Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

CanoScan toolbox for LiDE30/20 flatbed scanner

Jan 14, 2011 12:16AM PST

Tech tracker recently updated my canoscan toolbox from 4.1 to 5.0.1.2a which resulted in the scanner not working. Canon informed me that for my particular scanner (LiDE30) It should be 4.1.3.5. which now works fine. Meanwhile tech tracker still tries to update me to the 5.0... Perhaps an issue that needs sorting.
Regards Whatisname

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I'd hide it from your list...
Jan 14, 2011 1:30PM PST

TechTracker cannot detect what hardware you use your software with and determine if the updated software is compatible, something that would be phenomenal but also exceeds the capabilities of any third-party updater I've seen. Thus, your best option is to use the "Hide" option on cnet.com/TechTracker so that you're not prompted with future updates.

Regards,
John

- Collapse -
Cano Scan toolbox for LiDE 30/20 flatbed scanner continued
Jan 17, 2011 2:30AM PST

Thanks John, will do.
I have figured out the overall problem from tech tracker; 5.0.1.2a is the most up to date toolbox from Canon BUT it is only appropriate for a particular set of scanners. You should put a warning on the download page to get it from the Canon download website and use the filter boxes to search out your particular download appropriate to your particular scanner. That is; Operating system, Language and finaly the exact scanner from the pull down menu in the hardware filter. It will save it all ending in tears!
Or another way is to have tech tracker savvy to each seperate Canon driver and only offer the update to that driver, simples.

- Collapse -
That's up to Canon...
Jan 17, 2011 4:05AM PST

The developer/manufacturer is the one that creates a listing on CNET Downloads and controls what content is included in the description, requirements, et cetera. Thus, it is Canon's choice whether to include references to the compatibility matcher on their website and warnings regarding compatibility with specific scanner models. I'd love to see TechTracker able to select software to match your hardware, but it would primarily require three things:

1.) A significant enhancement of TechTracker to detect connected hardware.
2.) Users to connect every piece of hardware they own before running a scan with TechTracker. (Drivers alone are not a reliable compatibility indicator.)
3.) Full cooperation from all hardware manufacturers to provide a complete list compatible hardware/software combinations, along with updates for every new release.

The first is something CNET could conceivably do, but the latter two are beyond its control and would presumably need to be guaranteed in advance. At least, that's my analysis on the proposal and why I think it is unlikely they'll add the feature anytime soon.

Regards,
John

- Collapse -
CanoScan toolbox for LiDE30/20 flatbed scanner
Jan 17, 2011 3:23PM PST

Dear John, I have perhaps not explained myself properly.
I take on board what you are saying about checking hardware, it would be some kit for Tech tracker to aim for but not for now then.
My beef is that a single update is being offered accross the board of scanners and not specificly aimed at the particular software/driver that drives my scanner.
However, I note your comment that Canon approaches you with updates and should make sure they are aimed at the correct driver, I was unaware of this and thought you trawled the ether looking for updates. I will copy this thread to Canon, perhaps pointed in the right direction a canon ball wouldn't go amiss.
Regards John

- Collapse -
CanoScan toolbox for LiDE30/20 flatbed scanner
Jan 24, 2011 2:28AM PST

Dear John Wilkinson, I have tried to draw the problem to Canonsupport but we seem to have hit an impasse, they do not seem to see the problem and say that they cannot comment on another webpages content. Their report page only allows 6,000 bits so it is difficult to communicate the problem fully in one hit. I shall ,like the dog with a bone, keep trying until they admit that it is in their interest. Meanwhile watch this space!
Regards John.