Imaging software

[Don Phillipson[_5_]]

Scanners nowadays commonly use WIA = Windows
Image Acquisition, part of the WinXP suite (I think.)
It is not the fast (e.g. takes 20 sec. to scan a 9 Mb
reference image under XP, cf. 32-bit Twain's 14 sec.)

Did any clever programmer ever produce something
akin to WIA for Win98? I installed a Brother DCP 330C
because it has Win98 drivers. But it takes more than
two minutes to scan the same reference image via
Twain and ScanSoft PaperPort software. Ctl-Alt-Del
tells me Twunk_15.EXE is loaded (but not TWUNK_32.EXE).

Under XP, the (similar) Brother 540CN offers both
Twain and WIA imaging, which suggests WIA does
not use Twain (either 16-bit or 32-bt). Is WIA something
the Win98 user should pursue (or a dead-end) ?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[thanatoid]

"Don Phillipson" > wrote in
:

> Scanners nowadays commonly use WIA = Windows
> Image Acquisition, part of the WinXP suite (I think.)
> It is not the fast (e.g. takes 20 sec. to scan a 9 Mb
> reference image under XP, cf. 32-bit Twain's 14 sec.)
>
> Did any clever programmer ever produce something
> akin to WIA for Win98? I installed a Brother DCP 330C
> because it has Win98 drivers. But it takes more than
> two minutes to scan the same reference image via
> Twain and ScanSoft PaperPort software. Ctl-Alt-Del
> tells me Twunk_15.EXE is loaded (but not TWUNK_32.EXE).
>
> Under XP, the (similar) Brother 540CN offers both
> Twain and WIA imaging, which suggests WIA does
> not use Twain (either 16-bit or 32-bt). Is WIA something
> the Win98 user should pursue (or a dead-end) ?

TWAIN (my personal translation is Technology Which All Idiots
Need) or anything like it should NOT be used, period.

IMO, you should always use an application which is best for the
job. When you scan, you use the software which came with your
scanner, which in most cases is quite good. (I know it usually
comes with a TWAIN version which in some cases is garbage and in
some cases virtually identical, but do you put your car on a
blue 18-wheeler with Arizona plates every time you change the
oil? No, you just change the oil. THEN you do whatever you want
with it.)

If you're REALLY picky, you can buy special expensive scanning
software. FWIW, I have a really cheap scanner with lousy
software and I get better results than most scanned images I see
on the net (except for the ones which were obviously made using
drum scanners etc) BECAUSE I happen to have read a lot about how
to scan and spent dozens of hours extensively testing the first
scanners I ever used, a B&W HP, and then the IIcx.

You save in whatever format you like - I use BMP although it's
probably a waste of space, a 85%-90% JPG would probably be fine.
You use the color depth desired, etc. The only adjustment I have
made in MY scanning software is raising the brightness by 10%.
(It has no gamma adjustment, which is far superior, but like I
said, it's a crap scanner and crappy software. I am very lucky
in that it reproduces colors perfectly and I never have to make
any hue or saturation adjustments.)

Once I have scanned everything I need to scan, I open the
/application I need at this moment/ - this could be a photo
manipulation program or an OCR program, or PageMaker or Quark or
InDesign, and I do what I need to do.

AFAIAC, TWAIN and WIA (this is the 1st time I've heard of it) do
not exist and should never have existed in the first place. I
consider them in the almost the same class as "no file
extensions shown by default" although it's an entirely different
animal.

Just like when I want to make a PageMaker pub, I do the text
first using a simple text editor, spellcheck it, rewrite it etc.
I scan images (if any) as described above. THEN I open PageMaker
and make the pub. To make another clumsy analogy, I do not rent
an entire university for a week to mix some chemicals in a in
one building lab and then to use the photocopying machine in the
building 2 miles away and then to go to physical plant to soak
one in the other and burn them in some huge vat or dumpster.

I know I did not answer your question, just shared some of my
philosophy - FWIW.
IOW, just my 2 cents.


