Umax AstraSlim scanner - anyone using one?

[Bert Coules]

Just a quick query: is anyone successfully using a Umax AstraSlim SE scanner
under Windows7? My installation went through the driver setup procedure
with no error messages, but the software simply didn't load. The Umax UK
site has no Win7 drivers, but I hate the thought of having to junk a
perfectly good scanner merely because of my new PC's OS, so wonder if
there's a workaround.

Many thanks,

Bert

 

[John McGaw]

On 1/4/2010 4:11 PM, Bert Coules wrote:
> Just a quick query: is anyone successfully using a Umax AstraSlim SE
> scanner under Windows7? My installation went through the driver setup
> procedure with no error messages, but the software simply didn't load.
> The Umax UK site has no Win7 drivers, but I hate the thought of having
> to junk a perfectly good scanner merely because of my new PC's OS, so
> wonder if there's a workaround.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Bert

If the drivers truly did load why not try rebooting and then scanning from
some TWAIN-enabled software bypassing the scan software. I've been
operating this way for years since most software provided with scanners are
not worth the trouble IMHO. My word processor and graphics program are both
happy with just the TWAIN.

 

[Andy]

"Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:

> Just a quick query: is anyone successfully using a Umax AstraSlim SE
> scanner under Windows7? My installation went through the driver setup
> procedure with no error messages, but the software simply didn't load.
> The Umax UK site has no Win7 drivers, but I hate the thought of
> having to junk a perfectly good scanner merely because of my new PC's
> OS, so wonder if there's a workaround.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Bert


Scanners are so old school. Obsolete!

The resolution is too low.

Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.

You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod. Then it's
a page, click, page, click, page, click procedure rather than a page,
scan it for 10 minutes, page, scan it for 10 minutes procedure.

I didn't realize people still used scanners.

Imho,

Andy

 

[Bert Coules]

Andy,

> The resolution is too low.

For whom? Not for me.

> Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
> fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
> You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod.

And this space-consuming, Heath Robinson setup is supposed to be superior to
a beautifully small, low-profile, well-designed bit of desktop gear?
Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.

Bert

 

[MJMIII]

"Andy" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:Xns9CF6B29BE1DB6Cotd@216.196.97.131...
> "Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just a quick query: is anyone successfully using a Umax AstraSlim SE
>> scanner under Windows7? My installation went through the driver setup
>> procedure with no error messages, but the software simply didn't load.
>> The Umax UK site has no Win7 drivers, but I hate the thought of
>> having to junk a perfectly good scanner merely because of my new PC's
>> OS, so wonder if there's a workaround.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Bert
>
>
> Scanners are so old school. Obsolete!
>
> The resolution is too low.
>
> Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
> fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
>
> You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod. Then it's
> a page, click, page, click, page, click procedure rather than a page,
> scan it for 10 minutes, page, scan it for 10 minutes procedure.
>
> I didn't realize people still used scanners.
>
> Imho,
>
> Andy

Andy. Go fuck yourself!
--


"Don't pick a fight with an old man.
If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."

 

[Trev]

"Andy" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:Xns9CF6B29BE1DB6Cotd@216.196.97.131...
> "Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just a quick query: is anyone successfully using a Umax AstraSlim SE
>> scanner under Windows7? My installation went through the driver setup
>> procedure with no error messages, but the software simply didn't load.
>> The Umax UK site has no Win7 drivers, but I hate the thought of
>> having to junk a perfectly good scanner merely because of my new PC's
>> OS, so wonder if there's a workaround.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Bert
>
>
> Scanners are so old school. Obsolete!
>
> The resolution is too low.
>
> Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
> fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
>
> You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod. Then it's
> a page, click, page, click, page, click procedure rather than a page,
> scan it for 10 minutes, page, scan it for 10 minutes procedure.
>
> I didn't realize people still used scanners.
>
> Imho,
>
> Andy

Why would you want a 12 mega pixel copy of your expenses claim

 

[Bert Coules]

John,

> If the drivers truly did load...

Based on how quickly the "installation" was over, I very much doubt if they
did. But I'll try your suggestion, thanks.

Bert

 

[Trev]

"Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aNGdnadh_q7kxN_WnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> Just a quick query: is anyone successfully using a Umax AstraSlim SE
> scanner under Windows7? My installation went through the driver setup
> procedure with no error messages, but the software simply didn't load.
> The Umax UK site has no Win7 drivers, but I hate the thought of having to
> junk a perfectly good scanner merely because of my new PC's OS, so wonder
> if there's a workaround.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Bert

What driver do they have ?
You can install in compatibility mode. This may not work if you decided to
install the 64 bit Win 7 as there may not be and 64 bit drivers.

 

[Andy]

"Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:

> Andy,
>
>> The resolution is too low.
>
> For whom? Not for me.
>
>> Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
>> fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
>> You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod.
>
> And this space-consuming, Heath Robinson setup is supposed to be
> superior to a beautifully small, low-profile, well-designed bit of
> desktop gear? Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.
>
> Bert


Let's each take an identical set of 100 pages. You scan with your scanner
and I'll photograph the same pages with my Nikon 12MP.

Not only will I be a finished in 1/100th the time that it will take you
to finish, mine will be 8 times higher quality than yours at the oddball
600x1,200 scan rez, then extrapolated to 3,600x3,600 dpi rez.

You obviously never comprehended tabletop tripods with a digital camera?
More portable than a 'puter and scanner on the remote scene! You don't
need an easel, I just figured you wouldn't think to masking tape a page
bounding box so the pages consistently drop into the same position, so
you don't have to move the tripod!

You and your other two Einsteins are unprofessionally clueless.

Andy

 

[Bert Coules]

Andy wrote:

> You and your other two Einsteins are unprofessionally clueless.

