15 New Messages
Digest #9071
Messages
Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:12 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave Clark" dave24c
I'm having trouble with my Samsung ML-2510 since I bought a new 2011 MacBookPro with Mt. Lion.
So, I looked at what I think is this site/link http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/macosxsamsung-gdi and found what looks like nothing but gibberish.
While open source is fine and dandy, and it's free, it's invariably too difficult for the non-technical user to figure out. For example, what on earth does all this mean:
"Samsung-gdi-1.816.2.dmg (180 KB)
"The samsung-gdi package includes PPDs for 26 Samsung-GDI printers. This package requires, but does not include, Foomatic-RIP and Ghostscript for Mac OS X. Download them [sic - them?] from the links below, if necessary
source code"
And there's more if you want to look at it.
Dave Clark
Irvine, CA
http://www.clarklawfirm.com
http://daveclarkimages.smugmug.com
http://facebook.com/daveclarkimages/
© 2012 All Rights Reserved
Permission to copy on this Email list only.
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Alan Fry <ajf@afco.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>
> On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:44, Denver Dan wrote:
>
>> Howdy.
>>
>> A friend in Denver has a Samsung ML-1710 printer which was no longer
>> supported in OS X when he upgraded to Snow Leopard some time ago on his
>> MacPro.
>>
>> He found a fix and sent me this information.
>>
>> Hopefully others may find these links useful for printers that haven't
>> had upgraded drivers provided by their makers.
>>
>> There are 3 freeware items at this site that allowed the Samsung
>> printer to work:
>>
>> <http://www.linuxfoundation.org/colla...osxsamsung-gdi >
>>
>> It looks like it could get an older Samsung printer up to Mac OS X 10.7
>> Lion.
>>
>
> The link above seems to have got truncated -- I think it probably should be (?) :-
>
>
> <http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/macosxsamsung-gdi >
>
> Alan Fry
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
So, I looked at what I think is this site/link http://www.linuxfou
While open source is fine and dandy, and it's free, it's invariably too difficult for the non-technical user to figure out. For example, what on earth does all this mean:
"Samsung-gdi-
"The samsung-gdi package includes PPDs for 26 Samsung-GDI printers. This package requires, but does not include, Foomatic-RIP and Ghostscript for Mac OS X. Download them [sic - them?] from the links below, if necessary
source code"
And there's more if you want to look at it.
Dave Clark
Irvine, CA
http://www.clarklaw
http://daveclarkima
http://facebook.
© 2012 All Rights Reserved
Permission to copy on this Email list only.
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Alan Fry <ajf@afco.demon.
>
> On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:44, Denver Dan wrote:
>
>> Howdy.
>>
>> A friend in Denver has a Samsung ML-1710 printer which was no longer
>> supported in OS X when he upgraded to Snow Leopard some time ago on his
>> MacPro.
>>
>> He found a fix and sent me this information.
>>
>> Hopefully others may find these links useful for printers that haven't
>> had upgraded drivers provided by their makers.
>>
>> There are 3 freeware items at this site that allowed the Samsung
>> printer to work:
>>
>> <http://www.linuxfou
>>
>> It looks like it could get an older Samsung printer up to Mac OS X 10.7
>> Lion.
>>
>
> The link above seems to have got truncated -- I think it probably should be (?) :-
>
>
> <http://www.linuxfou
>
> Alan Fry
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:09 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
2272 x 1704 = 3,871,000 so that is just under 4 Mpx. There's been a
"megapixel race" throughout the history of digital cameras but 4 Mpx is
fine for viewing on-screen or making small-medium prints. To give you an
idea, an HD TV is just 2.1 Mpx (1920 x 1080 = 2,074,000) and a 15" laptop
screen is only 1.3 Mpx (1440 x 900 = 1,296,000).
You might not have taken slides but it you had prints made you had negative
film in the camera and these would have been returned with the prints in
case you wanted further prints or enlargements. You "can" scan prints but
negatives are better.
Otto
On 18 August 2012 12:59, Ken <avlisk@cox.net> wrote:
> Hi, Otto N. Yes, I just want to turn it on and it works. Interesting
> about that "get info", I didn't know about that. Yes, my camera does JPEG.
> It's a 4 megapixel Fujifilm, point and shoot. 2272 X 1704 pixels, around
> 700KB/picture, it says. I don't know if that's considered good or not, but
> the quality of pictures is more than adequate in my world, Never liked
> slides, so I only have prints, dating back to about 1956.I got a digital
> picture frame last Holiday Day (aka Christmas) and I only want to move
> pictures from my iPhoto to this frame. No printing or emailing or anything
> like that. I plan on using a USB thumb drive to move the pix from the
> computer to the frame. That's about it.
