SCSI v USB Scanners?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John, Aug 2, 2004.

  1. John

    John Guest

    Hello

    A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?

    Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    follows:

    USB2 480 Mbps
    SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps

    I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?

    Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?

    I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?

    Thanks for any clarification on this

    John
     
    John, Aug 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    says...
    > Hello
    >
    > A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    > ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?
    >
    > Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    > follows:
    >
    > USB2 480 Mbps
    > SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps
    >
    > I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    > faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?
    >
    > Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    > has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    > resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    > supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?
    >
    > I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    > comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?
    >
    > Thanks for any clarification on this
    >
    > John


    Think you have megaBITS (Mb) and megaBYTES (MB) mixed here.
    Here's a pretty good chart of USB/SCSI/Firewire speeds:
    http://www.macspeedzone.com/archive/5.0/de/gifs/firewirevsscsi.gif

    Few if any consumer grade scanners made with SCSI interface now anyway,
    so fairly moot, unless you're using older ones (like me)...


    Mac
     
    Mac McDougald, Aug 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, Mac McDougald
    <> writes
    >In article <>,
    >says...
    >> Hello
    >>
    >> A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    >> ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?
    >>
    >> Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    >> follows:
    >>
    >> USB2 480 Mbps
    >> SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps
    >>
    >> I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    >> faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?
    >>
    >> Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    >> has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    >> resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    >> supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?
    >>
    >> I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    >> comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?
    >>
    >> Thanks for any clarification on this
    >>
    >> John

    >
    >Think you have megaBITS (Mb) and megaBYTES (MB) mixed here.
    >Here's a pretty good chart of USB/SCSI/Firewire speeds:
    >http://www.macspeedzone.com/archive/5.0/de/gifs/firewirevsscsi.gif
    >
    >Few if any consumer grade scanners made with SCSI interface now anyway,
    >so fairly moot, unless you're using older ones (like me)...
    >

    The really important difference IMO is that SCSI peripherals are an
    utter pain in the backside to get working (and the pain increases as a
    high power of the number you daisy-chain), whereas every USB device I
    have ever used has connected and worked first time right out of the box.
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 2, 2004
    #3
  4. From John on 02/Aug/2004 00:12:

    > Hello
    >
    > A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    > ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?
    >
    > Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    > follows:
    >
    > USB2 480 Mbps
    > SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps
    >
    > I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    > faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?
    >
    > Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    > has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    > resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    > supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?
    >
    > I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    > comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?
    >
    > Thanks for any clarification on this
    >
    > John
    >
    >

    Don't forget that to achieve 480Mbps, USB has to make very heavy use of the PC's
    CPU unlike SCSI and Firewire. This is probably OK for scanning but often
    catches people out for Video and other more intensive work.

    --
    Julian Knight, http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
    Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
    Instant Messaging:Jabber=, Yahoo!=knighjm
     
    Julian Knight, Aug 2, 2004
    #4
  5. From Mac McDougald on 02/Aug/2004 00:55:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >>Hello
    >>
    >>A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    >>ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?
    >>
    >>Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    >>follows:
    >>
    >>USB2 480 Mbps
    >>SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps
    >>
    >>I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    >>faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?
    >>
    >>Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    >>has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    >>resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    >>supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?
    >>
    >>I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    >>comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?
    >>
    >>Thanks for any clarification on this
    >>
    >>John

    >
    >
    > Think you have megaBITS (Mb) and megaBYTES (MB) mixed here.
    > Here's a pretty good chart of USB/SCSI/Firewire speeds:
    > http://www.macspeedzone.com/archive/5.0/de/gifs/firewirevsscsi.gif
    >
    > Few if any consumer grade scanners made with SCSI interface now anyway,
    > so fairly moot, unless you're using older ones (like me)...
    >
    >
    > Mac


    Anyone had any joy with a SCSI->USB converter? I currently only have an ISA SCSI
    card which doesn't fit in my newer computers and was thinking this would be the
    best bet (avoiding the PCI/PCI Express/... issues altogether!).

