Trying to get a driver for a Canon CanoScan 9900F Flatbed scanner for Windows 7 64 bit.

[Mick]

Hi all,
Having just changed to Windows 7 64 bit from Windows XP 32 bit I
have been trying to get drivers for my equipment to work.

But my Canon CanoScan 9900F Flatbed scanner which is a very good scanner
that works at high resolutions , has me beat.

Canon website seems to have XP as the latest system for it to work.

I am wondering if anyone here has one of them and managed to get it working
with
Windows 7 64 bit.

Any thoughts welcomed.
Mick.

[VanguardLH]

It is your responsibility to verify all your existing hardware will work
(has drivers) for a new version of the operating system, especially when
the bit-width changes. When you change from 32-bit to 64-bit, you also
have to change from 32-bit drivers to 64-bit drivers. If the device
maker doesn't produce 64-bit drivers then your choice to go to a 64-bit
OS means you elected not to use your old hardware under that new OS.

I have an old Umax scanner (legal size and why I keep it) but its
software (which embeds the driver interface) was last produced for used
under Windows 98/ME. It has no later drivers supported on later
versions of Windows (i.e., NT-based versions of Windows). So I keep
around the old Windows 98 host so I can use the old Umax scanner there.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/scanners/canoscan_series/canoscan_9900f#DriversAndSoftware
They don't list a driver for any 64-bit version of Windows.

You might be able to use one of the embedded drivers (those included in
the installation of Windows) to support your old scanner. It won't have
all the bells and whistles of the Canoscan software but you might be
able to get TWAIN support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWAIN) added for
your old scanner so it would be accessible from within applications.

Maybe you could install the 32-bit TWAIN drivers for the scanner in XP
Mode. If you have an edition of Windows 7 that supports XP Mode then
you download the 2 files for it, install XP Mode (which is a virtual
machine running Windows XP 32-bit), and then install the Windows XP
32-bit TWAIN drivers/software into the virtualized Windows XP. You
install the 32-bit TWAIN drivers that are for Windows XP into XP Mode
(which is 32-bit Windows XP). I haven't used XP Mode so someone else
will have to tell you if you can install drivers in that virtual
machine. The short summary I've seen listed is:

- Install XP Mode.
- Install the 32-bit Windows XP drivers in XP Mode. 32-bit drivers are
unusable under 64-bit Windows <anyVersion/anyEdition>.
- Make sure the Integration Features are enabled in XP Mode.
- The scanner MUST be listed as "Attached" under the USB tab.

If your edition of Windows 7 doesn't support XP Mode then you can't
install XP Mode to run 32-bit apps under the virtual machine (XP Mode)
running Windows XP. VirtualPC 2007 is another possibility but not for
USB devices since VPC2007 doesn't support USB devices; however,
VirtualBox supports USB devices in virtual machines. If you have an
unfettered license for Windows XP (you cannot have used an upgrade
version of Vista/7 based on Windows XP full) then you could use a VMM
(Virtual Machine Manager), like Virtualbox or VMWare Player, to define a
virtual machine in which you install Windows XP (32-bit) and install the
Windows XP 32-bit Canon TWAIN drivers in that virtual machine. There
will be a significant performance hit when running anything inside a
virtual machine as all hardware except the CPU is emulated, and software
(used to emulate hardware) is going to be a lot slower than real
hardware.

I did happen upon http://www.eztwain.com/twain-bridge.htm through a
Google search on "windows 7 twain" (I was actually trying to check on
TWAIN support in Windows 7 but came across this product). I've never
used it so I cannot tell you how to proceed to run the Canonscan
installer. From an extremely quick scan of some of its FAQs and docs,
maybe it's nothing you can use since it appears designed for the product
owner to wrap around their 32-bit driver and would have to be part of
their installation process. It looks like recompile is needed to map
their old function calls to those in the new DLL. The $1000 cost also
puts it out of reach of the end user and something a company would use
to map their old 32-bit driver to the 64-bit DLL.

[Mick]

"VanguardLH" wrote in message news:jtuvaq$ia7$1...@news.albasani.net...

Hi, yes I knew the scanner might not work with the new computer and Windows
7 64 bit
I do still have my existing Computer with XP on, I intended keeping it for
that very purpose
But it would be good if it can be got to work, it is a good scanner.

You are much more advanced than me with computers by the sound of things,
but I will work my way through your suggestions.
Thank you very much,
Mick.

[Rice]

"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:jtuvaq$ia7$1...@news.albasani.net...

It is your responsibility to verify all your existing hardware will work
(has drivers) for a new version of the operating system, especially when
the bit-width changes.

