Mark Otway said:
> I find that turning down the application's priority using Task
> Manager (I set it to 'below normal' on Windows XP) gives me a bit
> more CPU time, meaning I can still read my email, etc, whilst
> scanning, if necessary.
>
> Mark
You can make a shortcut which starts the program
>> That's how I normally scan. The scanner is on an
>> underpowered machine and saves the scans across the network
>> to my editing machine. Slower to scan, but editing while
>> scanning is much, much faster. I think 128MB would be too
>> low, even to scan, but 256Mb would be OK. For that m
>> I second the idea of scanning using a separate machine.
>> Even though W2K task manager shows that there is about 50%
>> CPU load scanning using Vuescan (was 100% on a P200), trying
>> to run anything alongside Vuescan is virtually impossible
>> for me.
I find that turning down the appl
> If a pc is used just for scanning (using some bundled software, eg.
> silverscan) would it scan as well if it has limited memory eg. 128 or 256Mb?
>
> Final image manipulation would be done on a different box with as much memory
> as necessary.
Depends on the software. Under Linux and with SAN
At 06:58 27/05/2002 -0400, Tom Scales wrote:
>I think 128MB would be too
>low, even to scan, but 256Mb would be OK. For that matter, memory is so
>cheap, I'd add more even to that machine.
I am scanning from a Nikon LS30, saving 64bit RGBI files using
Vuescan. This gives compressed TIFF files o
That's how I normally scan. The scanner is on an underpowered machine and
saves the scans across the network to my editing machine. Slower to scan,
but editing while scanning is much, much faster. I think 128MB would be too
low, even to scan, but 256Mb would be OK. For that matter, memory is so
