baulch@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Garth Baulch) (05/11/88)
It would seem that since laser printers and photocopiers are basically the same on the inside, someone would market a device that fulfills the functions of both. Indeed, I have seen such a creature from Xerox, but it comes sans-postscript interpreter. My question is this: Does anybody make a combined laser printer and photocopier that is postscript compatable (i.e. I want to use it with a Mac.)? Any information would be appreciated..... --Garth
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/16/88)
> It would seem that since laser printers and photocopiers are basically > the same on the inside, someone would market a device that fulfills > the functions of both. Indeed, I have seen such a creature from Xerox... People who are knowledgeable about such things tell me that the two-in-one deal doesn't work very well. In principle the functions are similar, but in practice the machinery has to be tuned for one or the other to give good results. The only ones I've heard of are a couple of expensive turkeys from Xerox. Actually, you could probably get fairly good results out of a 300-dpi scanner plus a laser printer, but that's not quite the same thing. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) (05/18/88)
In article <17036@cornell.UUCP> baulch@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Garth Baulch) writes: > >It would seem that since laser printers and photocopiers are basically >the same on the inside, someone would market a device that fulfills >the functions of both. Well, if you had the photocopier and printer in one box, would it be so hard to: 1) Add a modem. Congratualtions you now have a FAX. Also, you have a modem that could be used simultaneously with the printer/copier. 2) Since you already have the scanning electronics, why not have a document scanner? So, what do we have: 1. A copier 2. A laser printer 3. A modem 4. A FAX <- read market projections for FAXen over the next couple of years -- WOW! 5. A document scanner All in one box... Hmmm, anybody want to form a company??? -- pqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq bdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbd John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@germany.CSNET
baulch@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Garth Baulch) (05/18/88)
In article <1988May16.062813.17006@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >People who are knowledgeable about such things tell me that the two-in-one >deal doesn't work very well. In principle the functions are similar, but >in practice the machinery has to be tuned for one or the other to give good >results. The only ones I've heard of are a couple of expensive turkeys >from Xerox. Actually, in my search for such a beast, I visited an accounting office here at Cornell that was using the Xerox 4045 laserprinter/ photocopier. The kind secretary who took time to talk to me about it had nothing but praise for it. It had a very high duty cycle, the copies and the prints were both of very high quality, and it gave them no maintenance headaches at all. The only salient negative about the printer I saw was its size--nearly three feet long by fourteen inches deep by six or seven inches high. Lots of table space needed. I called the Xerox rep at Cornell, who informed me that although the 4045 was not a PostScript device (no surprise there), he had heard rumours that there was a PostScript version in the works. The 4045 costs about $6,000, which is reasonable, but the appropriate Xerox service contract is is a rip-off. I haven't heard of any other similar devices on the market anywhere. --Garth baulch@svax.cs.cornell.edu
kg@elan.UUCP (Ken Greer) (05/19/88)
From article <17394@cornell.UUCP>, by baulch@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Garth Baulch): > > Actually, in my search for such a beast, I visited an accounting > office here at Cornell that was using the Xerox 4045 laserprinter/ > photocopier. The 4045 costs about $6,000, which is reasonable, but the > appropriate Xerox service contract is is a rip-off. > But I can buy: 1 HP LaserJet Series II $1650 1 Cannon PC-25 $ 800 ----- $2450 and save $3550. Am I missing something? -- Ken Greer Elan Computer Group, Inc. {ames,hplabs}!elan!kg 415-322-2450
jqj@uoregon.uoregon.edu (JQ Johnson) (05/19/88)
In article <1988May16.062813.17006@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >People who are knowledgeable about such things tell me that the two-in-one >deal doesn't work very well. In principle the functions are similar, but >in practice the machinery has to be tuned for one or the other to give good >results. The only ones I've heard of are a couple of expensive turkeys >from Xerox. That Xerox printer (the 4045) does in fact work surprisingly well. And it isn't all THAT expensive; indeed, it is the basis for the least expensive Interpress printer (remember Interpress? the thing Postscript replaced? some people still need it for backwards compatibility.) available. More expensive, granted, than buying both an HP Laserjet II and a cheap copier and putting them on the same table! I think I have to disagree with Henry and argue that the two functions are not in fact necessarily incompatible--that the reason we don't see these beasts is lack of market rather than technical.
