A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Printers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Printers survive 83 alone



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old June 19th 17, 07:15 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default 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  
Old June 19th 17, 07:40 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default 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  
Old June 19th 17, 11:40 PM posted to comp.periphs.printers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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)[email protected]+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  
Old June 20th 17, 01:50 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Lucifer Morningstar[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old June 20th 17, 02:04 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default 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  
Old June 20th 17, 02:31 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default 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  
Old June 20th 17, 02:32 AM posted to comp.periphs.printers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 Burt[_3_] Printers 3 May 20th 09 10:32 PM
printers sweet&soft Printers 0 May 12th 08 03:36 PM
Duplex printers and CD printers Daniel Prince Printers 10 April 3rd 06 04:23 AM
Colour laser printers compared to inkjet printers? Brian Printers 10 May 10th 05 01:25 PM
"Photo" printers cheaper than "non-photo" printers? Monica Printers 4 May 9th 05 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.