Upgrading/Replacing my scanner

[David Blanchard]

I'm considering replacing my Nikon LS-2000 scanner with something
newer. A check of the NikonUSA site shows three scanners: the V ED,
the 5000, and the 9000. The V ED and 5000 use USB 2.0 and the 9000
uses IEEE 1394.

My [legacy] computer uses SCSI -- and that's the reason I have the
LS-2000. I have added a PCI card (Sonnet Tango) that supports IEEE
1394 and USB1.1

I presume that the V ED and 5000 USB2 will renegotiate downward to
USB1. I suspect, however, that this will result in unacceptably slow
transfer speeds between the scanner and computer compared to SCSI
(rated at 5 MB/s). True?

What happened to the 4000 and 8000 scanners? Already obsolete? Are
there other Nikon scanners that support IEEE 1394 that I might buy
used?


Thanks,

David

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

I presume that the V ED and 5000 USB2 will renegotiate downward to
USB1. I suspect, however, that this will result in unacceptably slow
transfer speeds between the scanner and computer compared to SCSI
(rated at 5 MB/s). True?

What happened to the 4000 and 8000 scanners? Already obsolete? Are
there other Nikon scanners that support IEEE 1394 that I might buy
used?

Unless I were short on slots, I wouldn't let the type of interface affect my
choice. Multiport USB2 cards are only about thirty bucks at CompUSA and
USB2/1394 combination cards are about fifty.

I've got two USB2 cards (5 ports each) in the back of my box and a 4-port outlet
in the front above the floppy drive that plugs into the internal port of one of
the back two. No problems to speak of.

I've got a Nikon 4000 on a 1394 card that is also daisy chained to a couple of
drives. Just got replaced my SCSI flatbed with a USB2-connected scanner and
it was "plug-and-play" all the way.

 

[David Blanchard]

I presume that the V ED and 5000 USB2 will renegotiate downward to
USB1. I suspect, however, that this will result in unacceptably slow
transfer speeds between the scanner and computer compared to SCSI
(rated at 5 MB/s). True?

Unless I were short on slots, I wouldn't let the type of interface affect my
choice. Multiport USB2 cards are only about thirty bucks at CompUSA and
USB2/1394 combination cards are about fifty.[/QUOTE]

My legacy hardware and OS (Mac 7300; MacOS 9) does not support USB2...
only USB1.1. Otherwise, sure, the upgrade to USB2 would be ideal and
suit the purpose. My error for not pointing that out in my original
post.

So, given that constraint, is USB1.1 going to be too slow for data
transfer?

Thanks,

David

 

[Chris Birkett]

My legacy hardware and OS (Mac 7300; MacOS 9) does not support USB2...
only USB1.1. Otherwise, sure, the upgrade to USB2 would be ideal and
suit the purpose. My error for not pointing that out in my original
post.

So, given that constraint, is USB1.1 going to be too slow for data
transfer?

I would suggest upgrading your computer before upgrading your scanner. I
looked up your system's specs, and I shudder to think of the time you'd
spend editing a 4000dpi scan from the Coolscan V.

- Chris

 

[Guest]

My legacy hardware and OS (Mac 7300; MacOS 9) does not support USB2...

only USB1.1. Otherwise, sure, the upgrade to USB2 would be ideal and
suit the purpose. My error for not pointing that out in my original
post.

So, given that constraint, is USB1.1 going to be too slow for data
transfer?

YES!
and let me say it again - YES! TOO SLOW!

 

[CSM1]

YES!
and let me say it again - YES! TOO SLOW!

USB 1.1 is 12 Megabits per second or about 1.5 Megabytes per second.
For most scanners, that is not a bottleneck. For high res film scanners it
is a factor.

Why can't you upgrade your Mac with a USB 2.0 Card?

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

So, given that constraint, is USB1.1 going to be too slow for data
transfer?

I think that's an individual personality issue. The data will get there
eventually.... but I'm a closet type A - who is still trying to write apps with
sub-second response time - and USB1 would drive me up the wall. I've worked
with clients, however, who would have no problem at all with such a slow
process.

 

[David Blanchard]

I would suggest upgrading your computer before upgrading your scanner. I
looked up your system's specs, and I shudder to think of the time you'd
spend editing a 4000dpi scan from the Coolscan V.

Interesting point...that is, other system components may end up being the
real bottleneck. On the other hand, this is no longer a stock 7300. It
has an upgraded G3/400 MHz cpu, substantially more RAM, and plenty of
internal SCSI and external FireWire drive space. Still, your point
is worth considering...

Thanks,

David

 

[David Blanchard]

news:[email protected]...

USB 1.1 is 12 Megabits per second or about 1.5 Megabytes per second.
For most scanners, that is not a bottleneck. For high res film scanners it
is a factor.

Why can't you upgrade your Mac with a USB 2.0 Card?

All the vendors that sell USB1.1/2.0 PCI cards indicate that USB2 will
require Mac OS X 10.2.x or higher. My hardware is too old to run OS X
unless I use some of the well-publicized hacks to get it to install.
This is a path I prefer not to take.

David

 

[David Blanchard]

RE/

I think that's an individual personality issue. The data will get
there eventually.... but I'm a closet type A - who is still trying to
write apps with sub-second response time - and USB1 would drive me up
the wall. I've worked with clients, however, who would have no
problem at all with such a slow process.

Even now, I have to do some waiting. For example, using VueScan with
16X multisample plus the Long Exposure option gives me plenty of
time to catch up on my reading. I actually do keep a few books and
magazines by the desk for these pauses in my productivity.

If the work I was doing was job related (i.e., time = money), I would
have made the upgrades a long time ago. Since this is my personal
equipment for what is essentially a hobby, I have been reluctant to
invest money in new equipment since the vast majority of my work runs
just fine on this machine.

I'm one of those people that enjoys doing things on old equipment just
to prove that you don't need the newest gadgets. It's a personality
flaw, I suppose ;-).

Thanks,

David