Once you have the ScanSnap running on your Mac, it'd work fine. It just creates a scanning profile for you, that's all.

@racerx90, did you find what you were looking for?

I am pleased to report that I did a basic install of the 3.0 software on my Mac right on top of 2.11 for my 300M. Not only does the 3.0 software support my 1500M goodness, but I plugged the 300M in to see if it still worked. It does.

The 3.0 software looks a lot more like the Windows software. It's a bit less Mac-like in that respect, but since you only deal with it when you're editing a profile, it's hardly worth a complaint. Well okay, quick menu, but who uses that? ;)

This still requires that the files be ScanSnap-created, does it not?

(I'm very excited, My S1500M arrives Thursday, which also happens to be my brithday!)

Has anyone looked at the S1500/M under Linux yet?

It seems to me that even if you would never actually use a traditional scanner for document scanning after seeing the ScanSnap in action, having access to a scanner and printer is wise.

I have a Canon MX850. It's one of those multi-function boat-anchor type things. It'll fax, print, scan, and copy, it'll print/scan/copy two-sided, has both a paper cassette and a rear hopper. It takes individual tanks for each color that are just ink like the Epsons, but you can replace the print head too. (You almost have to order that from Canon though..) It's got a document feeder that's not totally pathetic, and it uses the Mac's native Image Capture unlike the HPs. It's networkable, and reasonably cheap (because it's been replaced by a model that does all of this plus wifi..)

If you don't need high volume output, it's probably cheaper in terms of your time to use a printer than to use FedEx No Longer Called Kinkos. Once you get to using your ScanSnap and working with PDF files (trivial for us Mac people, and not difficult for Windows people either with a PDF printer), you don't need a printer as often I agree—but you never know when you suddenly need a FAX machine or a photo scanner or a quick copy or, horrors, a printout.

That was intended as a bit of a joke based on the paper document workflow of scan it, process it, shred it, and back it up. That said, I did just invest in the recommended 47lb shipping weight monster that is the Powershred SB-97Sc. It is replacing a mostly neglected Aurora AS1015CD, which has only one redeeming feature in that the thing hasn't burned out despite severe neglect on my part. A high end guillotine cannot be too far behind. Not this term.

C'mon, this is DocumentSnap! You're obviously supposed to cut the binding, shove the pages into your S1500(M), direct the manager to output to an encrypted database, and push the button. As batches finish, you shred them. Then finally, you ensure that your encrypted database is backed up to a dedicated networked hard drive for the purpose, and also remotely at Carbonite or Mozy. ;)

Ages ago, I kept an electronic journal in the form of a local mailbox and the venerable old mail processor procmail. One day I made a typo editing my .procmailrc and didn't notice for months. Needless to say, my journal entries went places I didn't intend. Thankfully nowhere archived by Google, but still.

Today I think the burning party is probably the best option. That way, I would only have to worry about the ways I've made a fool of myself *recently*.

Joseph again, signed in to an account finally:

Okay, the definitive answer: The ScanSnap doesn't take power off the data USB cable at all. If you can get a USB Y cable that'll do the deed, it will work.

The thing to know, however, is that the ScanSnap wants to use both a higher voltage and a higher current rating than the USB port provides. This is why it's so slow when powered by USB.

Find a way to plug it in if you can.

Seems people are always trying to use the Windows ScanSnaps on a Mac.. Has anyone tried to go the other direction?