{ "numMessagesInTopic": 12, "nextInTime": 1959, "senderId": "YjH8wb0yCEib2d9zj6mMvvFiJSIuUApUaHqcaptr-6BZOzO2wUw2EDO39xb0Xc2KQzrOf84nstHeNHVTfbrY6ypwAVw", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [Pro-97] Re: which software is best?", "from": ""B.B." <beeson@...>", "authorName": "B.B.", "msgSnippet": "Ken, I have used Scancat on a Pro-94, 95, 97, and a 2051. I tried to change a bunch of delays to 4 seconds and found out that they all still defaulted to 2", "msgId": 1958, "profile": "beeinsincity", "topicId": 1568, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 243278914, "messageBody": "
----- Original Message -----
\n From: Ken
\n To: Pro-97@yahoogroups.com
\n Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:33 PM
\n Subject: [Pro-97] Re: which software is best?
\n
\n
\n --- In Pro-97@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug-gray@c...> wrote:
\n >
\n > I am trying both scancat and win97. I am leaning towards win97
\n > because I have used win 92 before and scancats demo is very
\n limited
\n > and cant try everything (send to the scanner). I noticed on
\n scancat
\n > there is a field for a seperate time delay (2,4, none) for each
\n > channel (that might be handy) and is not on win97. Does anybody
\n know
\n > if that feature really works on scancat its not in the 97 manual
\n as
\n > changable on the scanner. If that feature works I might be swayed
\n > towards scancat.
\n
\n
\n[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]