BILLD I've been using a ScanSnap for 4 years now, and it has been a delight. I've run thousands of pages through it, most of them for OCR in DEVONthink Pro Office. I have never had a hardware failure, so I've got to say the ScanSnap is rugged and holds up well. Image quality has been very satisfactory for OCR. Scanning speed is very good, even with my first-generation Mac version of the ScanSnap. Much of my copy is two-sided and duplex scanning effectively doubles output speed. The software ignores blank pages if the copy is single-sided, so no user action is required. From time to time I've used most of the options in ScanSnap Manager Settings. I find them useful and easy to adapt to the copy I'm working with. For example, paper that has been previously stapled or folded may tend to misfeed in the document feeder. Theres a Settings option to allow page at a time loading mixed with stack feeding, which compiles the output to a single PDF when the 'Finish' button on the computer screen display is clicked. This also allows one to intersperse pages of differing sizes into the same PDF. I'm puzzled by the negative comments by another user about the ScanSnap's ability to adapt to various sizes of paper copy. I routinely scan a variety of paper documents with different sizes, and everything works simply and reliably. Just adjust the sliding plastic width indicators in the feeder and insert the copy in portrait mode. Checks, business cards, postcards, whatever, up to the maximum width of the document feeder. Comment: I've owned a PaperPort scanner in the past, and I think the ScanSnap is head and shoulders better both in hardware and software execution. I've also got a flatbed scanner to handle scanning of bound copy such as books and journals. I regard it as a necessity, but I hate to do scanning in that mode, as it is so much slower and feels like drudgery, compared to the ScanSnap. (Version 3.0.20) |