--
"May you live in interesting times."
(curse, origin disputed)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, thanatoid
> writes
[]
>TWAIN (my personal translation is Technology Which All Idiots
>Need) or anything like it should NOT be used, period.
>
>IMO, you should always use an application which is best for the
>job. When you scan, you use the software which came with your
>scanner, which in most cases is quite good. (I know it usually
>comes with a TWAIN version which in some cases is garbage and in

I think the last three or four scanners I've played with have all come
with TWAIN. Sure, they sometime come with rubbish (or good but
incredibly resource-hungry, and takes over everything) software too.
Sometimes the TWAIN driver is seamlessly integrated into that software
so you don't think you're using it, but you still are.
[]
>Once I have scanned everything I need to scan, I open the

With what?

>/application I need at this moment/ - this could be a photo
>manipulation program or an OCR program, or PageMaker or Quark or
>InDesign, and I do what I need to do.
>
>AFAIAC, TWAIN and WIA (this is the 1st time I've heard of it) do
>not exist and should never have existed in the first place. I

AFAIAC, they mean I can use IrfanView with any hardware that has a TWAIN
driver. (Well, TWAIN - WIA is I think for Me; it certainly hardly works
under 98SElite.)
[]
>I know I did not answer your question, just shared some of my
>philosophy - FWIW.
>IOW, just my 2 cents.
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

I'm getting pretty enough for radio now (Desmond Lynam in Radio Times, 1998)

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> I think the last three or four scanners I've played with
> have all come with TWAIN. Sure, they sometime come with
> rubbish (or good but incredibly resource-hungry, and takes
> over everything) software too. Sometimes the TWAIN driver
> is seamlessly integrated into that software so you don't
> think you're using it, but you still are.

I don't see how you could be using the TWAIN driver without
knowing it. The last scanner I bought (mentioned) is about 8
years old, but the TWAIN and the regular scanning software are
separate exe's. I believe the IIcx also had TWAIN, which I
tried, and never used again.

Doesn't TWAIN show up INSIDE your Photoshop (or whatever), isn't
that the main point, making (in this case) scanning "simpler"
for people who understand NOTHING - who may someday ask "why
can't I scan?" because they think that just because "acquire
image" (with TWAIN) is in a /Photoshop/ menu, they don't have to
/turn on the scanner/?

>>Once I have scanned everything I need to scan, I open the
>
> With what?

Usually with a double click.

>>/application I need at this moment/ - this could be a photo
>>manipulation program or an OCR program, or PageMaker or
>>Quark or InDesign, and I do what I need to do.
>>
>>AFAIAC, TWAIN and WIA (this is the 1st time I've heard of
>>it) do not exist and should never have existed in the first
>>place. I
>
> AFAIAC, they mean I can use IrfanView with any hardware
> that has a TWAIN driver. (Well, TWAIN - WIA is I think for
> Me; it certainly hardly works under 98SElite.)

[spreads arms and makes a nondescript face]
All that means is you're putting an image file on the screen
using IV/TWAIN instead of just opening a file residing in your
"scan" directory. YOU may understand this, but the average
computer user wouldn't - BECAUSE of "helpful paper-clips" like
TWAIN.


--
"May you live in interesting times."
(curse, origin disputed)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, thanatoid
> writes
[]
>> over everything) software too. Sometimes the TWAIN driver
>> is seamlessly integrated into that software so you don't
>> think you're using it, but you still are.
>
>I don't see how you could be using the TWAIN driver without
>knowing it. The last scanner I bought (mentioned) is about 8

Simple; to use the scanner with IV or Photo*, you (might) know you're
using the TWAIN interface because you (might have to "select TWAIN
source" and) "acquire"; the software that comes with the scanner might
do those automatically, only letting you select one source (the scanner
in question), when you invoke it.

>years old, but the TWAIN and the regular scanning software are
>separate exe's. I believe the IIcx also had TWAIN, which I
>tried, and never used again.

