Printers survive 83 alone

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 23:40:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 06/18/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone
scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which
has a "copy" choice.


That button must be communicating with some software in your computer,
which must be set up and working properly.


Yes.


A more comp]lex (and so
vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device.


Complex? Not at all; I don't remember any details, but I remember that
setting up the scanner was very easy. Vulnerable? Vulnerable to what?
I've never had a problem with it, running under XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1,
and now 10.

Complex in that the computer has to be on! If you're like me, the
computer is on all the time I'm nearby;


My computer is *always* on, except when I'm away on vacation.


however, there are strange folk
who have computers that are only turned on to do certain things, and
then turned off again. Such people find the copying ability of
all-in-ones very handy.


Yes, I guess that makes sense.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:50:06 +1000, Lucifer Morningstar
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:40:39 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 18/06/2017 02:22 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

Easier than separate devices? Not here it doesn't. My stand-alone
scanner has a "copy" button, or I can use the scanner software, which
has a "copy" choice.


That button must be communicating with some software in your computer,
which must be set up and working properly.


Yes.


A more comp]lex (and so
vulnerable) setup than something that happens entirely within that device.


Complex? Not at all; I don't remember any details, but I remember that
setting up the scanner was very easy. Vulnerable? Vulnerable to what?
I've never had a problem with it, running under XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1,
and now 10.

But if you prefer all-in-one units, that's fine with me. I don't, for
the reason I explained, but I won't try to convert you to my way of
thinking.

When the printer dies in your all in one you have to replace the
scanner as well.


Right. That's exactly what I said in my original message in the
thread.


OTOH all in ones take up lest space.


And that is also what I said in my original message.