How to install Fax on an SP2 system.

  • Thread starter Thread starter randwill
  • Start date Start date
R

randwill

I am trying to install the Fax funtionality for Windows XP Pro. When I try
this through Add/Remove, it asks me to insert the CD labled Windows XP Pro
Service Pack 2. I have no such CD. I have the Windows XP Pro CD and
inserted that, but it doesn't work. Since I upgraded to SP2 online, how am
I suppose to do this??
 
Russ Valentine said:
Frequent question. That's why we have a FAQ here.
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/FAQFAX.htm#_Toc88835131

--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
randwill said:
I am trying to install the Fax funtionality for Windows XP Pro. When I
try
this through Add/Remove, it asks me to insert the CD labled Windows XP
Pro
Service Pack 2. I have no such CD. I have the Windows XP Pro CD and
inserted that, but it doesn't work. Since I upgraded to SP2 online, how
am
I suppose to do this??
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thank you. Even though the answer to number one helped me, it is very
out-of-date and doesn't mention SP2 at all.

So now I'm installed and I navigate through several drop downs to Send a Fax
....get the Send Fax Wizard but when I click next I get the error- Fax server
information cannot be retrieved. The Fax Wizard will close now.

I'm not really surprised since the Configuartion Wizard only wanted input of
stuff like my name and e-mail address.

Wouldn't I have to tell the software about my modem? The Fax Configuration
Wizard didn't ask this at all.

Also, how do I know if my modem is compatable with this software? The
compatability link on the old, out-of-date page sends me to a page named
"Windows Marketplace" which encourages me to "Find Buy Try" and contains
dozens of links to millions of things I don't care about. I just need a
list of compatable Fax Modems. Does such a list exist? If Windows Fax
utility is not compatable with my modem I don't need to go any further.

I'm not trying to do anything as exotic as some of the questions and answers
on the linked page suggest. I just want to use the Windows XP Fax utility to
send and receive faxes.

Are there step by step instructions somewhere?

Thanks for any help.
 
Configuration problem solved. I launched Send Fax again (well actually 3 or
4 times) and it finally asked about my modem and other questions. So it
looks to be running now.

Except when I try to send a fax, it tells me it detects no dial tone. I
know the phone line is good because I've got a telephone hooked into the
back of the modem and there IS a dial tone, and the phone receives and makes
calls through this line all day long.

So now I really wonder if this Windows XP Fax utility works with my modem
which is a US Robotics 56K FaxModem Model 0701 ( or 5686 the way the numbers
are positioned , it's hard to tell.). Is there any way to tell?
 
You can always check the Windows XP Hardware Compatibility List. Windows XP
Fax is extremely fragile and often fails with many common modems and
drivers. Have you updated your modem drivers? You should if you've updated
your OS.
 
Russ Valentine said:
You can always check the Windows XP Hardware Compatibility List. Windows
XP Fax is extremely fragile and often fails with many common modems and
drivers. Have you updated your modem drivers? You should if you've updated
your OS.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Here is the list of networking hardware I found. My modem isn't
there so that settles that.

http://testedproducts.windowsmarketplace.com/results.aspx?&bCatID=807&cpID=0&ocID=0&OR=1&PG=1

I'm troubled by your note that the WindowsXP Fax is "extremely fragile". I
guess that's a nice way of saying it doesn't work. Why is such garbage
released?

Can anyone recommned fax software that DOES work?

I have a couple of customers who prefer Faxing to email and need something
that I can count on to work. I would even buy a new modem and software that
is compatible with XP if necessary.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I'm glad I now know better than to waste
money on Windows XP Fax compatible soft and hardware. I guess MS made
Windows Fax for people who don't really care if it works or not, but I need
something for business that is reliable.
 
I doubt most people purchase Windows XP because they are looking for
reliable, production level fax software. That was never Microsoft's intent.
This is a simple basic fax module for users who only have an occasional need
to fax. There are a many modems with which it will not work. Anyone who
prefers to use fax over email should be looking to purchase third party fax
software. I can't advise you on that because I've never used any other fax
software. Many people are now outsourcing faxing to Internet Fax providers
so they can skip purchasing a modem entirely.
 
Russ Valentine said:
I doubt most people purchase Windows XP because they are looking for
reliable, production level fax software. That was never Microsoft's intent.
This is a simple basic fax module for users who only have an occasional
need to fax. There are a many modems with which it will not work. Anyone
who prefers to use fax over email should be looking to purchase third party
fax software. I can't advise you on that because I've never used any other
fax software. Many people are now outsourcing faxing to Internet Fax
providers so they can skip purchasing a modem entirely.
--
Click to expand...

I use to have third party faxware but it doesn't work with XP so that's why
I was trying to see if Windows XP Fax would be acceptable.

It seems to me it would be better to not include a fax utility than include
one that works poorly. Even if a user uses a functionality only
occasionally, they should still expect it to work reliably. But the fact
that XP's Fax doesn't install as part of the operating system's initial
install might be a clue.

Anyway, I'm looking into other options from vendors who know how to create
fax software that works. My only regret is the time I have wasted for which
MS will not compensate me.
 
randwill said:
I use to have third party faxware but it doesn't work with XP so that's why
I was trying to see if Windows XP Fax would be acceptable.