    --
    Julian Knight, http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
    Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
    Instant Messaging:Jabber=, Yahoo!=knighjm
     
    Julian Knight, Aug 2, 2004
    #5
  6. John

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Julian Knight <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in news:410df700$0$25120
    $:

    > best bet (avoiding the PCI/PCI Express/... issues altogether!).


    What PCI/PCI Express issues?
     
    Jim Berwick, Aug 2, 2004
    #6
  7. John

    Glenn Guest

    Julian Knight wrote:
    > From John on 02/Aug/2004 00:12:
    >
    >> Hello
    >>
    >> A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    >> ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?
    >>
    >> Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    >> follows:
    >>
    >> USB2 480 Mbps
    >> SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps
    >> I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    >> faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?
    >>
    >> Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    >> has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    >> resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    >> supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?
    >>
    >> I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    >> comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?
    >>
    >> Thanks for any clarification on this
    >>
    >> John
    >>
    >>

    > Don't forget that to achieve 480Mbps, USB has to make very heavy use of
    > the PC's CPU unlike SCSI and Firewire. This is probably OK for scanning
    > but often catches people out for Video and other more intensive work.
    >


    USB definately uses a lot of CPU power. When I have my USB scanner
    driver GUI opened, CPU usage is 50% and CPU temps jump to about 50 C.

    Julian, are you looking for a PCI SCSI card? I have one just sitting
    here. I used it for optical drives, but I have gone IDE. I haven't
    used it since August 2002, I assume it works, it's been boxed up since then.
     
    Glenn, Aug 2, 2004
    #7
  8. John

    Thor Guest

    > > Don't forget that to achieve 480Mbps, USB has to make very heavy use of
    > > the PC's CPU unlike SCSI and Firewire. This is probably OK for scanning
    > > but often catches people out for Video and other more intensive work.
    > >

    >
    > USB definately uses a lot of CPU power. When I have my USB scanner
    > driver GUI opened, CPU usage is 50% and CPU temps jump to about 50 C.


    I think much depends on the USB chipset in particular, not necessarily the
    spec. I just transferred a 500MB file from my external hi-speed USB 2.0
    harddrive to my local harddrive, and my CPU utilization averaged around
    15-18% throughout. I'm using a USB 2.0 interface card with an NEC controller
    chip.
     
    Thor, Aug 2, 2004
    #8
  9. John

    Ionizer Guest

    "SWINGERS" <> wrote in message
    news:AerPc.36$Iy.14@trndny07...
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Looking for other swingers?


    Spam report id 1151167261 sent to: abuse @ verizon.net
     
    Ionizer, Aug 2, 2004
    #9
  10. John

    David R Guest

    David Littlewood <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > In article <>, Mac McDougald
    > <> writes
    > >In article <>,
    > >says...
    > >> Hello
    > >>
    > >> A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    > >> ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?
    > >>
    > >> Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    > >> follows:
    > >>
    > >> USB2 480 Mbps
    > >> SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps
    > >>
    > >> I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    > >> faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?
    > >>
    > >> Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    > >> has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    > >> resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    > >> supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?
    > >>
    > >> I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    > >> comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?
    > >>
    > >> Thanks for any clarification on this
    > >>
    > >> John

    > >
    > >Think you have megaBITS (Mb) and megaBYTES (MB) mixed here.
    > >Here's a pretty good chart of USB/SCSI/Firewire speeds:
    > >http://www.macspeedzone.com/archive/5.0/de/gifs/firewirevsscsi.gif
    > >
    > >Few if any consumer grade scanners made with SCSI interface now anyway,
    > >so fairly moot, unless you're using older ones (like me)...
    > >

    > The really important difference IMO is that SCSI peripherals are an
    > utter pain in the backside to get working (and the pain increases as a
    > high power of the number you daisy-chain), whereas every USB device I
    > have ever used has connected and worked first time right out of the box.