>
> I appreciate all the input from everyone, too.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"megapixel race" throughout the history of digital cameras but 4 Mpx is
fine for viewing on-screen or making small-medium prints. To give you an
idea, an HD TV is just 2.1 Mpx (1920 x 1080 = 2,074,000) and a 15" laptop
screen is only 1.3 Mpx (1440 x 900 = 1,296,000).
You might not have taken slides but it you had prints made you had negative
film in the camera and these would have been returned with the prints in
case you wanted further prints or enlargements. You "can" scan prints but
negatives are better.
Otto
On 18 August 2012 12:59, Ken <avlisk@cox.net> wrote:
> Hi, Otto N. Yes, I just want to turn it on and it works. Interesting
> about that "get info", I didn't know about that. Yes, my camera does JPEG.
> It's a 4 megapixel Fujifilm, point and shoot. 2272 X 1704 pixels, around
> 700KB/picture, it says. I don't know if that's considered good or not, but
> the quality of pictures is more than adequate in my world, Never liked
> slides, so I only have prints, dating back to about 1956.I got a digital
> picture frame last Holiday Day (aka Christmas) and I only want to move
> pictures from my iPhoto to this frame. No printing or emailing or anything
> like that. I plan on using a USB thumb drive to move the pix from the
> computer to the frame. That's about it.
>
> I appreciate all the input from everyone, too.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:52 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jurgen Richter" epsongroups
Ken wrote:
.... Never liked slides, so I only have prints, dating back to about
1956. .....
So for those, check what software ships with your prospective scanner
too. I remember a few years ago, some Canon brand scanners included
software that allowed you to scan NEGATIVES as well as positive slides,
automatically converting to a positive image as an end result. Perhaps
you still have your old negs as well, and they may well be a better
source to scan than faded and discoloured prints you may also have. Just
a thought. There are lots of Photoshop steps online that you would have
to research to get that same conversion, because it's not just an
"invert" image step. So scanner software that has a negative source
option would be your best bet here. Worth considering anyway.
Cheers
.... Never liked slides, so I only have prints, dating back to about
1956. .....
So for those, check what software ships with your prospective scanner
too. I remember a few years ago, some Canon brand scanners included
software that allowed you to scan NEGATIVES as well as positive slides,
automatically converting to a positive image as an end result. Perhaps
you still have your old negs as well, and they may well be a better
source to scan than faded and discoloured prints you may also have. Just
a thought. There are lots of Photoshop steps online that you would have
to research to get that same conversion, because it's not just an
"invert" image step. So scanner software that has a negative source
option would be your best bet here. Worth considering anyway.
Cheers
Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:48 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
No.
A scanner that does American 8.5 x 11 inch business letter size and the
A4 (ISO paper size) used by most of the rest of the world is today very
inexpensive.
When you jump to the 8.5 x 14 inch US legal paper size scanner the
price goes up significantly.
If you found a scanner large enough to place ten 6x4 inch photos on the
glass at one time it would be very expensive indeed. You'd have to
take out a second loan on your house to pay for it. :-)
Denver Dan
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:25:24 +0300, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one
time.
No.
A scanner that does American 8.5 x 11 inch business letter size and the
A4 (ISO paper size) used by most of the rest of the world is today very
inexpensive.
When you jump to the 8.5 x 14 inch US legal paper size scanner the
price goes up significantly.
If you found a scanner large enough to place ten 6x4 inch photos on the
glass at one time it would be very expensive indeed. You'd have to
take out a second loan on your house to pay for it. :-)
Denver Dan
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:25:24 +0300, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one
time.
Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael P. Stupinski" mstupinski
DD,
It's possible, that the request is for a scanner that would batch feed 4x6 prints for scanning. Of course, I'm not aware of a scanner that would do that, but there may be something out there that does.
.......Mike
On Aug 18, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> No.
>
> A scanner that does American 8.5 x 11 inch business letter size and the
> A4 (ISO paper size) used by most of the rest of the world is today very
> inexpensive.
>
> When you jump to the 8.5 x 14 inch US legal paper size scanner the
> price goes up significantly.
>
> If you found a scanner large enough to place ten 6x4 inch photos on the
> glass at one time it would be very expensive indeed. You'd have to
> take out a second loan on your house to pay for it. :-)
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:25:24 +0300, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
>
>> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one
> time.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
It's possible, that the request is for a scanner that would batch feed 4x6 prints for scanning. Of course, I'm not aware of a scanner that would do that, but there may be something out there that does.
