VueScan stopped working as soon as I paid the $50!!!!

[D-Mac]

Vuescan provided a try before you buy method of evaluation. No need to pay
for it and then find out it dosen't do what you expected. Find that out
first then don't buy it. In my book this means it's a safer deal than buying
and trying to get a refund. What's your problem? Pissed off there's no
cracks for it?

 

[Evo2Me]

Don't speak for everyone, speak for yorself, please. While after
alot of experience I can make Vuescan to produce good result it does
not make me happy.

1. My message was obviously conversational.
2. No kind of software (or hardware) can make someone 'happy'; I know
that.
3. There was a context to my message.
4. I tried to contrast those, like Don and Hecate, throwing mud at VS
and EH with those seeing VS as just another solution. When composing
the post I thought about going into detail about how people learn a
piece of software on various levels. I decided against it, for
clarity's sake and to not bore the living daylights out of everybody.

 

[Djon]

I wasn't aware Hamrick recommended that ini fix.

I'm not embarassed in the least about that because I've never felt the
need to do workarounds or fixes.

Never saw Hamrick post here...I visit here rarely... it's obvious why
he stopped (harassed by the lonely souls that have nothing better to
do, so follow this forum to bash him personally...for reasons they
won't admit)

If a user doesn't want to plow through online explanations of how to
return to default condition, the easiest thing to do is simply to
uninstall and reinstall: Just like other applications. It's amazing
that this wasn't recommended immediately, since the nature of this
problem was apparent (bad installation).

I've found Vuescan almost trouble-free. Very good application (which is
why we do use it, rather than some other application). I've had a grand
total of one two-day annoyance ...Hamrick learned of the problem on a
less weird forum and immediately issued a perfect update.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Hamrick learned of the problem on a less weird forum and
immediately issued a perfect update.

Please make sure you don't judge the weirdness of this group by its
resident troll ;-)

I've found most people contributing things of value here to be quite
civil and either knowledgeable and willing to share, or to learn. And
then there are also cultural and personal distinctions... (facinating
subject but not on topic here).

Bart

 

[Djon]

Bart, I know you're well-intended but the resident nutjobs make this
Google Group actively negative.

There are several far better forums for scanner discussion, eg.
Photo.Net's Digital Darkroom Forum and
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Bart, I know you're well-intended but the resident nutjobs make this
Google Group actively negative.

There are several far better forums for scanner discussion, eg.
Photo.Net's Digital Darkroom Forum and
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/

Please don't say that. The idiots might move...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Philip Homburg]

Anyone to second my nomination of the above for the grand prize for the
biggest nonsense uttered in this newsgroup in a very long time?

I think there is some truth in the statement. A scanner plus the
vendor supplied software is a product. If it doesn't work as advertised,
you should get a refund.

The last part is of course ridiculous. It is often the case that third
parties make add-ons that are better than those supplied by the vendor.

However, if you intend to use a product in a way that is not supported
by the vendor and it breaks, then you usually get to keep both pieces.
Only in rare cases do third party suppliers warrant the combination as
a whole.

 

[Don]

Vuescan provided a try before you buy method of evaluation. No need to pay
for it and then find out it dosen't do what you expected. Find that out
first then don't buy it. In my book this means it's a safer deal than buying
and trying to get a refund. What's your problem?

I have no problem but you apparently you do. More than one, by the
looks of it.

For starters, you seem to be totally unaware of all the shortcomings
of the evaluation version. I suggest you look into that first before
making any additional unsubstantiated/uneducated statements.

Pissed off there's no cracks for it?

You appear to be new around here, so the first one is free...

Actually, I was given a key by the author to prove to him why
individual Analog Gain setting on Nikons is essential.

Users have been requesting this for months but the author's arrogant
and condescending response was: "You don't need that!".

He issued a direct challenge, I met it, and he (predictably) exploded
with abuse - after having painted himself in a corner. However, after
I have clearly demonstrated the need for individual Analog Gain
setting in public, he had no choice but to grudgingly implement it.

The thanks I got from the very same users who have unsuccessfully been
begging him for months to do exactly that was abuse... Go figure...

So, you better check your facts first before embarrassing yourself any
further!

Don.

 

[Don]

I wasn't aware Hamrick recommended that ini fix.

Apparently, one of the many things you don't seem to be aware of...

But that ignorance of the most elementary facts doesn't prevent you
from spewing indiscriminate abuse. Indeed, it's the very cause!

I'm not embarassed in the least about that

You should be!

Calling people names based on your own ignorance of basic facts (like
the ini recommendation) is something any *reasonable* person would be
very (!) embarrassed about.

Your loudly proclaimed lack of embarrassment indicates you are in no
danger of falling into that category! ;o)

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Djon ([email protected]) wrote in @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Bart, I know you're well-intended but the resident nutjobs make this
Google Group actively negative.

This is not a "Google group" (though Google may make it available); it's a
normal (NNTP) newsgroup, available on most ISP's news servers.