🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DF2to4.I4@midway.uchicago.edu>,
David R. Hanson <drh4@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>I'm considering purchase of either an HP3p or 3c scanner.  I can afford the
>3c, but only want to pay the extra $ if the difference for my uses are
>significant.  Occasionally, I'll scan in pictures and art, but the bulk of my
>scanning work should be in OCR, document storage, (probably on Pagekeeper
>2.0), "copying" with the photocopy utility, etc.  I'm using win 3.1, OS/2
>Warp's win-os2, and either Win95 or NT, moving increasingly to one of the
>latter as 32-bit win apps get released.
>
>Thus the question:  do those of you using the 600 dpi, speedier 3c notice a
>significant improvement in these areas over the 3p?  Can we expect the new
>32-bit apps to get more punch from the greater resolution?  Do you notice much
>of a speed difference?  What are your other thoughts on this decision, and
>what applications have you had good luck with?

In limited experiments on a friend's 3c, I didn't notice much difference
in OCR accuracy between 300 and 600 dpi.  600 dpi is a lot slower.

A couple of differences you didn't mention: the 3c has a legal size
(8.5x14") scan area while the 3p is letter size (8.5x11").  And the
3c's autofeeder holds 50 pages, vs. 20 pages for the 3p.  I haven't
seen either autofeeder but I have the impression that the 3c's feeder
($500) is a fairly substantial mechanism while the one for the 3p
($199) is closer to what you see on fax machines.

On the other hand, the 3p takes a *lot* less desk space plus it's a lot
cheaper.  I don't know which one I'd buy in your situation; in fact
I'm in a somewhat similar situation myself.  You could always
buy a 3p and upgrade if you don't like it.  They are cheap enough
that you wouldn't take that big a loss if you resell it.