Still doesn't stop one calling the other! Just out of interest, does the
regular software still work if you rename the other .exe? (Still might
not prove anything, as it may contain its own embedded copy.)
>
>Doesn't TWAIN show up INSIDE your Photoshop (or whatever), isn't

In the list of sources, yes.

>that the main point, making (in this case) scanning "simpler"
>for people who understand NOTHING - who may someday ask "why
>can't I scan?" because they think that just because "acquire
>image" (with TWAIN) is in a /Photoshop/ menu, they don't have to
>/turn on the scanner/?

Well, that's obviously daft.
>
>>>Once I have scanned everything I need to scan, I open the
>>
>> With what?
>
>Usually with a double click.

On what?
>
>>>/application I need at this moment/ - this could be a photo
>>>manipulation program or an OCR program, or PageMaker or
>>>Quark or InDesign, and I do what I need to do.

Ah, I see, so you mean when you say "once I've scanned" that you scanned
_and saved on disc_, then you just open the image as a file with you
manipulation/OCR software. I thought you meant you'd just scanned _into
memory_.
[]
>> AFAIAC, they mean I can use IrfanView with any hardware
>> that has a TWAIN driver. (Well, TWAIN - WIA is I think for
[]
>All that means is you're putting an image file on the screen
>using IV/TWAIN instead of just opening a file residing in your
>"scan" directory. YOU may understand this, but the average
>computer user wouldn't - BECAUSE of "helpful paper-clips" like
>TWAIN.
>
I'm actually calling up the scanner driver from within IV or whatever -
the image gets onto screen (or rather, into memory), without ever having
been on disc. (In fact that's one of the few things I dislike about IV -
and have been trying to get Irfan to change for years: that you can quit
without saving, not just scans, but any manipulation.)
>
The average user seems to have difficulties with the whole concept of
files and folders/directories, I find - at least, many of those I
"teach" do.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

I'm getting pretty enough for radio now (Desmond Lynam in Radio Times, 1998)

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
:

> In message >,
> thanatoid > writes

>>I don't see how you could be using the TWAIN driver without
>>knowing it. The last scanner I bought (mentioned) is about
>>8
>
> Simple; to use the scanner with IV or Photo*, you (might)
> know you're using the TWAIN interface because you (might
> have to "select TWAIN source" and) "acquire"; the software
> that comes with the scanner might do those automatically,
> only letting you select one source (the scanner in
> question), when you invoke it.

OK, so you always know when you're using it. Plus it doesn't
exist on your machine unless you installed it when you were
installing the scanner software.

And the "software giving you a choice" or not is irrelevant -
you should be using an image file from whatever you have
designated as your "scanned" dir.

What about if you work in a service bureau with a $20,000 drum
scanner with ACTUAL 4800x4800 (just guessing) resolution where
the machine costs $100/hour to run and the operator $50?

You scan a bunch of stuff into invisible non-physical MEMORY and
then pick up the package of that invisible memory wrapped in
fictitious paper with a MS logo and magically float it to the
machines where people will be doing the retouching? What if an
evil fairy blows on the package and it all vaporizes? You say,
"Oh well, TWAIN rules", and start all over?

No, you SAVE everything as /files/ and then you take the CDR or
tape or ZipDisk wherever you will do whatever with those files.

And if it's all on a network, every file is saved by the scanner
machine in "master scans" directory and COPIED to the retouching
workstations. If anyone touches the original scan files they are
probably given a little talk, put on probation, fired, or just
shot.

>>years old, but the TWAIN and the regular scanning software
>>are separate exe's. I believe the IIcx also had TWAIN,
>>which I tried, and never used again.
>
> Still doesn't stop one calling the other! Just out of
> interest, does the regular software still work if you
> rename the other .exe? (Still might not prove anything, as
> it may contain its own embedded copy.)

