CompuServe Thread

#ES-300C-S

24 messages in this thread
#34087From: Sam ReynoldsApr 9, 1993 11:05 AM
Well… I need help! I purchased an Epson ES-600C **SCSI** scanner (not the bi-directional parallel)… I was told by Epson that ASDG had stand-alone drivers for this scanner. After contacting ASDG they told me they only supported the parallel version, not the SCSI. So now I have a nice scanner, that I supposedly can't use. Does anyone know of *any* way to make this scanner work with my A3000? I don't want to get the parallel version, as it will be considerably SLOOOWER that way… Any help or advice would be appriciated… Thank-you Sam (via Typing it myself… no WHAP, no Tapcis, no nuttin…)
#34090From: Michael GerardApr 9, 1993 2:50 PM
Contact Vic Wagner at MetaDigm (CIS ID# 76046,3004) and inquire about MetaScan.
#34129From: Sam ReynoldsApr 11, 1993 2:44 PM
Thanks! I'll check with him! Sam
#34093From: ASDGApr 9, 1993 5:11 PM
If memory serves, the ES600 is BOTH SCSI and parallel. And the speed will be about the same.
#34130From: Sam ReynoldsApr 11, 1993 2:45 PM
the ES600C has optios for parallel AND SCSI but not togehter… (well I suppose it COULD be but I have the SCSI) I contacted Epson, and they said the SCSI is MUCH faster then parallel… Besides, I use it SCSI at work on my PC… Thanks for the reply tho…
#34271From: Vic WagnerApr 17, 1993 3:25 PM
Sam, Yes, we have Scanner software that works with the SCSI.
#34287From: Jonathan BlackwellApr 18, 1993 2:07 AM
Vic… Who distributes your software and what scanners work with your software? -Jonathan
#34111From: SyndesisApr 10, 1993 8:33 AM
The scanner doesn't have both parallel and SCSI? Are you sure? I thought they usually included the parallel, and SCSI was an option. Maybe since most scanners were being sold into the Mac (SCSI-based) market, they changed with the 600.
#34131From: Sam ReynoldsApr 11, 1993 2:47 PM
Yes… I have SCSI, not parallel… EPSON will not change it either (but I WANT SCSI anyway… Epson has informed me that it is MUCH faster then parallel, and I use it SCSI with my PC at work) they told me I should send it back and get the parallel version instead… which is stupid since it is just a board that plugs into the back of the scanner… Thanks for your reply tho… Sam
#34262From: John DraperApr 17, 1993 3:48 AM
Well, I don't know about 'much faster', but I am getting about 2 or 3 times the speed with SCSI as opposed to parallel on my 800C. (using MetaScan) -larry
#34267From: Sam ReynoldsApr 17, 1993 2:52 PM
Yeah, I think mine is around that speed… I'll be hooking it u to a busmastering VESA Local Bus SCSI-II controller this week, so I hope it will be MUCH faster with this! hehe is MetaScan for the IBM otr Amiga? -Sam
#34285From: John DraperApr 18, 1993 1:26 AM
MetaSCan is from Metadigm, and is for the Amiga. I don't use IBMs (or their clones), ever. -larry
#34272From: Vic WagnerApr 17, 1993 3:25 PM
Sam, our tests show that the SCSI is about 2-3 times as fast as the parallel, and we think we can speed that up too.
#34133From: Jonathan BlackwellApr 11, 1993 4:00 PM
I wonder why nobody in the Amiga community is writing drivers for SCSI based scanners, there are tons of them! And for that matter, the PC and MAC communities have set a new scanner standard called Twain which is a hardware based standard. When will an Amiga developer write software that supports Twain???? That would enable any of us to use one of the many scanners available. By the way, SCSI is **MUCH** faster than parallel scanning. The driver should be able to address the Twain communication standard using the various xxxscsi.device drivers and the appropiate SCSI ID. Well Amiga developers, are you working on it yet? -Jonathan
#34135From: ASDGApr 11, 1993 4:59 PM
Amiga developers *are* writing drivers for SCSI scanners. ASDG has recently introduced support for the HP ScanJetIIc which is SCSI. We have also supported a large number of other SCSI peripherals and can tell you that a major stumbling block is that almost no vendor provides a SCSI controller which is actually 100 percent compatible with Commodore's standards. Your understanding of TWAIN (actually – its called clasp now) is not correct. CLASP is not implemented in the scanner – it is implemented in drivers that must be supplied with each scanner. Exactly what ADPro's scanner drivers do.
#34153From: SyndesisApr 12, 1993 8:14 AM
I had skimmed documents describing Twain, and I didn't think it was a hardware standard. I thought it was more of a driver standard – it's much easier to define a standard for a software interface. Then hardware developers make a simple driver that supports a few standard calls, and any program can then use any hardware.
#34220From: Jonathan BlackwellApr 15, 1993 1:08 AM
John: Twain is a hardware and software standard. It standardizes the way applications can communicate with scanning devices… True, some scanners have this communication at the device driver level, but many, especially when connected to a MAC have the call routines in firmware in the scanner itself. Once again, TWAIN compatibility would open a large opportunity to owners of Amiga to gain access to the multitudes of scanning hardware. -Jonathan
#34273From: Vic WagnerApr 17, 1993 3:25 PM
Jonathan, Don't say NOBODY… and before you seriously suggest Twain it's a driver protocol, NOT the actual communications across the SCSI bus.
#34286From: Jonathan BlackwellApr 18, 1993 2:06 AM
Are you guys writing a Twain interface for scanners? -Jonathan
#34299From: SyndesisApr 18, 1993 12:08 PM
To flog this horse a bit more, can you confirm or deny that Twain is software, hardware, or both? If it's sometimes in firmware or an OS-level hook, it's still software, right? 🙂
#34560From: regis rampnouxMay 1, 1993 9:01 AM
I have the same problem because I have a Microtek 1850S scanner. With SCSI interface… I send a mail to Vic Wagner…
#34169From: Wolf FaustApr 12, 1993 7:24 PM
Sorry, the SCSI versions I saw were slower than the centronics versions. As far I have been told by the programmer, this is caused by the worse SCSI command implementation by Epson. For the SCSI version there are several solutions available here in germany.
#34176From: Sam ReynoldsApr 12, 1993 11:20 PM
I don't see *how* SCSI-2 could be SLOWER than bi-directional parallel… I will definately have to double check my info with Epson… Hmmmmm What solutions are available in Germany? Is there software there that will work with the ES600C w/ SCSI? Sam
#34405From: John DraperApr 24, 1993 2:04 AM
Don't know what implementations of SCSI scanner support you saw, but they certainly weren't MetaScan on an Epson ES-800C. Bear in mind that it is entirely possible to write bad imlementaions of SCSI routines. -larry