Re: Would You Believe?
Re: Would You Believe?
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followups ] [ FAQ ] [ Back to Messages ]
Posted by Magoo on January 07, 2002 at 14:55:31:
In Reply to: Would You Believe? posted by Chris on December 02, 2001 at 18:31:59:
I was loking for the same to use on a workstation at work being updated to Windows 2000, a driver that works for the Umax 1220P scanner. In doing a search I found the documentation that said the 3.52 driver was supported for this scanner under Windows 2000. This was at the UK support site for Umax (see: http://support.umax.co.uk/technotes/f122B.htm)
When I went to http://support.umax.co.uk/drivers/currentdrvr.htm
to download the driver but it could not be located on the ftp site.
Did a bit more digging and found the 3.52 drivers at http://www.umaxjapan.co.jp/support/download/Old_driver.htm
I haven't tried them yet but looks like the program is multi-language with a Japanese patch.
: When I upgraded to Windows 2000, I was naturally appalled to learn that my trusty Umax 1220P scanner was not supported under and had no drivers for my new OS. I couldn’t believe this. Why should I? After a few minutes of research on Umax’s site, I found drivers for Windows 95, 98, NT, ME, and XP, but not 2000. This just didn’t make any sense. Anyone who knows anything about Windows operating systems know that XP is built on existing technology from Windows 2000, which in turn is based on NT. So why would Umax just decide to skip driver support for 2000?
: I decided to ask Umax. Surely they would have a reasonable explanation.
: The response I received from Umax is paraphrased as follows:
: [Since Windows 2000 is a true 32-bit operating system, existing hardware with-in our older scanners, such as the 1220P, are incompatible with your PC. In order to make your scanner work we’d have to replace the hardware inside your scanner, but it would be more economical to just buy a newer scanner.]
: What the hell were they talking about? Windows 98 is a “true” 32-bit system and my 1220P worked just fine. XP sure as hell is a “true” 32-bit system and Umax lists drivers. Call me paranoid, but this was starting to sound all too much like a case of the-big-fat-company-decided-not-to-support-it-older-products syndrome. The hardware in my scanner worked with the hardware in my PC using a driver under Windows 98SE so it should, by no large leap of the imagination, be able to work under Windows 2000 using an appropriate driver.
: Further e-mails to Umax went unresponded.
: So I decided to do some more in-depth research. Posts in a few message boards suggested trying the 3.55 Vistascan driver, so I downloaded it but with no success. Other posters agreed that the 3.55 driver didn’t work. A few other posts suggested trying the 3.51 or 3.52 Vistascan drivers. After some searches, frustrated by the fact that Umax has a god-awful site with a faulty search engine, lead me to the conclusion that either Umax wasn’t offering the 3.51 and 3.52 drivers or their incompetence at designing a functioning website was keeping me from accessing them.
: So on to plan B.
: When a website is unresponsive, or just an outright pain to browse, what such any red-blooded web-surfer resort to? The web site’s ftp server of course, so off to ftp.umax.com I went. After a little browsing I located a listing of drivers. Unfortunately, Vistascan 3.52 wasn’t listed but a few others were, so I downloaded the 3.5.1 and 3.53 drivers and gave them a run. Neither worked, so I decided to go a little farther back, downloading the 3.1 driver. Wouldntcha know, but an unzip and an install later, Vistascan 3.1 installed perfectly. Opening Photoshop 6.0, and importing via Vistascan v3.1, I concluded that I had finally managed to find a functioning driver.
: Coincidentally, I discovered something else. Umax was wrong, wrong, wrong. Instead of publicly offering driver support their older products they chose to, as several reviewers have mentioned, simply abandon their customers. My success at getting my scanner to work with Windows 2000 using a driver easily available, albeit discrete, from their ftp site proves that Umax is either uncaring about its customers or downright incompetent, if not a combination of the two.
: To anyone who’s experienced this minor nightmare and hasn’t already trashed their 1200 series scanner and bought something from a respectable company, I urge you to try this one last technique. Open up ftp.umax.com in any web or ftp browser and go to the /scanners/vistascan/version3.1 directory. Browse the remaining folders depending upon your specific scanner (parallel, scsi, or usb connection) and download all the relevant files. For my 1220P, I went under parallel_port/single_download/ and downloaded the files vs31pp.exe and windows.exe. After unzipping these and running the resultant VSSetup.exe I had a fully functional scanner. It was that easy. E-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org for any questions or problems.
: To the credit of Umax, they’re right when they say “it would be more economical to just buy a newer scanner.” When my 1220P finally dies a nice little Canon or HP seem like viable alternatives.
Post a Followup