geeky argh!
Dec. 28th, 2003 11:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
egypturnashSo today my mother and I went out to get a few things. New shoes for me (there was a buy one, get one half off sale at the place we ended up at, so I now have not one, but two pairs of black Converse sneakers), a flatbed scanner for her, and a little something for a friend, whose birthday party we attended afterwards. (He was amused by the pack of five superdeformed Gundam, and even more amused by them was his son, who has a lot of normal Gundam... I didn't know that empire had made it into the minds of average American kids, but it doesn't really surprise me in retrospect.)
Unfortunately, while I think the scanner I guided her to was a good choice overall - I've had absolutely no trouble with my little low-end Canon scanner, and fifty bucks after rebate for the 3000F seemed like a pretty good deal - there turned out to be one crucial problem: Canon only provides a driver that works on Windows 98, 2000, ME, or XP... and Mom's machine is still running 95. The driver won't even attempt to install. And Canon's website doesn't offer any 95-compatible drivers, either.
This was simply a wrinkle I did not think of - I'm used to dealing with my own machine, or ones around work. My own is kept pretty up to date; I'll buy the latest release of the OS within a week of it coming out, and the online Software Updates get applied after watching the Mac news sites for a few days to see if anyone's found killer bugs in them. The thought of running an eight-year-old OS just did not occur to me as a possible problem. Plus every version of Windows has such similar names up until recently; I can never keep one 199x apart from another when being befuddled by the unfamiliar setups. I'm a Mac dragon by carefully-considered choice. Work Macs are mostly stuck in OS9, but there are enough people reluctant to make the switch to X that hardware still comes with OS9 drivers, and likely will for a year or two longer.
I have to wonder if any scanner we're likely to find on the shelves now is going to have this problem... I don't want to try and persuade her to update her OS, her machine is pretty pokey as is. I'm sure going up to 95/2000/ME/XP (whichever one of these is the best option; I have no clue - I will have to ask one PC-friendly acquaintance or another) would require upgrading her machine in some way or another. I'll shove it back into the box, I guess, and tell her this tomorrow. Luckily I think we should be able to return it for the full purchase price.
But hey, at least I do now have two pairs of the most iconic sneakers you can find nowadays. Converse are pretty much what cartoonists will draw to say "sneakers" unless the drawing is about the absurd convolutions and bulges that adorn modern hyper-specialized athletic shoes.
Unfortunately, while I think the scanner I guided her to was a good choice overall - I've had absolutely no trouble with my little low-end Canon scanner, and fifty bucks after rebate for the 3000F seemed like a pretty good deal - there turned out to be one crucial problem: Canon only provides a driver that works on Windows 98, 2000, ME, or XP... and Mom's machine is still running 95. The driver won't even attempt to install. And Canon's website doesn't offer any 95-compatible drivers, either.
This was simply a wrinkle I did not think of - I'm used to dealing with my own machine, or ones around work. My own is kept pretty up to date; I'll buy the latest release of the OS within a week of it coming out, and the online Software Updates get applied after watching the Mac news sites for a few days to see if anyone's found killer bugs in them. The thought of running an eight-year-old OS just did not occur to me as a possible problem. Plus every version of Windows has such similar names up until recently; I can never keep one 199x apart from another when being befuddled by the unfamiliar setups. I'm a Mac dragon by carefully-considered choice. Work Macs are mostly stuck in OS9, but there are enough people reluctant to make the switch to X that hardware still comes with OS9 drivers, and likely will for a year or two longer.
I have to wonder if any scanner we're likely to find on the shelves now is going to have this problem... I don't want to try and persuade her to update her OS, her machine is pretty pokey as is. I'm sure going up to 95/2000/ME/XP (whichever one of these is the best option; I have no clue - I will have to ask one PC-friendly acquaintance or another) would require upgrading her machine in some way or another. I'll shove it back into the box, I guess, and tell her this tomorrow. Luckily I think we should be able to return it for the full purchase price.
But hey, at least I do now have two pairs of the most iconic sneakers you can find nowadays. Converse are pretty much what cartoonists will draw to say "sneakers" unless the drawing is about the absurd convolutions and bulges that adorn modern hyper-specialized athletic shoes.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-28 09:49 pm (UTC)I think I would see more people wearing those Air Jordans if they didn't require financing from a local bank.
Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-28 10:20 pm (UTC)Re: Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-29 07:43 am (UTC)Though nowadays, systems are so cheap that there's really no reason that everyone shouldn't be running XP on some shiny new P3/P4 anyhow. Well, beyond "but I just bought this computer ten years ago!"
Re: Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-29 08:30 am (UTC)Re: Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-29 11:20 am (UTC)This thing works fine, why throw more money at M$N?
Hate hate hate hate XP
Re: Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-29 11:23 am (UTC):)
Re: Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-29 11:44 am (UTC)Re: Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-29 01:46 pm (UTC)Also, cheap is entirely relative, and XP is evil in the most time-wasting sense. If I upgrade to anything, it will be 2k.
Re: Win95? Yikes...
Date: 2003-12-29 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-28 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 06:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 04:45 pm (UTC)That would be part of the problem, yeah! I have no idea exactly what release she may be using...
no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 04:59 pm (UTC)o.O she has 32M of RAM. No wonder trying to do any kind of multitasking involves constant grrch grrrt grrrrt grrrt grchgrcgrch of the hard drive swapping!
"Are you trying to tell me I need to get a new computer?" "Well, if you ever want to put anything new on it, yeah..."
(I do try to stay hands-off on her machine. I only see if two weeks a year; if she's happy with it, that's fine. But I think this Pentium Pro box is nearing the end of its useful life as a websurf/email/solitaire station...)
no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 05:08 pm (UTC)I'd say if it's a Pentium Pro, you'd probably be okay with Win98SE if you just upgraded the memory, but you could also get a significantly better PC for like, under $200 nowadays. So I dunno.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 05:28 pm (UTC)Geez. Two hundred bucks for a machine that'd probably last her a few years? Is that for something pre-assembled and pseudo-supported, or something put together from parts/handed down? I mostly only keep up with new machines and prices, which remain much the same. Cutting edgeish desktop is always about $2000, it seems.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-29 06:04 pm (UTC)