From: DevilsPGD on
In message <MPG.225c5e7afc5f324398996e(a)> MoiMoi
<moimoi(a)> wrote:

>I think it has as much to do with the sheer volume of data that must be
>quickly passed as anything.
>Even "low rez" scanning, say actual size @ 72ppi generates a lot of
>bits, and of course if the scanner has to wait for data buffers to
>clear from scanner to puter and whatnot, it often just craps out, to use
>technical term.

It all depends on how smart the scanner is, if the scanner is a true
network scanner which can dump encode data and dump files to a NAS
automatically, the bandwidth is pretty minimal -- Just look at the size
of the resulting file.

However, if you're talking a $35 bargain basement scanner, then you're
absolutely correct about the bulk of data.