Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Albone

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 22, 2003
120
0
I got a Microtek 9800XL Scanner and I can use one of these three options to scan. I believe that I am limited to the speed of the scanner, so I can't maximize the full speed capacity of, say, firewire.

That being said, what would be the fastest and best method to scan, using OS 9.2?

Thanks!
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
15,719
1,894
Lard
USB 1.1 -- 1.2 megabytes per second
SCSI -- 5 megabytes per second
SCSI-2 -- 10 megabytes per second
UltraSCSI -- 20 megabytes per second
FireWire 400 -- 50 megabytes per second
USB 2.0 -- 60 megabytes per second

That said, a lot depends on the scanner. Most consumer scanners will not utilise the bandwidth of FireWire 400 or USB 2.0. A true optical 2400x2400 with 48 bit colour depth will, but it's still only momentary.
 

KC9AIC

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2004
316
0
Tokyo, Japan or Longview, Texas
[sarcasm] Doesn't everybody know that ADB is still the fastest around?![/sarcasm] ADB runs at 12 kilobits/second, significantly slower than a modem!

USB 1.1 is 12 Mb/s (megabits per second).
USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s
Some kinds of SCSI can go as high as "320 MByte/sec performance per channel," according to Adaptec. This is 3200 Mb/s.
FireWire 400 is 400 Mb/s, FireWire 800 is 800 Mb/s.

USB 2.0 seems to have the edge over Firewire. However, actual throughput is such that Firewire 400 is faster than USB 2.0, and Firewire 800 has them both beat. SCSI is cost prohibitive.

Using either USB 2.0 or FireWire will probably provide more than enough bandwidth to carry any scanner data.
 

Lanbrown

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2003
893
0
So when did a byte consist of 10-bits? 320MB/s is 2560Mb/s. I wouldn't call SCSI cost prohibitive. Prices have come down quite a bit, FC on the other hand, that is cost prohibitive.
 

Bear

macrumors G3
Jul 23, 2002
8,088
5
Sol III - Terra
KC9AIC said:
Yes, a byte consists of 8 bits (2^3), but I was under the impression that there was a start and stop bit on them, making it 10. I could be wrong.
Start and stop bits are used on some serial protocols. SCSI is parallel, and Firewire as well as USB may not use start/stop bits.

In any case, Firweire 400 is usually faster than even USB 2.0. And as for a scanner, firewire is probably its fastest interface. Although as noted, SCSI does come in several speeds. You just have to know what speeds your devices support.
 

cubist

macrumors 68020
Jul 4, 2002
2,075
0
Muncie, Indiana
Remember that SCSI requires you to power-down to change peripherals, have a terminator, etc. Firewire is going to be your best bet here: connect the scanner, scan, disconnect.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,937
157
A lot depends on the drivers, scanning software, and the chip inside the scanner.

While one interface may seem to have better specs, some of the companies can do things that really mess things up.

Of course there are also the bugs in the software and implementation of certain interfaces and features that can cause problems outside of scanning (ie, HPs all-in-one unit which has a sw app that slows the entire system down because it's polling the scan button way too often.)

So try them all and see which interface works best.
 

Opteron

macrumors 6502
Feb 10, 2004
434
0
South Australia
Albone said:
I got a Microtek 9800XL Scanner and I can use one of these three options to scan. I believe that I am limited to the speed of the scanner, so I can't maximize the full speed capacity of, say, firewire.

That being said, what would be the fastest and best method to scan, using OS 9.2?

Thanks!

Scanning time really depends on your scaner, a parrell port would do you just fine. even an old serial port would probabley do the job.

That said any of the connections you listed will be more than cabable of doing what your asking.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.