-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Chris Ahlstrom on Tuesday 08 Dec 2009 12:30 : \____
> Gregory Shearman pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On 2009-12-07, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> And xsane's complexity is on par with the old Ulead offerings that I recall
>>> using on Win NT with a hoary old Adaptec SCSI Lite scanner (which worked
>>> equally well on Linux about 10 years ago.)
>>
>> Complexity? My wife uses it and she's just a linux *user*.
>>
>> You make a preview, decide the colour, the section you want scanned and
>> the resolution, then you go for it.
>
> There are a lot of options in xsane, but you don't need them to get a scan
> done, right.
>
> Check out this "scanner":
>
> http://www.intel.com/healthcare/reader/index.htm
XSane is better than the software (for Windows) HP ships with my scanner.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
"She called her parakeet Onan because he always spilled his seed on the
floor." -- ?
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkseVqIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5CwACfXvo0/+0E9ABjf+K1zgwY49R0
EnIAnROi4pnESKi8kSQZSYqMUTLGH8YL
=JbKC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