    I have never had any problems with SCSI devices. My experiences have
    found them to be fast, reliable, and easy to configure. I've had
    drives and scanners running from Windows 98 to Windows XP.
     
    David R, Aug 2, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <>, David R
    <> writes
    >David Littlewood <> wrote in message
    >news:<>...
    >> >

    >> The really important difference IMO is that SCSI peripherals are an
    >> utter pain in the backside to get working (and the pain increases as a
    >> high power of the number you daisy-chain), whereas every USB device I
    >> have ever used has connected and worked first time right out of the box.

    >
    >I have never had any problems with SCSI devices. My experiences have
    >found them to be fast, reliable, and easy to configure. I've had
    >drives and scanners running from Windows 98 to Windows XP.


    That's great; I wish you could share your secret. I have rarely been
    able to get two devices to work on the same chain, whatever combination
    of terminators/no terminators, permutations of device numbers etc. I
    tried.

    Life is too short to waste on stuff like that...
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 2, 2004
    #11
  12. John

    RSD99 Guest

    SCSI is really quite easy to set up.

    (1) Put terminations on both of the *physical* ends of the transmission line(s). ONLY two
    terminations, one on each end. Usually, that will be (a) the adapter card, and (b) the
    last device on the chain. HOWEVER, if there are two cables coming out of the adapter, the
    adapter card should be unterminated, and the last device on each cable should be
    terminated.

    (2) Device #7 is the adapter card in the PC ... do not assign anything else to that number

    (3) EACH device on the SCSI chain needs a unique device number, make sure that there are
    no duplicated. That leaves Device numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for your devices. If
    you are setting up devices such as a scanner, try to steer clear of 0 and 1, which are
    normally used for disk drives.

    (4) If you are installing Hard Disks, 'Device 0' will be the boot drive.






    "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, David R
    > <> writes
    > >David Littlewood <> wrote in message
    > >news:<>...
    > >> >
    > >> The really important difference IMO is that SCSI peripherals are an
    > >> utter pain in the backside to get working (and the pain increases as a
    > >> high power of the number you daisy-chain), whereas every USB device I
    > >> have ever used has connected and worked first time right out of the box.

    > >
    > >I have never had any problems with SCSI devices. My experiences have
    > >found them to be fast, reliable, and easy to configure. I've had
    > >drives and scanners running from Windows 98 to Windows XP.

    >
    > That's great; I wish you could share your secret. I have rarely been
    > able to get two devices to work on the same chain, whatever combination
    > of terminators/no terminators, permutations of device numbers etc. I
    > tried.
    >
    > Life is too short to waste on stuff like that...
    > --
    > David Littlewood
     
    RSD99, Aug 3, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <jQzPc.9068$>, RSD99
    <> writes
    >SCSI is really quite easy to set up.
    >
    >(1) Put terminations on both of the *physical* ends of the transmission
    >line(s). ONLY two
    >terminations, one on each end. Usually, that will be (a) the adapter
    >card, and (b) the
    >last device on the chain. HOWEVER, if there are two cables coming out
    >of the adapter, the
    >adapter card should be unterminated, and the last device on each cable
    >should be
    >terminated.
    >
    >(2) Device #7 is the adapter card in the PC ... do not assign anything
    >else to that number
    >
    >(3) EACH device on the SCSI chain needs a unique device number, make
    >sure that there are
    >no duplicated. That leaves Device numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
    >for your devices. If
    >you are setting up devices such as a scanner, try to steer clear of 0
    >and 1, which are
    >normally used for disk drives.
    >
    >(4) If you are installing Hard Disks, 'Device 0' will be the boot drive.
    >

    Did all this, in every permutation, with two different SCSI cards.

    I know quite a few other people who also find them a PITA.
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 3, 2004
    #13
  14. John

    R. P. Guest

    "Julian Knight" <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
    > Don't forget that to achieve 480Mbps, USB has to make very heavy use

    of the PC's
    > CPU unlike SCSI and Firewire.


    Firewire is as light on the CPU as SCSI? I had no idea. That's good
    to know when trying to decide what kind of external HD backup drive to
    get: USB-2 or Firewire.

