Canon scanner woes ....

[FullOppositeRudder]

A lesser man might take to the bottle over this. I still can’t rule it out.

Nice new (expensive) Canon 9000f scanner (Win XP compatible), Desktop machine - Celeron engine. Windows XP SPs and 'upgrades' all installed. Previous Canon scanner software uninstalled. Supplied Canon software installed per instructions. Machine rebooted. Scanner plugged in and turned on.

Message: "One of the devices attached to this computer has malfunctioned and Windows does not recognise it". An attempt is made run the scanner from the software anyway.

Another message:
Cannot communicate with scanner
Cable may be disconnected or scanner may be turned off.
Check Status.
Scanner driver will be closed.
Code 5,1555,55

Tried both different USB cables and different USB ports - connecting in each instance to an on-board computer USB port - not a hub. Same result. Tried disabling the windows firewall and also the antivirus program (Avast Free). Tried disabling the USB ports on the preferred computer and allowing Windows to re-install them on reboot. No change.

OK, install the Canon software on the new Dell Laptop (Windows 7) mentioned in an earlier dispatch. Connect scanner. Everything works OK - so the device and cable are good.

Install the software on two other desktop computers which have Win XP fully updated as each update series is offered. One of these computers has a similar ASUS motherboard to computer A, the other one is much older and has an Acer motherboard (Computer B) both computers accept the software installation but upon reboot have thrown up the same unhappy messages when introduced to the ‘9000F. Each of these computers work OK with quite a wide variety of other USB devices at various times without any problems. Initiating a scan from the scanner buttons has no effect.

Therefore it would seem to suggest a problem with something in the Windows XP driver regime. A Gurgle of the error messages and codes suggests that there may be an issue with one / some of the Windows 'upgrades' and complications for some scanning software for other brands as well as Canon. Lots of questions - no real answers sighted in my search so far.

I don't really want to drag out the laptop every time I have a scanning job. My expectation is still that I can use it on the preferred XP machine (A).

The really frustrating thing is that my previous scanner (Canon 5000) on Computer A started exhibiting the same issues about three months ago. There was an earlier event when it stopped working about 18 months ago with identical symptoms . It was then tried on computer B and worked. Later it started working again on computer A until about 3 months ago when it wouldn't work with either A or B. The possibility was accepted that this time it was really stuffed. The 9000F was bought as a replacement and a fix. It hasn't worked either (sigh ....)

Any ideas are most welcome. Installing Windows 7 on computer A might seem obvious, but there is a lotta stuff on there which won't run on W7. Dual boot? Yuck!

Canon support has been contacted - obvious suggestions made in reply - all of which had been tried anyway. A more detailed report has been submitted to them. Not holding my breath .....

Sometimes I wonder if computers are worth the grief.

Regards,
FOR

(Goes outside to bang head on nearest wall. Obscenities may be shouted) :{

[A A Gruntpuddock]

If you don't mind spending some cash then Vuescan might be worth trying - VueScan Scanner Software for Windows 8, Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion), Linux, iPhone, iPad, iPod (http://www.hamrick.com/#download)

[green granite]

I presume you have the latest driver version: 9000F Scanner Driver Ver. 16.0.3 (Windows 7/7 x64/Vista/Vista64/XP/2000) (http://support-sg.canon-asia.com/contents/SG/EN/0100277501.html)


The other thing is, are there any other twain devices that show up when you have the canon software running? When I installed my Canon multifunction printer, the scanner part wouldn't work until I deleted the other twain devices, which is a bloody nuisance as I cant then use them.

[Keef]

I've had similar problems with Win XP and new peripherals. My Canon scanner works perfectly with Win 7.

There is a "compatibility" mode with Win 7 that will "pretend" to be XP for those devices that insist on XP. I've never used it, so don't know how effective it is.

[OFSO]

The really frustrating thing is that my previous scanner (Canon 5000) on Computer A started exhibiting the same issues about three months ago.

This suggests to me it's the result of an automatic update. Try doing a reset of your computer to something like four months ago and see if it works then (Must say I doubt it will).

[FullOppositeRudder]

Thank you all for your input. It's very much appreciated

In brief (and in contrast to the original ambit) ......

Vuescan was tried - it advises no scanner is present. Nice program though.

The latest driver was tried (thanks GG), the first error message I quoted (above) flashed up on the screen again when the scanner was subsequently turned on.

The XP compatibility mode is, I think, only offered with the top shelf versions of W7. I don't have that version and the basic (original) XP compatibility is what I am hoping to establish.

The "automatic update" possible conflict is one with which I tend to agree. I'm reluctant to do a rollback because of other possible complications, but it may be tried as something of a last resort.

Thank you all again,
FoR

[A A Gruntpuddock]

Unfortunately, I think\ you have to buy a Vuescan license to get complete access, which includes all the relevant drivers.

The 9000F is certainly listed as compatible -

Canon 9000F Scanner Driver and Software (http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/canon_9000f.html)

[green granite]

When you run the scanner software what does it list in the twain folder? (it's in the drop down file menu.)

[Saab Dastard]

If you have a spare hard disk and the installation media for Windows XP you could try a clean install of XP with SP3, installing the scanner then adding in Windows updates in chunks until it fails to work, then uninstalling the last batch of updates one by one until you find the culprit.