.......Mike
On Aug 18, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> No.
>
> A scanner that does American 8.5 x 11 inch business letter size and the
> A4 (ISO paper size) used by most of the rest of the world is today very
> inexpensive.
>
> When you jump to the 8.5 x 14 inch US legal paper size scanner the
> price goes up significantly.
>
> If you found a scanner large enough to place ten 6x4 inch photos on the
> glass at one time it would be very expensive indeed. You'd have to
> take out a second loan on your house to pay for it. :-)
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:25:24 +0300, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
>
>> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one
> time.
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> It's possible, that the request is for a scanner that would batch feed 4x6 prints for scanning. Of course, I'm not aware of a scanner that would do that, but there may be something out there that does.
> Mike
Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed devices for their better-than-base-model flatbed scanners.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
> Mike
Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed devices for their better-than-
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Tim O'Donoghue" timodonoghue
I wonder if the OP was referring to scanners with document feeders like some of the old HP SCSI scanners. Also very spendy but similar size to 8x10...
On Aug 18, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> No.
>
> A scanner that does American 8.5 x 11 inch business letter size and the
> A4 (ISO paper size) used by most of the rest of the world is today very
> inexpensive.
>
> When you jump to the 8.5 x 14 inch US legal paper size scanner the
> price goes up significantly.
>
> If you found a scanner large enough to place ten 6x4 inch photos on the
> glass at one time it would be very expensive indeed. You'd have to
> take out a second loan on your house to pay for it. :-)
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:25:24 +0300, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
>
>> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one
> time.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Aug 18, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> No.
>
> A scanner that does American 8.5 x 11 inch business letter size and the
> A4 (ISO paper size) used by most of the rest of the world is today very
> inexpensive.
>
> When you jump to the 8.5 x 14 inch US legal paper size scanner the
> price goes up significantly.
>
> If you found a scanner large enough to place ten 6x4 inch photos on the
> glass at one time it would be very expensive indeed. You'd have to
> take out a second loan on your house to pay for it. :-)
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:25:24 +0300, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
>
>> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one
> time.
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael P. Stupinski" mstupinski
I never thought of that, Jim. The least expensive Epson scanner that does that is apparently the V500, at $349.99 (USD), which can be found here:
<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&sku=B11B189071#Automatic%20Document%20Feeder >
.........Mike
On Aug 18, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>> It's possible, that the request is for a scanner that would batch feed 4x6 prints for scanning. Of course, I'm not aware of a scanner that would do that, but there may be something out there that does.
>> Mike
>
> Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed devices for their better-than-base-model flatbed scanners.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
<http://www.epson.
.........Mike
On Aug 18, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>> It's possible, that the request is for a scanner that would batch feed 4x6 prints for scanning. Of course, I'm not aware of a scanner that would do that, but there may be something out there that does.
>> Mike
>
> Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed devices for their better-than-
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Several makers have scanners with document and photo feeder mechanisms.
Check the EPSON Perfection V500 Office Scanner.
Hardware resolution is 6400 dpi and the D-Max rating is 3.4 which is
excellent for a flatbed scanner.
When you consider a scanner pay attention to the hardware resolution
aka optical resolution. The interpolated resolution is a software
process that added pixels while the optical resolution is what the
scanner's engine can actually "see."
The D-Max rating, 3.4 for this Epson scanner, is an indication of how
good the scanner engine is at picking out detail in dark and muddy
areas of an image particularly on film. The higher the D-Max rating
the better the scanner. Old drum scanners at service bureaus used to
have a D-Max of 4.0 and no flatbed could match that until more recently
when expensive flatbeds can now produce a D-Max of 4.0.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:23:07 -0400, Michael P. Stupinski wrote:
> DD,
>
> It's possible, that the request is for a scanner that would batch
> feed 4x6 prints for scanning. Of course, I'm not aware of a scanner
> that would do that, but there may be something out there that does.
>
> .......Mike
Several makers have scanners with document and photo feeder mechanisms.
Check the EPSON Perfection V500 Office Scanner.
Hardware resolution is 6400 dpi and the D-Max rating is 3.4 which is
excellent for a flatbed scanner.
When you consider a scanner pay attention to the hardware resolution
aka optical resolution. The interpolated resolution is a software
process that added pixels while the optical resolution is what the
scanner's engine can actually "see."
