14 Feb
2002
14 Feb
'02
3:35 p.m.
From: Don Maslin <donm(a)cts.com>
John, both the Scanjet and the Scanjet Plus used a HP
proprietary
interface. The card for the Plus is reputed to work for both the
original and the Plus. The reverse is not true. In both cases,
however, it is definitely NOT parallel port.
I bought one of these used (MIB!) for $200 in 1994, for use in my engraving
shop. The card was 8-bit ISA and appeared to be some sort of half-baked
SCSI. It was easy to configure if you happened to possess a working
crystal ball ;>) The card-end of the cable was DB25, and the scanner-end
was "Centronics" (you know what I mean by this term).
The software included a runtime version of Win 3.0, which promptly crashed
when run on our DOS-based 386/20. After installing the full version of Win
3.0 on this peecee, the software ran perfectly. When we upgraded to Win
3.1 (I don't remember the reason for the "upgrade"), the software generated
an avalanche of error messages, then ran without error. As a side note,
AFAIR the ScanJet was the only reason I installed Windows on this machine,
which was used primarily to control engraving tables. All of the other
applications were DOS-based, running under DesqView.
All in all, the ScanJet was a nice piece of equipment for its time. I
think I still have the software for it, in case anybody needs it.
Glen
0/0
14 Feb
14 Feb
5:31 p.m.
Hi Glen
As the perpetrator(starter) of this 'old HP scanner thread' I would be
interested in getting a copy of that software for the 9190AU- I have the
scanner(recent find) but not the i/f card- on the off chance I do get the
card the s/w ware is I guess worth having on hand.
No urgency - just when you get a chance to find it. Sounds like I probably
only need the driver stuff- the runtime Win3.0 we can do without!
Dave Brown
Christchurch
New Zealand
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Goodwin" <acme_ent(a)bellsouth.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Old HP scanner
engraving
From: Don
Maslin <donm(a)cts.com>
John, both the Scanjet and the Scanjet Plus used
a HP proprietary
interface. The card for the Plus is reputed to work for both the
original and the Plus. The reverse is not true. In both cases,
however, it is definitely NOT parallel port.
I bought one of these used (MIB!) for $200 in 1994, for use in my shop. The card was 8-bit ISA and appeared to be some
sort of half-baked
SCSI. It was easy to configure if you happened to possess a working
crystal ball ;>) The card-end of the cable was DB25, and the scanner-end
was "Centronics" (you know what I mean by this term).
The software included a runtime version of Win 3.0, which promptly crashed
when run on our DOS-based 386/20. After installing the full version of
Win
3.0 on this peecee, the software ran perfectly. When
we upgraded to Win
3.1 (I don't remember the reason for the "upgrade"), the software
generated
an avalanche of error messages, then ran without
error. As a side note,
AFAIR the ScanJet was the only reason I installed Windows on this machine,
which was used primarily to control engraving tables. All of the other
applications were DOS-based, running under DesqView.
All in all, the ScanJet was a nice piece of equipment for its time. I
think I still have the software for it, in case anybody needs it.
Glen
0/0
15 Feb
15 Feb
4:58 a.m.
New subject: Win 3.10 (was: Old HP scanner
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Glen Goodwin wrote:
3.0 on this peecee, the software ran perfectly. When
we upgraded to Win
3.1 (I don't remember the reason for the "upgrade"), the software generated
The primary design goal of Windoze 3.10 was to get rid of the
multitudinous UAEs ("Unexpected Application Error"s)
To some extent, they succeeded. (Now they were EXPECTED.)
For the difference between 3.10 and 3.11, use the built-in calculator
accessory to subtract 3.10 from 3.11. What do you get?
UAE was a poor choice for an error message, as few if any knew what it
meant. It was replaced by the even less understood "General Protection
Fault". The issue of the message was finally addressed with the change to
"program has performed an illegal operation", which had the major benefit
of pointing the blame away from the operating system. (even though it was
often Windoze that had done the dastardly deed.)
8350
days inactive
8351
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
acme_ent＠bellsouth.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
tractorb＠ihug.co.nz