Time consuming, but it's your sanity / alcohol dependency at stake! :p

SD

[green granite]

Which is what I said in post #2

[FullOppositeRudder]

STOP PRESS - Problem found - see next post ....

Thank you all again for your input. I've considered every piece of advice offered, and in most cases have acted upon it - or intend to.

Thanks Milo - was hoping for your thoughts. The last computer I tried, (the one I am using now) has never been part of a scanner installation - that it to say - there was no prior scanning or imaging software on it, unless I count the ArcSoft Photo Studio program which I use to 'enhance' photos from my cameras. (BTW I download photos by removing the SD cards from the camera and reading them - long since learned the traps of programs which come from the Camera manufacturer) Still I wonder if Arcsoft does have something in there ... :confused:

GG - thank you again. Unfortunately the newest version of the software which came with this scanner won't even let me get as far as looking at the pertinent detail - at least on the most recent try. It flashes a complex message which I'm unable to copy and which essentially says that because it can't see the 9000 scanner, it is not prepared to to any further. (Can't recall what it did on computer B ....)

So, SD I go with your suggestion as the next foray into this puzzle. I do have a spare HDD which will get a fresh install of the XP OS, and then the scanning software will be the next to try without anything else. It will all be done 'off line' and I'll see what happens then.

Thanks again to all who have contributed. It continues to amaze me that this forum stand out in being able to offer such valuable and authentic advice, and always (or mostly) in a helpful and friendly manner without descending into confrontation which one sees too often elsewhere.

Oh yes, the bottle remains unopened. I went flying on Saturday - a very satisfactory antidote for the frustrations of non co-operating computer hardware :ok:.

I will report back on how this all develops; I hope with a happy ending.

Regards
FOR

[FullOppositeRudder]

In the end, it was a seemingly simple problem.

It appears that the 9000F does not like a long USB cable connection to the host computer.

There is a limited option for siting the scanner in my 'office' and it had meant that the supplied cables with the original and new scanners were just that little bit too short. A independent two metre cable was used to get the extra distance to the host computer. Rather than shift the scanner to be close enough to the other test computers I had used another (5 metre) USB a/b cable known to be good with other devices. This cable was subsequently used for all tests. This, as it turned out,
was a definitive mistake.
I'd dedicated quite a few hours this morning to a new installation of win XP on a spare HDD (I'd forgotten what fun it is :() Install the Canon software, connect printer, holds breath..... Same error message as before. :yuk:

After a few other fruitless efforts at getting a glimmer of co-operation, and almost in desperation, I unplugged the cable from machine A, started up the W7 Dell laptop where success was last observed, and plugged the recalcitrant device in. An error message in the same terms as seen on the XP machines was the result. Aha!

A shorter (much shorter) cable USB cable substituted and immediate success. Scanner then moved close enough to XP Computer A (on the floor), short USB cable used. Success! - confirmed by a test scan. Repeat experiment with Computer C on the other side of the room - Success! Substitute 5 metre USB cable - Error message is back,

Finally test the 5 metre cable on the nearest active USB device - Brother l@ser printer; print test page. Success!

So it looks very much as though the length of a USB cable can mean success or failure with some devices. Perhaps the quality of the cable can be significant also. It's interesting that the Canon supplied cable has ferrite suppression cores at each end of its 1.5 metre length.

I've yet to try the 'good' combination with the original preferred computer OS / HDD installation, because in the frenzy of install / uninstall activities something else has crept into the equation and it's no longer a happy combination. It looks like the 'new' HDD installation might be promoted. All software and updates need to be reinstalled - it's going to be a fun day - or week.

One disturbing thought remains. Was this the problem with the original 5000 scanner? I'll test it one day when I have the fortitude and courage. If the shorter cable works, the results are unlikely to be disclosed to other people in the household :eek:

Thank you again for your interest and assistance. The principle has been established. I now need to hit on just how to manage the combination of cable length and possibly quality which will work reliably.

I guess I can learn from this.

Regards,
FoR

[green granite]

A definite :ugh::ugh: moment there FullOppositeRudder. The same thing applies to some mobile phones, my Nokia only works on very short (less than a foot) usb cables, although my Canon all in one is working happily on a 3 meter lead.

[Phalconphixer]

green granite...
my Nokia only works on very short (less than a foot) usb cables,

Mine too... (Nokia C6-00) supplied cable is only 3" long which means hanging the phone from my PC's front USB port whilst transferring files etc. Anything longer and the phone just doesn't want to know...

[jimtherev]

With Ph-ph, GG and FOR, I also have had problems with length of USB leads, but until this discussion didn't realise it. But in retrospect, it explains why my previous Nokia sometimes connected to the computer, sometimes didn't: I used long or short lead indiscriminately - but never realised that this was crucial.
I thought that the new Nokia - which I subsequently bought - had been the solution to the problem, but I've just dug out the old 30cm lead and, crash - it won't connect.

Would it be appropriate for one of you savvy chaps to draft something for the FAQ thread?

[syseng68k]

The problem with cheap usb leads is that the cable won't handle the data rate for usb2. It's a crude measure, but cable thickness is some indication of quality, with the good ones around 6mm dia. If you can see the braid screening through the outer jacket, so much the better. Adaptec make good cables, but not sure if they are available retail. Otherwise, Belkin, but never cheap Chinese ones from Fleabay. Length should be < 1 or 2 metres for best result...

Regards,

Chris