Am Fre, 2004-10-08 um 11.29 schrieb peder: > Thanx for a nifty port. > > I've been happlily using xsane in out school network for a couple of > years. We have 5 old linux boxes scattered around the place as scanner > servers and the WinXP/Win98-clients use xsane to connect. > > However there are two issues. > > The minor one: Is there a technical reason why the program has to > be installed to c:\sane? Can't the program search for it's files > using perhaps a XSANE variable or in current directory? > I like to have the program installed on the server so I can upgrade > it for every user and not having to walk around 300+ PC's. > This works in 0.90 on Win98 but not on WinXP for some reason. > In 0.96 it works on neither.
XSane uses hardcoded paths. This is a usual way on unix systems. The paths are created while configurating xsane and are compiled in. When you compile xsane-win32 yourself then you can compile in your own paths. > > I found out you only have to put some files in c:\sane so I can > distribute those every time, so this issue is not a biggie. > > The major one: In xsane-0.83 and 0.90 I could run > 'xsane.exe ip-of-scan-server:device'. In 0.96 this doesn't work; I have > to add all my servers in net.conf, wait for xsane to "scan for devices" > and choose the right one from five nearly identical entries. > Maybe I can pick the right one but definitely not my users. > Can we please have the scan-server argument back? > The differences between 0.95/0.96 and the previous xsane-win32 versions are that the new versions are linked against sane-dll, the old versions were linked agains sane-net. You have to use the same syntax as in linux: xsane net:192.168.0.1 > FYI, version 0.90 was much faster than 0.96. I tried them on a > 400MHz and 0.96 was really sluggish, perhaps due to newer gtk versions. On my systems I had the feeling that xsane-0.96 is much faster. Do you use the same settings in preferences and view? Oliver