AFAIK, the TWAIN section resides as several files somewhere in
Windows, and may or may not allow all the features of the
original scanner driver to work. In some cases it MAY be a
separate plug-in type program. I don't believe there are rules.
I don't know and I don't care, TWAIN / WIA /etc. do not exist
for me and never will.

>>Doesn't TWAIN show up INSIDE your Photoshop (or whatever),
>>isn't
>
> In the list of sources, yes.

/IF/ you installed the TWAIN components, which you shouldn't
have.

The images (or ANY files for any program) you want to work with
should be chosen from a file list of files existing in the
appropriate directory on the appropriate partition.

>>that the main point, making (in this case) scanning
>>"simpler" for people who understand NOTHING - who may
>>someday ask "why can't I scan?" because they think that
>>just because "acquire image" (with TWAIN) is in a
>>/Photoshop/ menu, they don't have to /turn on the scanner/?
>
> Well, that's obviously daft.

You should visit some tech support jokes/real stories sites.
Stupider things have been done by people for whom "clippy" was
invented.

>>>>Once I have scanned everything I need to scan, I open the
>>>
>>> With what?
>>
>>Usually with a double click.
>
> On what?

On the icon of my OCR or image editing program / on the mouse
pad / on my trackball. I hope ONE of those answers the question.

>>>>/application I need at this moment/ - this could be a
>>>>photo manipulation program or an OCR program, or
>>>>PageMaker or Quark or InDesign, and I do what I need to
>>>>do.
>
> Ah, I see, so you mean when you say "once I've scanned"
> that you scanned _and saved on disc_, then you just open
> the image as a file with you manipulation/OCR software. I
> thought you meant you'd just scanned _into memory_.

If you are REALLY scanning, there is no such thing as "scanning
into memory". You HAVE to save the file. And if TWAIN /allows
you/ to "scan into memory", than that's the FIRST reason for
NEVER using it - which I wasn't even aware of - since it would
be /TOTALLY/ insane and I find it hard to believe ANYONE would
allow it!

It's like writing a 20 page letter before saving it as a file. I
save /any/ file after it has 3 words, if possible, depending on
the application of course.

<SNIP>

> I'm actually calling up the scanner driver from within IV
> or whatever - the image gets onto screen (or rather, into
> memory), without ever having been on disc. (In fact that's
> one of the few things I dislike about IV - and have been
> trying to get Irfan to change for years: that you can quit
> without saving, not just scans, but any manipulation.)

OK, the worst aspect of TWAIN which I mentioned hypothetically
above has just been confirmed. Anyone doing image manipulation
or OCR on a file which only exists in memory is insane. Anyone
that would devise/allow such a procedure to take place should be
shot.

> The average user seems to have difficulties with the whole
> concept of files and folders/directories, I find - at
> least, many of those I "teach" do.

And TWAIN is one of the 1,000 (though nearer the end of the
list) things that are causing this sorry state of affairs.

And that's why I always say basics should be taught before
anything else. That's why I will forever say directories, not
folders. Folders are for sheets of paper. And a photo is NOT a
document. A Word or WordPerfect formatted text file is a
document, although even that could be argued. A picture is a
file, specifically, an IMAGE file. An mp3 file is not a
document, it is a MUSIC file. Etc.

You know, when you say 'Office" to somebody these days, the
FIRST thing most people think of is the MS program, not where
they go to work.

Some day we'll have to pay Microsoft for the right to BREATHE,
or at least the right to use the word "breathe". ("Yes, Mr.
Ballmer, I'm writing the check for using the word "word" now...
Oops, just doubled the amount! Darn!")



--
"May you live in interesting times"
(curse, origin disputed)

[Jeff Richards]

You're talking nonsense. There's no reason not to use TWAIN. The examples
you provide are manufactured to suit your prejudices, and would simply not
be relevant to any Windows 98 user.