--
Condescending big headed little prick you are.

[Disbelief]

Rice wrote:
> "VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
> news:jtuvaq$ia7$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> It is your responsibility to verify all your existing hardware will
> work (has drivers) for a new version of the operating system,
> especially when the bit-width changes.

Why put your reply as a signature rather than in the body of your post?

"Condescending big headed little prick you are."

But Vanguard LH happens to be correct though - and obviously knows rather
more than you do about the subject.

[Rice]

"Disbelief" <disbelief@diilly-daally....invalid.com> wrote in message
news:jtv68m$1v6$1...@news.albasani.net...

--
None the less he is Condescending big headed little prick.
Tells a lot about you taking up for him. Can he/she not stand up for
themself?

[wereoawl]

"Mick" <mrcy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1MudnT3lAYt_bp_N...@brightview.co.uk...

I have a Canon Scanner. I am very happy with it.

[Disbelief]

Rice wrote:
> "Disbelief" <disbelief@diilly-daally....invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:jtv68m$1v6$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Rice wrote:
>> "VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
>> news:jtuvaq$ia7$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> It is your responsibility to verify all your existing hardware will
>> work (has drivers) for a new version of the operating system,
>> especially when the bit-width changes.
>
> Why put your reply as a signature rather than in the body of your
> post?
>
> "Condescending big headed little prick you are."
>
> But Vanguard LH happens to be correct though - and obviously knows
> rather more than you do about the subject.

Well that description you have used in your reply to my post also fits you
as you seem unable to differentiate between signature and body text
posting - do you know how to post properly, or are you simply being an
irritating twat?

If you don't, then please learn how to. Posted below is how your last post
should have looked.

"None the less he is Condescending big headed little prick. Tells a lot
about you taking up for him. Can he/she not stand up for themself?"

Now as for your response - just how does my post "tell a lot about me" as I
have merely commented that Vanguard LH is simply correct in what he says?
As for "standing up for themself" - I'm sure that he his big enough and ugly
enough to do that if the need arises, but why bother responding to a
testosterone fuelled idiot who appears not to have a clue what "he/she" is
actually commenting on. BTW is there some sort of a flame war between the
pair of you or are always like this?

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:42:58 +0100, Disbelief wrote:

> do you know how to post properly, or are you simply being an irritating
> twat?

If you're replying to the poster to which I think you're replying (I
don't see its posts, so I can make an accurate guess in the absence here
of a post for you to reply to) the definite answer to both of your
questions is a resounding and unequivocal 'YES!'.

It's nothing but a useless troll and is in the bit-bucket of most regular
posters in a number of groups it frequents, and has been for quite some
time- time measured in years.

FYI

--
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm
your defence if you do not mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court. Anything
you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?

[Edward W. Thompson]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:46:27 +0100, "Mick" <mrcy...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Vuescan has drivers for most scanners (www.hamrick.com/). I was in
the same position as you with a Canoscan N650U and using Windows 7
64bit and no Canon driver but Vuescan solved that problem.

[VanguardLH]

"Rice" wrote:

<Said nothing. Why? Because he chose to put the body of his post AFTER
his sigdash delimiter line.>

If you're going to be the administrator of your host then it's your job
to, um, be the administrator. Just because you can install software
doesn't mean your experienced with administering it.

[VanguardLH]

"Disbelief" wrote:

> Why put your reply as a signature rather than in the body of your post?

Not only is the neophyte Rice placing the body of his replies AFTER his
signature delimiter line but he doesn't even use a proper sigdash string
(the trailing space character is missing). Plus he doesn't properly
quote and he is too lazy to do it himself. He does add the attribution
line but he doesn't prefix to indent the quoted content.

From all of the few posts Rice has submitted over the span of 34 hours
(as "Rice <callme&I...@willserve.mo>" via the unregistered AIOE provider),
he proves his intention is not to provide help or discuss an issue. His
goal is to insult. He's a newbie wannabe troll, or a nymshifting troll.
His doesn't want to participate. He just wants to make noise.

[VanguardLH]

Correction: Change "your" to "you're" in the last sentence.

[Rice]

"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message

news:ju09ai$o7l$1...@news.albasani.net...

"VanguardLH" wrote:



Correction: Change "your" to "you're" in the last sentence.

--

LOL You fucked up, preacher boi.

[Desk Rabbit]

And that helps the original poster how exactly.

For fucks sake Scott, you really are thicker than shit.

I've seen the output from your scanner and its crap.

[VanguardLH]

"Rice" wrote:
<wrote nothing since fluff signatures get stripped>

He proves himself a troll yet again. Time to stop feeding him.