    Rudy
     
    R. P., Aug 3, 2004
    #14
  15. From Jim Berwick on 02/Aug/2004 10:16:

    > Julian Knight <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in news:410df700$0$25120
    > $:
    >
    >
    >>best bet (avoiding the PCI/PCI Express/... issues altogether!).

    >
    >
    > What PCI/PCI Express issues?


    The fact that none of my PC's have PCI Express. If I upgrade to a motherboard
    with it, I will have to replace: Memory, Processor and power supply at the very
    least - again! If I don't replace, we are at the end of the line for PCI within
    a few years.

    If I choose USB it is likely to last another 10 years.

    --
    Julian Knight, http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
    Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
    Yahoo! IM=knighjm, Skype Internet Phone: callto://j.knight
     
    Julian Knight, Aug 3, 2004
    #15
  16. From R. P. on 03/Aug/2004 07:15:

    > "Julian Knight" <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
    >
    >>Don't forget that to achieve 480Mbps, USB has to make very heavy use

    >
    > of the PC's
    >
    >> CPU unlike SCSI and Firewire.

    >
    >
    > Firewire is as light on the CPU as SCSI? I had no idea. That's good
    > to know when trying to decide what kind of external HD backup drive to
    > get: USB-2 or Firewire.
    >
    > Rudy
    >


    One of the reasons that Firewire has been more expensive than USB.
    As someone pointed out though, perhaps some newer chipsets now don't need to hit
    the CPU as hard? However, the spec does allow it.

    --
    Julian Knight, http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
    Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
    Yahoo! IM=knighjm, Skype Internet Phone: callto://j.knight
     
    Julian Knight, Aug 3, 2004
    #16
  17. From Glenn on 02/Aug/2004 14:47:

    > Julian Knight wrote:
    >
    >> From John on 02/Aug/2004 00:12:
    >>
    >>> Hello
    >>>
    >>> A lot of people seem to recommend SCSI connected scanners over USB
    >>> ones, but isn't USB faster than SCSI?
    >>>
    >>> Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the speeds for the two standards were as
    >>> follows:
    >>>
    >>> USB2 480 Mbps
    >>> SCSI-3 Ultra 20 MBps
    >>> I thought that even USB 1 was 40 Mbps? So wouldn't that have been
    >>> faster than the latest SCSI-3 Ultras speed can muster?
    >>>
    >>> Or perhaps the difference comes with the controllers and the SCSI just
    >>> has better controllers and drivers, and the USB takes up too much
    >>> resources? Or perhaps the USB can't achieve the top speeds it is
    >>> supposed to be capable of, but the SCSI can?
    >>>
    >>> I'm a tad confused on this, but it does seem from what people say in
    >>> comp.periphs.scanners that SCSI is faster?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for any clarification on this
    >>>
    >>> John
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Don't forget that to achieve 480Mbps, USB has to make very heavy use
    >> of the PC's CPU unlike SCSI and Firewire. This is probably OK for
    >> scanning but often catches people out for Video and other more
    >> intensive work.
    >>

    >
    > USB definately uses a lot of CPU power. When I have my USB scanner
    > driver GUI opened, CPU usage is 50% and CPU temps jump to about 50 C.
    >
    > Julian, are you looking for a PCI SCSI card? I have one just sitting
    > here. I used it for optical drives, but I have gone IDE. I haven't
    > used it since August 2002, I assume it works, it's been boxed up since
    > then.
    >


    Thanks Glenn, but as I said in my other post, I think I would rather choose a
    USB converter if I can simply for the flexibility (I can use it in any PC
    including my laptop and lend it to friends without having to trash their PCs)
    and the fact that I don't want to end up with another useless card when I next
    upgrade my desktop.

    I was interested though to here if anyone had used one of these converters,
    especially with scanners.