And you are quite unwarrantably ill-mannered.

Bert

 

[Bert Coules]

Trev,

Thank you for the helpful and courteous response.

> You can install in compatibility mode. This may not work if you decided to
> install the 64 bit Win 7 as there may not be and 64 bit drivers.

Unfortunately I didn't decide to install it; the new PC came with Home
Premium already in place. One possible solution, which I'm looking at for
other reasons, is to use something like Virtual Box and run XP for the
several of my standard programs which aren't compatible with Win7. But it's
a bit of a faff.

Bert

 

[Andy]

"Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:

> Andy wrote:
>
>> You and your other two Einsteins are unprofessionally clueless.
>
> And you are quite unwarrantably ill-mannered.


Excuse me???

You're the one that insulted me. I gave you gems of gold advice that you
deemed worthless as if you knew better???

Screw you.

Andy

 

[Roy Smith]

On 1/4/2010 6:24 PM, Bert Coules wrote:
> Trev,
>
> Thank you for the helpful and courteous response.
>
>> You can install in compatibility mode. This may not work if you
>> decided to install the 64 bit Win 7 as there may not be and 64 bit
>> drivers.
>
> Unfortunately I didn't decide to install it; the new PC came with Home
> Premium already in place. One possible solution, which I'm looking at
> for other reasons, is to use something like Virtual Box and run XP for
> the several of my standard programs which aren't compatible with Win7.
> But it's a bit of a faff.

Instead of VirtualBox, you should give VMware's VirtualMachine a try.
They even have a converter program, which is a separate download, that
will convert a running WindowsXP install into a virtual machine that you
can use.

I've tried both and I like the VMware player better.

--

Roy Smith
Windows 7

Timestamp: Monday, January 04, 2010 7:14:40 PM

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/04/10, Andy posted:
> "Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:

>> Andy,
>>
>>> The resolution is too low.
>>
>> For whom? Not for me.
>>
>>> Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
>>> fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
>>> You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod.
>>
>> And this space-consuming, Heath Robinson setup is supposed to be
>> superior to a beautifully small, low-profile, well-designed bit of
>> desktop gear? Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.
>>
>> Bert


> Let's each take an identical set of 100 pages. You scan with your scanner
> and I'll photograph the same pages with my Nikon 12MP.

> Not only will I be a finished in 1/100th the time that it will take you
> to finish, mine will be 8 times higher quality than yours at the oddball
> 600x1,200 scan rez, then extrapolated to 3,600x3,600 dpi rez.

> You obviously never comprehended tabletop tripods with a digital camera?
> More portable than a 'puter and scanner on the remote scene! You don't
> need an easel, I just figured you wouldn't think to masking tape a page
> bounding box so the pages consistently drop into the same position, so
> you don't have to move the tripod!

> You and your other two Einsteins are unprofessionally clueless.

> Andy

Ahem.

600x1200x8.5x11 = 67.2 MPixel.
No barrel distortion.
No pincushion distortion.
No incorrect white balance.
No noise due to inadequate illumination.
No motion blur or else no tripod taking up a few cubic feet of space.
No many separate steps to be coordinated, just scan and save, scan and
print, or scan and run OCR, while easily seeing the quality of the
result.

HAND
/S/A. Einstein

--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com

 

[Bert Coules]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Instead of VirtualBox, you should give VMware's VirtualMachine a try...
> I've tried both and I like the VMware player better.

Thanks. I'll take a look at it.

Bert

 

[Trev]

"Andy" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:Xns9CF6BBAC3F44FCotd@216.196.97.131...
> "Bert Coules" <mal@bertcoules.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>>
>>> The resolution is too low.
>>
>> For whom? Not for me.
>>
>>> Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
>>> fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
>>> You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod.
>>
>> And this space-consuming, Heath Robinson setup is supposed to be
>> superior to a beautifully small, low-profile, well-designed bit of
>> desktop gear? Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.
>>
>> Bert
>
>
> Let's each take an identical set of 100 pages. You scan with your scanner
> and I'll photograph the same pages with my Nikon 12MP.
>
> Not only will I be a finished in 1/100th the time that it will take you
> to finish, mine will be 8 times higher quality than yours at the oddball
> 600x1,200 scan rez, then extrapolated to 3,600x3,600 dpi rez.
>
> You obviously never comprehended tabletop tripods with a digital camera?
> More portable than a 'puter and scanner on the remote scene! You don't
> need an easel, I just figured you wouldn't think to masking tape a page
> bounding box so the pages consistently drop into the same position, so
> you don't have to move the tripod!
>
> You and your other two Einsteins are unprofessionally clueless.
>
> Andy

I used to copy slides Using My Kaisser enlarger as a copy stand, with the
slides on the upturned colour head for built in colour correction. I doubt
your speed would be better and It Would be a pain to set up for one
Document.
Then you still have to transfer and process the images. No it may well be ok
for slides and negatives and A lot quicker then a Film scanner at 2400 ppi
Providing you have suitable Equipment And the nasty Zoom lens that comes as
a kit with the camera Is Not suitable.

 

[Char Jackson]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 163:27 -0600, Andy <a@b.c> wrote:

>Scanners are so old school. Obsolete!
>
>The resolution is too low.
>
>Get a 12 megapixel digital camera and capture higher resolution in a
>fraction of a second, compared to a scanner.
>
>You'd need to fashion an easel to hold the pages and a tripod. Then it's
>a page, click, page, click, page, click procedure rather than a page,
>scan it for 10 minutes, page, scan it for 10 minutes procedure.
>
>I didn't realize people still used scanners.
>
>Imho,
>
>Andy

I'm not surprised that almost no one agreed that a digital camera
contraption is any kind of suitable replacement for a scanner. Nice
try, though! I'll stick to my scanner.