Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea





Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Most scanners do hog the system quite a bit.  The issue is both hardware and
> software from what I can tell.  The issue is the data is sent as it is
> scanned, and as such, there is a real time requirement on the software to
> take the data as it arrives.  Polling is typically faster than interrupts in
> this case, and as such, the system is bogged down in a loop checking for
> data...
> 
> A solution would be either a SCSI controller or scanner with some large
> amount of memory, and you only transfer data when you have a lot to
> transfer, and make it interrupt driven, instead of polled.  You don't need
> the entire image at once, but possibly two 4M buffers that get ping-pong'd
> or something like that would certainly aid the situation.  A caching
> controller could be made to accommodate this, but I doubt they currently
> will handle it the way one would want it to for a scanner.

My old machine has dual processors. With Win98 only one processor gets used.
When the scanner is scanning and if I try to open some image files by Photoshop
at the same time the scanner's buzz slows down.

So I tried Win2k so that the 2nd CPU gets used. It does. The scanner does not 
slow
down any more. However, Photoshop (5.5) is noticeably slower on Win2k than 
Win98.
My guess is that PS is a 16 bit program optimized under 16 bit OS such as Win98.
But Win2k is a 32 bit OS.

Quoton




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.