Hardware suggestion wanted for EMR

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

Decided to get the Fujitsu fi-5120c from scantastik. Used for two days, indeed a much better scanner. No warmup time, faster, scan both sides of insurance card in one pass, card can be mixed with papers, twain driver woks fine with Paperport, customizable buttons - push one button, stacks of paper scanned, OCR'ed and saved on Paperport desktop using pre-defined profile. It is expensive but worth it. The only thing is Paperport doesn't recognize the ISIS driver, which might provide better performance.

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

$865, plus $99 2 years of Advanced Exchange coverage.

Just found Newegg.com has an open box one for $629.99 plus $11.12 shipping, for those who are interested, it is a good deal! Hurry, Jason.

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

One problem with Fujitsu fi-5120c and Paperport is you have to use the native scan window, otherwise the scanning speed will be very slow. Extra 2 clicks for each scan.

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

I have forced my Fujitsu ScanSnap to scan into one of the Paperport directories via the settings. One step. No need to scan from paperport. Paperport handles the files as if they had been scanned from it's interface.


When we use the flat scanner for pictures we are forced to use the paperport interface, the Epson scan intermediary etc. The process takes 3-3 times as long as from the ScanSnap.

DrO

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

The reason I like to have Paperport do the scanning is the ability to create searchable PDFs with integrated Omnipage. I would like to try something else if there is an alternative.

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

Look interesting. Will give it a try when I have time.

Where? what's your conclusion?

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

<blockquote><blockquote>Xerox Documate 510 </blockquote></blockquote>

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEWIN-XEROX-DOCUMATE-510-usb-2-0-600X1200-10PPM-SCANNER_W0QQitemZ150101047297QQcategoryZ44979QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

Misleading, he put NEWIN but not NIB, it's refurbished and shipping isexpensive I just bought another one for our other office from here, open box, site has good reviews

http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/XDM5105D-WU?mv_pc=pricegrabber

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

<blockquote>Xerox Documate 510
I see a guy selling 7 of these on ebay for $199 USD. *NEW in box*. Seems like a good deal.</blockquote>

DAKmart put NEWIN on the description but it's not NIB, it's refurbished. Link. shipping is also expensive.

Just bought an open box one from Tech4less for our other office. Site has good reviews. This is a better deal IMHO.

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

[quote user="qilin"] <blockquote>Xerox Documate 510
I see a guy selling 7 of these on ebay for $199 USD. *NEW in box*. Seems like a good deal.</blockquote>

DAKmart put NEWIN on the description but it's not NIB, it's refurbished. Link. shipping is also expensive.

Just bought an open box one from Tech4less for our other office. Site has good reviews. This is a better deal IMHO.[/quote]

For those who are using or interested in getting Xerox Documate 510, Xerox has new Vista/XP compatible driver available and it now takes a few secondsfor lamp stabilization after idlingbut no more30 sec warm up time!

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

Now I like it. 30 sec has been a frustrating thing. With this improved new driver and eliminaition of this problem, I really shouldn't complain any more, especially given it's price. There is still occasional paper jam issue, guess it's normal. If you need a flatbed scanner with ADF, this would be the first choice.

Update: I took my watch and found out the lamp stabilization time is actually 30 sec. I guess the new driver really didn't do much differently. Well, still a decent scanner.

Re: Scanner suggestion wanted

Jason, I edited my post at the same time as your new post, I guess I have to do a new update to let you know:

Update: I took my watch and found out the lamp stabilization time is actually 30 sec. I guess the new driver really didn't do much differently. Well, still a decent scanner.