The D-Max rating, 3.4 for this Epson scanner, is an indication of how
good the scanner engine is at picking out detail in dark and muddy
areas of an image particularly on film. The higher the D-Max rating
the better the scanner. Old drum scanners at service bureaus used to
have a D-Max of 4.0 and no flatbed could match that until more recently
when expensive flatbeds can now produce a D-Max of 4.0.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:23:07 -0400, Michael P. Stupinski wrote:
> DD,
>
> It's possible, that the request is for a scanner that would batch
> feed 4x6 prints for scanning. Of course, I'm not aware of a scanner
> that would do that, but there may be something out there that does.
>
> .......Mike
Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:05 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
On 19 August 2012 00:28, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>
> Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed
> devices for their better-than-base-model flatbed scanners.
>
But, again, I have to suggest that if the negs are available, they are a
much better source. Prints have already been compromised twice over: once
by being enlarged from the original negs, and again by degrading over time.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed
> devices for their better-than-
>
But, again, I have to suggest that if the negs are available, they are a
much better source. Prints have already been compromised twice over: once
by being enlarged from the original negs, and again by degrading over time.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:17 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"(no author)"
.............Mike
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com > wrote:
> On 19 August 2012 00:28, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed
>> devices for their better-than-base-model flatbed scanners.
>>
>
> But, again, I have to suggest that if the negs are available, they are a
> much better source. Prints have already been compromised twice over: once
> by being enlarged from the original negs, and again by degrading over time.
>
> Otto
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@
> On 19 August 2012 00:28, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Most good scanner manufacturers, including Epson and Canon, make auto-feed
>> devices for their better-than-
>>
>
> But, again, I have to suggest that if the negs are available, they are a
> much better source. Prints have already been compromised twice over: once
> by being enlarged from the original negs, and again by degrading over time.
>
> Otto
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"redhillsranger" jsm5320432
I rarely use bluetooth technology on any of my computers or my phone. So, pardon my ignorance on this subject for what may be a pretty basic question.
If one is using (for example) an ipad and a bluetooth keyboard is it possible to somehow prevent unwanted parties from accessing your ipad via bluetooth?
I understand and do secure my local wireless network, but I want to make sure that using an ipad during meetings the data on my ipad is secure from unwanted access.
Thanks,
John
If one is using (for example) an ipad and a bluetooth keyboard is it possible to somehow prevent unwanted parties from accessing your ipad via bluetooth?
I understand and do secure my local wireless network, but I want to make sure that using an ipad during meetings the data on my ipad is secure from unwanted access.
Thanks,
John
Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:46 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Vixpix" nyskater
That's what the security code is for. Set the iPad so it turns off after so many minutes of non-use (if you want), and require the 4-number code to use it again.
Vickie 
Sent from a spoiled little iPad
On Aug 18, 2012, at 9:07 PM, "redhillsranger" <jsm5320432@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> I understand and do secure my local wireless network, but I want to make sure that using an ipad during meetings the data on my ipad is secure from unwanted access.
Vickie 
Sent from a spoiled little iPad
On Aug 18, 2012, at 9:07 PM, "redhillsranger" <jsm5320432@yahoo.
>
> I understand and do secure my local wireless network, but I want to make sure that using an ipad during meetings the data on my ipad is secure from unwanted access.
Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:17 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jon Kreisler" jonkreisler
A curiosity...
I upgraded my Mac Pro from Lion (OS X 10.7) to Mountain Lion (OS X 10.8)
I then noticed the "Guest User" account was enabled. I previously did not
have any guest ids enabled.
Seems like a step backward in security.
Jon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I upgraded my Mac Pro from Lion (OS X 10.7) to Mountain Lion (OS X 10.8)
I then noticed the "Guest User" account was enabled. I previously did not
have any guest ids enabled.
Seems like a step backward in security.
Jon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:09 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> A curiosity...
> I upgraded my Mac Pro from Lion (OS X 10.7) to Mountain Lion (OS X 10.8)
> I then noticed the "Guest User" account was enabled. I previously did not
> have any guest ids enabled.
> Seems like a step backward in security.
> Jon
1. The guest user has little ability to affect anything vital.
2. The guest user account can easily be disabled in System Preferences -- Users and Groups
3. If you have a Mac with the possibility of theft, you actually want the machine to be "login-able" by the thief because otherwise the machine cannot be located by security softeware.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
> I upgraded my Mac Pro from Lion (OS X 10.7) to Mountain Lion (OS X 10.8)
> I then noticed the "Guest User" account was enabled. I previously did not
> have any guest ids enabled.
> Seems like a step backward in security.
> Jon
1. The guest user has little ability to affect anything vital.
2. The guest user account can easily be disabled in System Preferences -- Users and Groups
3. If you have a Mac with the possibility of theft, you actually want the machine to be "login-able" by the thief because otherwise the machine cannot be located by security softeware.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