    --
    Julian Knight, http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
    Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
    Yahoo! IM=knighjm, Skype Internet Phone: callto://j.knight
     
    Julian Knight, Aug 3, 2004
    #17
  18. John

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    David Littlewood <> wrote:
    >>
    >>I have never had any problems with SCSI devices. My experiences have
    >>found them to be fast, reliable, and easy to configure. I've had
    >>drives and scanners running from Windows 98 to Windows XP.

    >
    > That's great; I wish you could share your secret. I have rarely been
    > able to get two devices to work on the same chain, whatever combination
    > of terminators/no terminators, permutations of device numbers etc. I
    > tried. Life is too short to waste on stuff like that...


    Something worth reading (for laughs, if not actual insight) is the
    SCSI FAQ where FAQ means "facetiously" answered questions:

    http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/scsifaq.html

    The relevant part is, under Types of SCSI:

    3. Fast and loose SCSI. Often used in PCs. Has a few small variations
    from the official SCSI specification but works quite well as long as
    you never install new equipment or change the configuration.

    Another relevant part, and one reason SCSI has failed:

    In practice, SCSI-2 didn't work either. The industry's response to this
    was SCSI-3, which introduced thicker, sturdier, stronger, heavier, and
    far more expensive cables. [With 68 pins!]
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 4, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>, Bill Tuthill
    <> writes
    >David Littlewood <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>I have never had any problems with SCSI devices. My experiences have
    >>>found them to be fast, reliable, and easy to configure. I've had
    >>>drives and scanners running from Windows 98 to Windows XP.

    >>
    >> That's great; I wish you could share your secret. I have rarely been
    >> able to get two devices to work on the same chain, whatever combination
    >> of terminators/no terminators, permutations of device numbers etc. I
    >> tried. Life is too short to waste on stuff like that...

    >
    >Something worth reading (for laughs, if not actual insight) is the
    >SCSI FAQ where FAQ means "facetiously" answered questions:
    >
    > http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/scsifaq.html
    >
    >The relevant part is, under Types of SCSI:
    >
    > 3. Fast and loose SCSI. Often used in PCs. Has a few small variations
    > from the official SCSI specification but works quite well as long as
    > you never install new equipment or change the configuration.
    >
    >Another relevant part, and one reason SCSI has failed:
    >
    > In practice, SCSI-2 didn't work either. The industry's response to this
    > was SCSI-3, which introduced thicker, sturdier, stronger, heavier, and
    > far more expensive cables. [With 68 pins!]
    >

    Bill, thanks for that, it gave me the best laugh so far this week. It
    actually sounds very close to my own experience of SCSI.

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 4, 2004
    #19
  20. John

    Glenn Guest

    R. P. wrote:
    > "Julian Knight" <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
    >
    >>Don't forget that to achieve 480Mbps, USB has to make very heavy use

    >
    > of the PC's
    >
    >> CPU unlike SCSI and Firewire.

    >
    >
    > Firewire is as light on the CPU as SCSI? I had no idea. That's good
    > to know when trying to decide what kind of external HD backup drive to
    > get: USB-2 or Firewire.
    >
    > Rudy
    >

    I have an external firewire hard drive (internal in an enclosure), and
    it uses very little CPU while transferring files. I can only imagine
    what happens if I use the USB2.0 port instead.
     
    Glenn, Aug 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ardnasx1

    Driver for Microtech scsi to usb adaptor

    ardnasx1, Apr 28, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,478
    Stealth
    Apr 28, 2006
  2. =?Utf-8?B?U3VucmlzZVNPTA==?=

    ONLY USB Floppy, how to install SCSI driver?

    =?Utf-8?B?U3VucmlzZVNPTA==?=, Aug 23, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    960
  3. =?Utf-8?B?bWlyb2t1ODAw?=

    anyone know how to get scsi scanners to work with x64

    =?Utf-8?B?bWlyb2t1ODAw?=, Dec 30, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    411
  4. dandelion

    Which is faster? A USB printer or a SCSI printer?

    dandelion, Mar 30, 2006, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    599
    J. Clarke
    Apr 1, 2006
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,161
Loading...

Share This Page