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/19/88)
In article <314@elan.UUCP> kg@elan.UUCP (Ken Greer) writes: | But I can buy: | 1 HP LaserJet Series II $1650 | 1 Cannon PC-25 $ 800 | ----- | $2450 | and save $3550. Am I missing something? Yup. Add $1600 for an HP Scanjet scanner. Now you only save ~$2k (and many hours of work). -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (05/20/88)
In article <314@elan.UUCP>, kg@elan.UUCP (Ken Greer) writes: > > Actually, in my search for such a beast, I visited an accounting > > office here at Cornell that was using the Xerox 4045 laserprinter/ > > photocopier. The 4045 costs about $6,000, which is reasonable, but the > > appropriate Xerox service contract is is a rip-off. > > > > But I can buy: > 1 HP LaserJet Series II $1650 > 1 Cannon PC-25 $ 800 > ----- > $2450 > and save $3550. Am I missing something? Yes. My organization has had a Xerox 4045 for two years. This one shared laser printer produces virtually all _formal_ documentation and correspondence for my organization; it is left on 24 hours per day. In two years, we have _never_ had a paper jam, and have had exactly one service call (to replace a memory expansion board). The optical registration on this laser printer has neither changed nor required adjustment in two years. A $ 1,650 laser printer is simply not that rugged or reliable. Period. You get what you pay for. With respect to the combined copier/laser printer issue, I believe that the two should be kept separate. We did not opt for the copier option on the Xerox 4045. Why? Because it keeps the laser printer "simpler", and presumably more reliable. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|utzoo|uunet}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (05/20/88)
In article <536@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: |Well, if you had the photocopier and printer in one box, would it be |so hard to: | |1) Add a modem. Congratualtions you now have a FAX. Also, you have | a modem that could be used simultaneously with the printer/copier. | |2) Since you already have the scanning electronics, why not have a | document scanner? | |So, what do we have: |1. A copier |2. A laser printer |3. A modem |4. A FAX <- read market projections for FAXen over the next couple | of years -- WOW! |5. A document scanner | |All in one box... Hmmm, anybody want to form a company??? Alright, how about this? I have a Sun 3 with a high res graphics display. Tied to it is a Dataproducts Postscript laser printer. Also tied to the Sun is a Palantir scanner. The Palantir saves images in several formats, including the group III and IV FAX encoding schemes. We have written the glue to tie all the above equipment together (as far as storing and manipulating the images is concerned). It seems the only missing piece is the FAX modem. So... Could someone provide me with part numbers for the modem chips in the FAX machines? -- {alberta,utzoo,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
johne@hpvcla.HP.COM (John Eaton) (05/20/88)
< > It would seem that since laser printers and photocopiers are basically > the same on the inside, someone would market a device that fulfills > the functions of both. Indeed, I have seen such a creature from Xerox... ---------- I heard that they work on opposite principles. Lasers use a beam of light to make a dot on the paper while copiers use the absense of light to make the dot. One theory is that since copiers are a optical scanned device they have to use a positive development system. Lasers can use either a positive or negative system depending on whether or not you invert the signal to the laser. Since your typical page has more whitespace on it than dots it it more efficient to use a negative system and only turn on the laser for the minimun time. John Eaton !hpvcla!johne
pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (05/23/88)
In article <2524@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > A $ 1,650 laser printer is simply not that rugged or reliable. > Period. You get what you pay for. > I dunno about that. We have been running a LaserJet II pretty hard since the day we purchased it (as a "line printer" to multi-user uVaxen and as the "office printer" to a batch of pc's). It has held up just fine: no problems so far, except an aprrox. once-per-week paper jam - which takes two to 3 min- utes to clear up, and the LaserJet is pretty good at keeping track of where it is when this happens. If we push it hard enough to have to replace it in three years, I feel that we will have come out ahead financially anyway. Ultimately, I expect that there will be cost-effective machines that pro- vide image input from several sources (as bit or character stream and in fax form, plus whatever a copier's scanner sends to its printer) and provide hard-copy or "standardized" computer-legible output. This would allow me to replace a)fax machines, b)"printers", and c)scanners. The time saved in hauling output from one to another would be worth it in and of itself. greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny