Brother Scanning: MFC2700 / MFC 8480
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@g.jacobse said:
There are about four scanners in the office, and about 20 users.
It is not currently set to scan to the server, but to the local users computer. Each scanner is on the network, separate IP address.
Again, some computers are the issue,.. not all. many work fine with no issues. Pulling the same GPO and User rights.
Same version of windows? Do all have UAC enabled?
This, UAC being disabled has cause no end of grief to me on a few computers, I had a Canon MFP that refused to scan to the local disk without UAC enabled.
Wow.. not that just seems backwards.
Agreed... I was trying to figure it out. Even made the user an admin temporarily to see if that had anything to do with it... still wouldn't scan. It was only after enabling UAC (which was off for some reason) that we were able to get it to work... even worked after demoting them to a standard user again.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@g.jacobse said:
There are about four scanners in the office, and about 20 users.
It is not currently set to scan to the server, but to the local users computer. Each scanner is on the network, separate IP address.
Again, some computers are the issue,.. not all. many work fine with no issues. Pulling the same GPO and User rights.
Same version of windows? Do all have UAC enabled?
This, UAC being disabled has cause no end of grief to me on a few computers, I had a Canon MFP that refused to scan to the local disk without UAC enabled.
Wow.. not that just seems backwards.
Agreed... I was trying to figure it out. Even made the user an admin temporarily to see if that had anything to do with it... still wouldn't scan. It was only after enabling UAC (which was off for some reason) that we were able to get it to work... even worked after demoting them to a standard user again.
When the standard user is running it, do they get a UAC prompt?
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@g.jacobse said:
There are about four scanners in the office, and about 20 users.
It is not currently set to scan to the server, but to the local users computer. Each scanner is on the network, separate IP address.
Again, some computers are the issue,.. not all. many work fine with no issues. Pulling the same GPO and User rights.
Same version of windows? Do all have UAC enabled?
This, UAC being disabled has cause no end of grief to me on a few computers, I had a Canon MFP that refused to scan to the local disk without UAC enabled.
Wow.. not that just seems backwards.
Agreed... I was trying to figure it out. Even made the user an admin temporarily to see if that had anything to do with it... still wouldn't scan. It was only after enabling UAC (which was off for some reason) that we were able to get it to work... even worked after demoting them to a standard user again.
When the standard user is running it, do they get a UAC prompt?
Nope. I should have used Process Monitor to see what was being touched... but it is working as expected now.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
doesn't always work with attachment size limitations.
Thats when you scan to USB stick, but it's gotta be a monster or the printer has really weak compression algorithms.
In some cases it comes down to 'difficulty' and 'But that how we always did it.' mentality.
These units may not have the ability to scan to USB I haven't investigated that. AND scan to USB adds yet another step. Scan to USB, remove, plug into computer, copy from USB. Can it be done, sure,.. but do you want to do that 12 or more times a day? I don't, bit PITA.
Scan to email, it's great, but what if I am not needing to email it? again, extra step in some regard. The Fiscal Department at my last office scanned everything to the server for dual retention... Bit cumbersome to scan to email to have to save to network after.
@thecreativeone91
Windows 7 and Windows 8I've not check the UAC, but again, if GPO is setting those parameters, why are some working and some not?
-
@g.jacobse said:
@MattSpeller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
doesn't always work with attachment size limitations.
Thats when you scan to USB stick, but it's gotta be a monster or the printer has really weak compression algorithms.
In some cases it comes down to 'difficulty' and 'But that how we always did it.' mentality.
These units may not have the ability to scan to USB I haven't investigated that. AND scan to USB adds yet another step. Scan to USB, remove, plug into computer, copy from USB. Can it be done, sure,.. but do you want to do that 12 or more times a day? I don't, bit PITA.
Scan to email, it's great, but what if I am not needing to email it? again, extra step in some regard. The Fiscal Department at my last office scanned everything to the server for dual retention... Bit cumbersome to scan to email to have to save to network after.
@thecreativeone91
Windows 7 and Windows 8I've not check the UAC, but again, if GPO is setting those parameters, why are some working and some not?
The 8480 should have scan-to-USB but yeah, your users will not go for that. Can't remember if that model does scan-to-email but I want to say no. Again, it emails and then they have to download the attachment. Are the users registered with the scan-to button on the printer? Also, you say some users have the issue and others don't?
-
@handsofqwerty
It's not so much a 'scanning' issue as it is an 'application' issue. The Brother Utility starts - no issue there. but when the user clicks the Control Center 4 option, that is where the issue occurs. It does not run for the user. It does run for the domain and local admin.Even with GPO modifications and GPUPDATE /FORCE /BOOT
-
@g.jacobse said:
@handsofqwerty
It's not so much a 'scanning' issue as it is an 'application' issue. The Brother Utility starts - no issue there. but when the user clicks the Control Center 4 option, that is where the issue occurs. It does not run for the user. It does run for the domain and local admin.Even with GPO modifications and GPUPDATE /FORCE /BOOT
Did you follow the tutorial I gave you for making a shortcut to run as admin without prompting for creds? I've seen this issue before with Brother's CC software, and that's always been the fix.
-
@g.jacobse good points, they all have their weaknesses
You should be able to scan ~100 pages to email with a 10mb limit - that's small these days but (like us) running an internal exchange can limit you to that. I'd still do it over scan to folder unless you've got a much more in depth setup with ID cards etc to auto set folders per user that it dumps to. Otherwise it becomes a security headache etc.
-
@MattSpeller said:
that's small these days but (like us) running an internal exchange can limit you to that.
But that would be your, yourself, creating the issue. By running internal you could make the limit sky high and really solve things. Once you allow for "the customer might cripple what you do" there is really no stopping that. You could have issues like "the customer keeps unplugging the printer."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But that would be your, yourself, creating the issue. By running internal you could make the limit sky high and really solve things. Once you allow for "the customer might cripple what you do" there is really no stopping that. You could have issues like "the customer keeps unplugging the printer."
If we had the money for a server that let us have limits higher than that without exploding I'd drink less.
-
@MattSpeller said:
If we had the money for a server that let us have limits higher than that without exploding I'd drink less.
How does the file size limit cause the server to have issues? What is happening?
-
@g.jacobse said:
I've not check the UAC, but again, if GPO is setting those parameters, why are some working and some not?
Was UAC turned off locally or via domain GP?
Also have you checked that the user specifically has full control to the folder it is scanning to. I would also give users full control to the Directory the Brother program is stored in (programs files\brother\ or whatever). And see where that get's you. Use process monitor as you might need to modify a registry permission as well.
-
@scottalanmiller out of space
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller out of space
Wouldn't that mean you need mailbox limits not, attachment limits.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller out of space
Wouldn't that mean you need mailbox limits not, attachment limits.
That's what I was thinking. How does the size of the attachments really affect space issues?
-
I'm with Matt, I cap my attachements at 25 megs. I realize this is old school thinking, but then again Email is not for attachment management anyway.
In the end it solves more problems than it creates by helping users keep their mailboxes smaller.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@g.jacobse good points, they all have their weaknesses
You should be able to scan ~100 pages to email with a 10mb limit - that's small these days but (like us) running an internal exchange can limit you to that. I'd still do it over scan to folder unless you've got a much more in depth setup with ID cards etc to auto set folders per user that it dumps to. Otherwise it becomes a security headache etc.
100 pages for 10 MB? wow you must be scanning a super low res!
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm with Matt, I cap my attachements at 25 megs. I realize this is old school thinking, but then again Email is not for attachment management anyway.
Actually, there is a lot of changing thought on that. A lot of work has been done to make email really good for attachment management, especially in Exchange. It's a bit of the cart driving the horse, but responding to how people think about and use files it's a reasonable thing since email servers ARE storage devices. So in many ways, that's exactly what email is now.
-
I've never done attachment limits much. I just cap mailbox quotas. If you fill it up, It's your responsibility to delete stuff.
-
@Dashrender said:
In the end it solves more problems than it creates by helping users keep their mailboxes smaller.
Does it? Why not just make them bigger? I've rarely found a circumstance where forcing mailboxes to be small made things better post 2004. These days I would almost always say "raise the limits" wherever possible. Storage is cheap and email servers are efficient with it now. What upside is there to making users do something else?