It seems to me it would be better to not include a fax utility than include
one that works poorly. Even if a user uses a functionality only
occasionally, they should still expect it to work reliably. But the fact
that XP's Fax doesn't install as part of the operating system's initial
install might be a clue.

Anyway, I'm looking into other options from vendors who know how to create
fax software that works. My only regret is the time I have wasted for which
MS will not compensate me.
Click to expand...
You might look into MightyFax, although I have no personal knowledge of
how it works. http://www.rkssoftware.com/mightyfax/overview.html

If you want industrial-strength fax software, however, you'll have to
pay a lot more than $20. RightFax is probably the most commonly used
corporate fax solution. But it's one of those things that if you have
to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.
http://www.captaris.com/rightfax/index.html
 
If you want industrial-strength fax software, however, you'll have to pay
a lot more than $20. RightFax is probably the most commonly used
corporate fax solution. But it's one of those things that if you have to
ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.
http://www.captaris.com/rightfax/index.html
Click to expand...
You hit a nerve! There is a HUGE difference between being able to afford
something and deciding the product is not worth the cost. This kind of
response assumes people decide on products based upon what they can afford
rather than if the product is worth the purchase price.

End rant.

David
 
I'm not sure I understand why you would expect MS to compensate you for
problems you encountered with a modem not even on the HCL list, nor even for
one that was. This is not a core OS function. It is a convenience feature.
If it were robust enough to obviate the need for full featured fax software,
MS would be back in trouble with the DOJ.
Nevertheless, it has been frustrating to see how often Windows XP Fax craps
out with many common modems. Like you, I'd rather they just do it right or
not do it at all. A lot of the transmission failures seem to occur when
unexpected handshake signals are returned from the receiving modem.
Microsoft's commitment to fax software has been hard to read. Just when it
looks like they are going to dispense with it once and for all, it
resurfaces. But there are signs it is improving. Just today, for example, I
was trying to send a fax with XP Fax. I could hear the handshake signals and
knew the call was answered and the transmission was underway. Then suddenly
everything stopped and I got the cryptic message, "Transmission failed. The
call was not answered." Baloney. So I booted over to Vista RC2, used its Fax
service to send to the same number, and it sailed.
 
Russ Valentine said:
I'm not sure I understand why you would expect MS to compensate you for
problems you encountered with a modem not even on the HCL list, nor even
for one that was.
Click to expand...

I was just venting frustration at time wasted. It's cumulative. Anybody
who has a comupter of any kind has thrown away hours of their lives trying
to make something work that by all reason should JUST WORK. You know, like
it does for those happy laughing pointing-at-the-screen people in the
pictures on the MS and other websites. Like it does for those hysterically
smiling and dancing people in the commercials.

I know it's been said but, if any company tried to market a car or a
refrigerator or any other product as buggy, faulty, defect ridden and in
some cases delibrately crippled as the computer and software manufacturers
do routinely, they would have been arrested, thrown in jail had their
assets seized and their families murdered.

Someday computers will JUST WORK. But we'll all be long dead by then.
 
I don't think those people were happy. I think they were laughing at the
error messages.
 
randwill said:
I was just venting frustration at time wasted. It's cumulative. Anybody
who has a comupter of any kind has thrown away hours of their lives trying
to make something work that by all reason should JUST WORK.
Click to expand...

In most cases computer things work better than in say, 1982(or 1965). I seem
to remember a Scientific American article from a few years ago that claimed
that the huge productivity gains promised by computers have not been
realized(or completely realized) because of time wasted trying to make
things work that "should JUST WORK."
You know, like it does for those happy laughing pointing-at-the-screen
people in the pictures on the MS and other websites. Like it does for
those hysterically smiling and dancing people in the commercials.
Click to expand...

Such a world only exists in the world of ads and TV commercials. Actually
computers are complex devices that sometimes fail in nonobvious ways. So do
most other things in our technical society.
I know it's been said but, if any company tried to market a car or a
refrigerator or any other product as buggy, faulty, defect ridden and in
some cases delibrately crippled as the computer and software manufacturers
do routinely, they would have been arrested, thrown in jail had their
assets seized and their families murdered.
Click to expand...

If you are seriously concerned about this sort of thing, look for
alternative solutions. Macintosh, Unix, etc. when and where you can. Put
pressure on Microsoft to supply a better product, just like you would do if
your car was a lemon, by hitting them in their pocketbook. Don't expect it
to be easier, however. Note, it is not a criminal offense for Microsoft to
supply a product that you think is inferior, only an economic one, so having
their assets seized and their families murdered is not in the cards. However
reasonable change is possible. Look at the way Microsoft has changed their
End of Life policy repeatedly based on customer complaints.
Someday computers will JUST WORK. But we'll all be long dead by then.
Click to expand...

Doubtful that this will ever be true for the consumer. Clearly in this case,
however, Microsoft has decided for their own reasons to supply a feature
that only works poorly. Probably has something to do with the perceived
profit to be made from such a feature.

Dick Kistler
 
Back
Top