[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2012-03-21 Thread bojo42
Just for the record i just tested it on the same scanner modell (HP OfficeJet 5515) with that i first reported this bug and i can fully confirm it is fixed in current Simple Scan from precise. Now the scanner is again faster than me switching the pages ;) -- You received this bug notification bec

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2012-02-16 Thread bojo42
Can also confirm that it's gone also on a 03f0:5d11 Hewlett-Packard PhotoSmart C5200 series. Therefore i am closing it. ** Changed in: simple-scan Status: Incomplete => Invalid ** Changed in: simple-scan (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Invalid -- You received this bug notification

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2012-02-16 Thread bojo42
So i finally came to testing Simple Scan under precise (3.2.1-0ubuntu2) and at least with a Canon CanoScan LiDE 20 (04a9:220d) i can confirm the UI lags are gone (altough the scanner itself is horribly slow). But as i noticed this bug with an HP OfficeJet integrated scanner i need to reconfirm for

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2011-12-25 Thread Michael Nagel
I suppose this is related to the hardware/driver in use. Could you provide the following: 5. Always explicitly mention the full make and model of your scanner, e.g. "HP Deskjet F4580". 6. Always provide the id, that might be determined by running lsusb and pasting the corresponding line, that mig

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2011-12-25 Thread bojo42
** Changed in: simple-scan (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => New ** Changed in: simple-scan Status: Incomplete => New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/667220 Title: Regressi

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2011-12-25 Thread ossjunkie
Sorry for my late response, but no i didn't use an ADF and as you can see i was much too fast in feeding new content because of those UI lags. As i said this wasn't the case with pre 2.32 releases. I will recheck all this, because the next LTS will have the newer series and scanning should be reall

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2011-12-11 Thread Michael Nagel
do you use an adf? is scanning still fast with xsane? ** Changed in: simple-scan Status: New => Incomplete ** Changed in: simple-scan (Ubuntu) Status: New => Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. ht

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2011-01-02 Thread Robert Sajdok
@bojo42 You should not change the status to 'confirmed' Confirmed: * Another reporter has experienced the same bug, this can come in the form of a duplicate bug or a bug comment ** Changed in: simple-scan Status: Confirmed => New ** Changed in: simple-scan (Ubuntu) Status: Con

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2010-11-01 Thread bojo42
** Changed in: simple-scan Status: New => Confirmed ** Changed in: simple-scan (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed -- Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/667220 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, w

[Bug 667220] Re: Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process

2010-10-27 Thread bojo42
What changes may have led to this? ** Also affects: simple-scan (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Regression from 1.0 to 2.32 - slower scan process https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/667220 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is su