

    *Vanguard* Guest

    "David Vanug" said in
    news::
    > Not sure why this long-winded rant was here, but thanks! It led me to
    > this thread.

    <snip>
    > Seems like someone has an dull ax to grind..... ;~}


    No, it's really like "Why do we need another door here alongside this
    door that is already here?"

    If you cannot figure out how to produce a solution using the network,
    shared resources, and the scanner software but instead want something to
    layer atop all that which makes it easier for you then, great, go for
    it. Some folks buy extravagant HTML editors that color highlight and
    syntax check when they write HTML pages instead of just using Notepad
    when all you want to produce is a simple web page. If you don't have
    the expertise then buy someone else's.
     
    *Vanguard*, Mar 22, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim Hagedorn

    Benq Flatbed Scanner

    Tim Hagedorn, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,935
    Quaoar
    Aug 19, 2003
  2. Alvin A Brown

    Re: usb flatbed color scanner

    Alvin A Brown, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    230
    Alvin A Brown
    Sep 5, 2003
  3. ric

    flatbed scanner

    ric, Mar 5, 2004, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    4,473
    Jim Macklin
    Mar 12, 2004
  4. Gadget Guy Bob

    how to network a flatbed scanner

    Gadget Guy Bob, Mar 14, 2004, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    251
    Gadget Guy Bob
    Mar 14, 2004
  5. Guest
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,147
    Guest
    Apr 12, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page