TWAIN will (usually) not be used if the user executes the scan from the
customized application provided by the manufacturer. In that case, the
scanned image will usually be saved direct to disk, but might also be loaded
into the clipboard. The application might also have options to print it or
fax it or e-mail it, but even in these cases it is invariably saved to disk
first. If the application provided by the manufacturer does not use TWAIN
then there's no need to install it if all you will ever use to do your
scanning is that supplied application. Many users find that procedure
adequate.

But anyone who wants to scan from within a third party application needs
TWAIN to be able to do that, and that does introduce an extra layer of
complication. However, you ignore the fact that TWAIN can work in several
ways. One way is to provide a direct connection between application and
scanner, and in this case it's possible that some scanner features may be
unavailable, and it's possible that somewhere in the connection problems may
occur that prevent the scan operating properly. This is where most users
would have seen problems with using TWAIN. The other way it operates is to
allow the user to invoke the manufacturer's scan utility from within the
application and to do the scan with that utility, passing the image straight
back to the user's application. This option removes a layer of interaction
and considerably improves the reliability of the process, making it
perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of users. The user is able to use
the application of their choice, while obtaining the full functionality of
the scanner.

Your experience with losing valuable originals was obviously very traumatic
and has left you with some strongly held prejudices. But that environment is
simply not relevant to the way that Windows 98 users will be doing their
scanning. Let's talk about the realities of a cheap flatbed scanner
connected directly to the PC running a favorite image editing program - it's
TWAIN that makes that combination work and the user couldn't care less about
the details. And they certainly aren't going to forego the convenience it
provides because of some vague possibility of having to re-scan the image if
something goes wrong.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote in
> :
>
>> In message >,
>> thanatoid > writes
>
>>>I don't see how you could be using the TWAIN driver without
>>>knowing it. The last scanner I bought (mentioned) is about
>>>8
>>
>> Simple; to use the scanner with IV or Photo*, you (might)
>> know you're using the TWAIN interface because you (might
>> have to "select TWAIN source" and) "acquire"; the software
>> that comes with the scanner might do those automatically,
>> only letting you select one source (the scanner in
>> question), when you invoke it.
>
> OK, so you always know when you're using it. Plus it doesn't
> exist on your machine unless you installed it when you were
> installing the scanner software.
>
> And the "software giving you a choice" or not is irrelevant -
> you should be using an image file from whatever you have
> designated as your "scanned" dir.
>
> What about if you work in a service bureau with a $20,000 drum
> scanner with ACTUAL 4800x4800 (just guessing) resolution where
> the machine costs $100/hour to run and the operator $50?
>
> You scan a bunch of stuff into invisible non-physical MEMORY and
> then pick up the package of that invisible memory wrapped in
> fictitious paper with a MS logo and magically float it to the
> machines where people will be doing the retouching? What if an
> evil fairy blows on the package and it all vaporizes? You say,
> "Oh well, TWAIN rules", and start all over?
>
> No, you SAVE everything as /files/ and then you take the CDR or
> tape or ZipDisk wherever you will do whatever with those files.
>
> And if it's all on a network, every file is saved by the scanner
> machine in "master scans" directory and COPIED to the retouching
> workstations. If anyone touches the original scan files they are
> probably given a little talk, put on probation, fired, or just
> shot.
>
>>>years old, but the TWAIN and the regular scanning software
>>>are separate exe's. I believe the IIcx also had TWAIN,
>>>which I tried, and never used again.
>>
>> Still doesn't stop one calling the other! Just out of
>> interest, does the regular software still work if you
>> rename the other .exe? (Still might not prove anything, as
>> it may contain its own embedded copy.)
>
> AFAIK, the TWAIN section resides as several files somewhere in
> Windows, and may or may not allow all the features of the
> original scanner driver to work. In some cases it MAY be a
