If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Printers survive 83 alone
On 06/18/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
[snip] Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which has a "copy" choice. That button must be communicating with some software in your computer, which must be set up and working properly. A more comp]lex (and so vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt." [H. L. Menchen] |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Printers survive 83 alone
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 06/18/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which has a "copy" choice. That button must be communicating with some software in your computer, which must be set up and working properly. Yes. A more comp]lex (and so vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device. Complex? Not at all; I don't remember any details, but I remember that setting up the scanner was very easy. Vulnerable? Vulnerable to what? I've never had a problem with it, running under XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and now 10. But if you prefer all-in-one units, that's fine with me. I don't, for the reason I explained, but I won't try to convert you to my way of thinking. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Printers survive 83 alone
In message , Ken Blake
writes: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/18/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which has a "copy" choice. That button must be communicating with some software in your computer, which must be set up and working properly. Yes. A more comp]lex (and so vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device. Complex? Not at all; I don't remember any details, but I remember that setting up the scanner was very easy. Vulnerable? Vulnerable to what? I've never had a problem with it, running under XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and now 10. Complex in that the computer has to be on! If you're like me, the computer is on all the time I'm nearby; however, there are strange folk who have computers that are only turned on to do certain things, and then turned off again. Such people find the copying ability of all-in-ones very handy. But if you prefer all-in-one units, that's fine with me. I don't, for the reason I explained, but I won't try to convert you to my way of thinking. I agree, in principle. In practice, the costs of standalones, all-in-ones, and other variations (?) are all over the place, so it's hard to keep up. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf What's awful about weird views is not the views. It's the intolerance. If someone wants to worship the Duke of Edinburgh or a pineapple, fine. But don't kill me if I don't agree. - Tim Rice, Radio Times 15-21 October 2011. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Printers survive 83 alone
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:40:39 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 18/06/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which has a "copy" choice. That button must be communicating with some software in your computer, which must be set up and working properly. Yes. A more comp]lex (and so vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device. Complex? Not at all; I don't remember any details, but I remember that setting up the scanner was very easy. Vulnerable? Vulnerable to what? I've never had a problem with it, running under XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and now 10. But if you prefer all-in-one units, that's fine with me. I don't, for the reason I explained, but I won't try to convert you to my way of thinking. When the printer dies in your all in one you have to replace the scanner as well. OTOH all in ones take up lest space. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Printers survive 83 alone
On 06/19/2017 07:50 PM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
[snip] When the printer dies in your all in one you have to replace the scanner as well. OTOH all in ones take up lest space. When an all-in-one dies, you replace it and almost immediately have a copier that works. With the other solution (scanner, printer, and several pieces of excessively complicaed software), if one fails and you replace it (there's a good chance you can't get the same model) how much work is it going to be to get the combination working again? Also, an all-in-one can act as a copier without a computer connected. Some can scan and print that way too (using a USB drive). Yes, I am aware that both sides of this question (all-in-one and separate) have advantages AND disadvantages. BTW, I am normally opposed to combo devices. This is an exception. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "It is your god-given right to destroy any man or woman calling themselves doctors who willingly slaughter innocent children." [Keith Tucci, Exec. Dir, Operation Rescue] |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Printers survive 83 alone
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 23:40:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Ken Blake writes: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/18/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which has a "copy" choice. That button must be communicating with some software in your computer, which must be set up and working properly. Yes. A more comp]lex (and so vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device. Complex? Not at all; I don't remember any details, but I remember that setting up the scanner was very easy. Vulnerable? Vulnerable to what? I've never had a problem with it, running under XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and now 10. Complex in that the computer has to be on! If you're like me, the computer is on all the time I'm nearby; My computer is *always* on, except when I'm away on vacation. however, there are strange folk who have computers that are only turned on to do certain things, and then turned off again. Such people find the copying ability of all-in-ones very handy. Yes, I guess that makes sense. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Printers survive 83 alone
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:50:06 +1000, Lucifer Morningstar
wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:40:39 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 18/06/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which has a "copy" choice. That button must be communicating with some software in your computer, which must be set up and working properly. Yes. A more comp]lex (and so vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device. Complex? Not at all; I don't remember any details, but I remember that setting up the scanner was very easy. Vulnerable? Vulnerable to what? I've never had a problem with it, running under XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and now 10. But if you prefer all-in-one units, that's fine with me. I don't, for the reason I explained, but I won't try to convert you to my way of thinking. When the printer dies in your all in one you have to replace the scanner as well. Right. That's exactly what I said in my original message in the thread. OTOH all in ones take up lest space. And that is also what I said in my original message. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: CANON (GENUINE, NEW/not used) - PRINT/INK CARTRIDGES (LOT,not single). BCI10, BCI11, etc for BJC50, 55, 70, 80, 85 & other CANON printers(& some Apple printers). $16 on Ebay | Frank | Printers | 1 | May 20th 09 10:32 PM |
Colour laser printers compared to inkjet printers? | Brian | Printers | 10 | May 10th 05 01:25 PM |
Address-Printer (?retrofit) (direct-printers) (marking printers) | [email protected] | Printers | 0 | February 9th 04 12:48 AM |
How does nVidia survive the bad press and internal challenges? | i'm_tired | Nvidia Videocards | 15 | September 23rd 03 06:58 PM |
Here is the newest consumer test of printers in Belgium (in dutch) - "printers juli 2003.pdf" (0/1) 255.8 KBytes yEnc | Akela | Printers | 1 | July 2nd 03 02:41 PM |