OK, if it scans the prints so you get usable results that's good. You don't say how long it took to scan - I suppose - the whole page of images - or just one image? And what size, and what resolution? What computer set-up are you using? All these things affect scan speed, as does your computer and software. So to benchmark your question, I did a few experiments that may be useful guidance for you. For reflective scans (flatbed of prints - your case) I use an Epson Perfection V750 Pro, connected to my MacPro OSX 10.6.8 by USB 2.0. I use SilverFast Ai8 Studio for scanning - as far as I could tell, not available for your scanner model, but Vuescan will work with your scanner. Anyhow, that's my set-up used for this benchmarking.
I don't know how large you want to print the scanned images, so I did a number of tests, with a colour image scanned in 48 bit depth:
8*11.7 inches at 600ppi (full page, your scanner maximum optical resolution) - you can put four 4*5.8 inch prints in one scan pass. = 35 seconds (all start to finish processing).
8*11.7 inches at 300ppi = 16 seconds
4*6 inches at 600ppi = 15 seconds
4*6 inches at 300ppi = 10 seconds
For the first two options, you would separate the individual images from the four-set in Photoshop - takes some time, but the scan time alone would be less than 10 seconds per image on this set-up.
The main thing I noticed is that the scanner hesitated a bit periodically - this happens when data transmission isn't keeping-up with scanner speed. I think this is a USB-2 limitation, and if so with USB-1 the stalling and scanning time would be hugely greater.
For printing the images, you don't need more than 300ppi scanner input resolution with reflective scans, so as you see, I saved a lot of time by scanning at 300 rather than 600. But your choice of resolution depends on what is the maximum size print you will ever want to make from these images. A 4*6 area scanned at 600 ppi will allow you an 8*12 inch print at 300 ppi printing resolution, to give you an idea of the possibilities without resampling (inventing pixels).
BTW, I did a screen grab of the first result, posted here. The left side shows the image in the SilverFast preview, and the right side the 8*11.7 inch scan as it opened in Photoshop CS6 35 seconds later, with the Photoshop image dimensions dialog opened to show the dimensions. What's interesting is not only the resolution quality given the limitations of a paper print - even a very good one - but also the consistency of colour management between SilverFast and Photoshop - and I didn't need to do any work for this. SilverFast automatically uses its own in-built profile for this scanner. I mention this just in case your prints are in colour - it's also a major issue for post-scan image editing time if you need to correct for poorly managed colour, or any non-neutrality of Black and White scans. I also made a B&W scan of this image, at 600 ppi, using the 16-bit scan mode option in SilverFast. The result is completely neutral, also posted here.
So in sum, a range of considerations to take into account regarding speed and efficiency:
-what kind of output do you need, hence what image size and resolution is needed?
-what is the computer processing environment?
-subjective issue: how much time is "too much" to get from pushing the scan button to the final result you want, including post-scan workflow if any.
-what quality of colour management (for both colour and grayscale images) is needed to minimize your post-scan editing time
-then of course whether the scanner and scan software will deliver what you need within these parameters.