> separate plug-in type program. I don't believe there are rules.
> I don't know and I don't care, TWAIN / WIA /etc. do not exist
> for me and never will.
>
>>>Doesn't TWAIN show up INSIDE your Photoshop (or whatever),
>>>isn't
>>
>> In the list of sources, yes.
>
> /IF/ you installed the TWAIN components, which you shouldn't
> have.
>
> The images (or ANY files for any program) you want to work with
> should be chosen from a file list of files existing in the
> appropriate directory on the appropriate partition.
>
>>>that the main point, making (in this case) scanning
>>>"simpler" for people who understand NOTHING - who may
>>>someday ask "why can't I scan?" because they think that
>>>just because "acquire image" (with TWAIN) is in a
>>>/Photoshop/ menu, they don't have to /turn on the scanner/?
>>
>> Well, that's obviously daft.
>
> You should visit some tech support jokes/real stories sites.
> Stupider things have been done by people for whom "clippy" was
> invented.
>
>>>>>Once I have scanned everything I need to scan, I open the
>>>>
>>>> With what?
>>>
>>>Usually with a double click.
>>
>> On what?
>
> On the icon of my OCR or image editing program / on the mouse
> pad / on my trackball. I hope ONE of those answers the question.
>
>>>>>/application I need at this moment/ - this could be a
>>>>>photo manipulation program or an OCR program, or
>>>>>PageMaker or Quark or InDesign, and I do what I need to
>>>>>do.
>>
>> Ah, I see, so you mean when you say "once I've scanned"
>> that you scanned _and saved on disc_, then you just open
>> the image as a file with you manipulation/OCR software. I
>> thought you meant you'd just scanned _into memory_.
>
> If you are REALLY scanning, there is no such thing as "scanning
> into memory". You HAVE to save the file. And if TWAIN /allows
> you/ to "scan into memory", than that's the FIRST reason for
> NEVER using it - which I wasn't even aware of - since it would
> be /TOTALLY/ insane and I find it hard to believe ANYONE would
> allow it!
>
> It's like writing a 20 page letter before saving it as a file. I
> save /any/ file after it has 3 words, if possible, depending on
> the application of course.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> I'm actually calling up the scanner driver from within IV
>> or whatever - the image gets onto screen (or rather, into
>> memory), without ever having been on disc. (In fact that's
>> one of the few things I dislike about IV - and have been
>> trying to get Irfan to change for years: that you can quit
>> without saving, not just scans, but any manipulation.)
>
> OK, the worst aspect of TWAIN which I mentioned hypothetically
> above has just been confirmed. Anyone doing image manipulation
> or OCR on a file which only exists in memory is insane. Anyone
> that would devise/allow such a procedure to take place should be
> shot.
>
>> The average user seems to have difficulties with the whole
>> concept of files and folders/directories, I find - at
>> least, many of those I "teach" do.
>
> And TWAIN is one of the 1,000 (though nearer the end of the
> list) things that are causing this sorry state of affairs.
>
> And that's why I always say basics should be taught before
> anything else. That's why I will forever say directories, not
> folders. Folders are for sheets of paper. And a photo is NOT a
> document. A Word or WordPerfect formatted text file is a
> document, although even that could be argued. A picture is a
> file, specifically, an IMAGE file. An mp3 file is not a
> document, it is a MUSIC file. Etc.
>
> You know, when you say 'Office" to somebody these days, the
> FIRST thing most people think of is the MS program, not where
> they go to work.
>
> Some day we'll have to pay Microsoft for the right to BREATHE,
> or at least the right to use the word "breathe". ("Yes, Mr.
> Ballmer, I'm writing the check for using the word "word" now...
> Oops, just doubled the amount! Darn!")
>
>
>
> --
> "May you live in interesting times"
> (curse, origin disputed)

[thanatoid]

"Jeff Richards" > wrote in
:

> You're talking nonsense. There's no reason not to use
> TWAIN. The examples you provide are manufactured to suit
> your prejudices, and would simply not be relevant to any
> Windows 98 user.

You would hardly expect me to speak on behalf of someone ELSE'S
prejudices, would you? ;-)

And I have used 95B exclusively until about 2004 when I bought a
2nd computer (non-internet) because the 166MHz was a /little/
slow in converting music files. That 2nd, 2GHz, computer is
running 98SE Lite. Not that the OS has ANYTHING to do with the
subject, and you concentrating on this aspect makes me wonder if
you even understand my point (see below).

> TWAIN will (usually) not be used if the user executes the
> scan from the customized application provided by the
> manufacturer. In that case, the scanned image will usually
> be saved direct to disk, but might also be loaded into the
> clipboard.

The 3 scanners I have used in my life did not offer the option
of loading into the clipboard instead of saving a file, which I,
BTW, happen to find absurd beyond belief.

> The application might also have options to print
> it or fax it or e-mail it, but even in these cases it is
> invariably saved to disk first.

As it should be. My opinion of the "print", "copy", "fax", and
"email" buttons on some scanners (or their equivalents in the
interface) is the same as "no extensions by default", clippy,
and "folders and documents" and 800 GB one-partition drives.
IOW, I weep at the stupidity and bleating of the masses.

> If the application
> provided by the manufacturer does not use TWAIN then
> there's no need to install it if all you will ever use to
> do your scanning is that supplied application.

Anyone with some understanding of the BASICS (darn, there's that
word again) is able to do ANYTHING s/he wants with the SAVED
scanned image file ***afterwards*** - and with BETTER RESULTS.
Why do you think you get 20MB 2000x1550 pixel image attachments
of a drooling grandchild in your email? Yes, it's the "scan
directly to email" option.

> Many users
> find that procedure adequate.

Too bad for them and all who cross their paths.

> But anyone who wants to scan from within a third party
> application needs TWAIN to be able to do that

////No one//// needs to scan from WITHIN a third party
application, EVER. That's why I call TWAIN "technology which
assorted (changed from 'all') idiots need". Its practical and
intellectual value is equivalent to that of Clippy's and other
"improvements" which have made the current consumer computing
scene such a sad spectacle, albeit providing excellent earnings
for people who DO know what a command line, CTL-F, and the
difference between a USB and a PS2 connector are.

> and that
> does introduce an extra layer of complication.

Well, no one said being a moron is easy.

> However,
> you ignore the fact that TWAIN can work in several ways.
> One way is to provide a direct connection between
> application and scanner, and in this case it's possible
> that some scanner features may be unavailable, and it's
> possible that somewhere in the connection problems may
> occur that prevent the scan operating properly.

No kidding. And you are using this as an argument /in favor of/
TWAIN?

> This is
> where most users would have seen problems with using TWAIN.

And this is where I stopped using TWAIN and came up with my
nickname for it.

> The other way it operates is to allow the user to invoke
> the manufacturer's scan utility from within the application
> and to do the scan with that utility, passing the image
> straight back to the user's application.
> This option removes a layer of interaction

Yes, that can be helpful when the operator is an idiot.

> and considerably improves
> the reliability of the process,

If what John said about it being "in memory only" is true, I
would HARDLY call that adding a "layer of reliability". When you
have your car engine worked on, do you let 3 different mechanics
on different sides of town work on it one after another (NOT
together) for "an added layer of reliability"?

> making it perfectly
> acceptable for the vast majority of users.

We both know what the level of knowledge of "majority of users"
is. Nothing to exactly aspire to.

> The user is able
> to use the application of their choice, while obtaining the
> full functionality of the scanner.

Without even understanding what the scanning process is, and
half the time never being able to find the file afterwards. But
maintaining the bliss of ignorance.

> Your experience with losing valuable originals was
> obviously very traumatic and has left you with some
> strongly held prejudices.

Nice assumption, but I have never lost anything I have scanned.
I know what I'm doing and I am very organized.

> But that environment is simply
> not relevant to the way that Windows 98 users will be doing
> their scanning.

I don't see WHY you are bringing 98 into this. Scanning is
scanning, whether you used Scitex 30 years ago, use drum
scanners with a Silicon Graphics station, or a MacClassic or an
old 486, or a dual core with 4GB of RAM "because that's what the
salesman recommended for basic browsing and email and an
occasional scan of the puppydog". Jeesus.

> Let's talk about the realities of a cheap
> flatbed scanner connected directly to the PC running a
> favorite image editing program - it's TWAIN that makes that
> combination work and the user couldn't care less about the
> details.

And that's how stupidity and ignorance become a way of life. I'm
glad you approve of that.

> And they certainly aren't going to forego the
> convenience it provides because of some vague possibility
> of having to re-scan the image if something goes wrong.

Yes, running TWO programs one after another and having to create
a directory for scanned images is WAY too much work for anyone
to even consider. Let's let the machine do everything, and worry
about the mess later. "The Simpsons" are coming on!

"Give me convenience or give me death."
Jello Biafra, Dead Kennedys

"Give me stupidity or give me death."
thanatoid



--
"May you live in interesting times."
(curse, origin disputed)

[Don Phillipson[_5_]]

"thanatoid" > wrote in message
...

> . . . Not that the OS has ANYTHING to do with the
> subject, and you concentrating on this aspect makes me wonder if
> you even understand my point (see below).
> . . . I don't see WHY you are bringing 98 into this. Scanning is
> scanning, whether you used Scitex 30 years ago, use drum
> scanners with a Silicon Graphics station, or a MacClassic or an
> old 486, or a dual core with 4GB of RAM "

But the OP asked whether (because of apparent slowness
of Twain) any software gave Win98 the function of WIA (Windows
Image Acquisition, part of WinXP.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[MEB[_2_]]

And an obvious answer would be another question to ponder:

Q: Would the modification of WIA to work in 98 make a 700mhz 98 system any
faster?
Answer: NO.
The new WIA service requires the NT multi-threaded/services environment to
work properly. IN ADDITION; the reason it seems so much faster is also
related to the newer and faster machines required to run the NT OSs.
98 can't even use or take advantage of some of the newer code within the new
processors and chipsets. So regardless of whether you HAVE gotten 98 to run
on a newer processor, it isn't what *could* be achieved IF the OS supported
all the functions available in the newer chipset and processors.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel
_ _
~~
"Don Phillipson" > wrote in message
...
| "thanatoid" > wrote in message
| ...
|
| > . . . Not that the OS has ANYTHING to do with the
| > subject, and you concentrating on this aspect makes me wonder if
| > you even understand my point (see below).
| > . . . I don't see WHY you are bringing 98 into this. Scanning is
| > scanning, whether you used Scitex 30 years ago, use drum
| > scanners with a Silicon Graphics station, or a MacClassic or an
| > old 486, or a dual core with 4GB of RAM "
|
| But the OP asked whether (because of apparent slowness
| of Twain) any software gave Win98 the function of WIA (Windows
| Image Acquisition, part of WinXP.)
|
| --
| Don Phillipson
| Carlsbad Springs
| (Ottawa, Canada)
|
|

[thanatoid]

"Don Phillipson" > wrote in
:

> "thanatoid" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> . . . Not that the OS has ANYTHING to do with the
>> subject, and you concentrating on this aspect makes me
>> wonder if you even understand my point (see below).
>> . . . I don't see WHY you are bringing 98 into this.
>> Scanning is
>> scanning, whether you used Scitex 30 years ago, use drum
>> scanners with a Silicon Graphics station, or a MacClassic
>> or an old 486, or a dual core with 4GB of RAM "
>
> But the OP asked whether (because of apparent slowness
> of Twain) any software gave Win98 the function of WIA
> (Windows Image Acquisition, part of WinXP.)

In my first reply I said I was aware that I did not come - nor
was able to or cared to - anywhere near answering his question,
just presenting my opinion (or prejudices, as some of you prefer
to call them).

IMO, asking if you can use WIA instead of TWAIN is like asking
whether it's better to drink ethanol from a blue bottle or from
a green bottle.



--
"May you live in interesting times."
(curse, origin disputed)