Anyone familiar with the Xerox Phaser 8200DP?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I posted a question about it earlier, and recieved no replies...
I am totally unfamiliar with solid ink printers, and don't wish to make a
costly mistake.
All (helpful) input appreciated.
TIA,
Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Thomas Bunetta" <advanced@ewol.com> wrote in message
news:42664d6f$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>I posted a question about it earlier, and recieved no replies...
> I am totally unfamiliar with solid ink printers, and don't wish to make a
> costly mistake.
> All (helpful) input appreciated.
> TIA,
> Tom
>

Tom

The 8200 is a good printer but is no longer sold new. As long as the
printhead is fully functional and not blocked by someone who had used poorly
made wax solid ink, it should be fine. It is a little noisy (mechanical
noise) and is not known for a short first print out time. It does have to
heat the solid ink up to melting before it prints. The prints are generally
excellent but, like crayon, can be scraped from the paper if you work at it.

mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Michael Hopper" <mikehopper@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:tM-dnTXJHYwS9fvfRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
<snipped>
> The 8200 is a good printer but is no longer sold new. As long as the
> printhead is fully functional and not blocked by someone who had used
> poorly made wax solid ink, it should be fine. It is a little noisy
> (mechanical noise) and is not known for a short first print out time. It
> does have to heat the solid ink up to melting before it prints. The
> prints are generally excellent but, like crayon, can be scraped from the
> paper if you work at it.
>
> mike
>
thanks Mike...
If the printer is no longer sold as new, is there a "better" model replacing
it?
Thanks,
Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Thomas Bunetta" <advanced@ewol.com> wrote in message
news:42666edf$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Michael Hopper" <mikehopper@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:tM-dnTXJHYwS9fvfRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
> <snipped>
>> The 8200 is a good printer but is no longer sold new. As long as the
>> printhead is fully functional and not blocked by someone who had used
>> poorly made wax solid ink, it should be fine. It is a little noisy
>> (mechanical noise) and is not known for a short first print out time. It
>> does have to heat the solid ink up to melting before it prints. The
>> prints are generally excellent but, like crayon, can be scraped from the
>> paper if you work at it.
>>
>> mike
>>
> thanks Mike...
> If the printer is no longer sold as new, is there a "better" model
> replacing it?
> Thanks,
> Tom
>

Tom

The newer model is the 8400 which has a better ink set and an puts less
solid ink on the page.

mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Michael Hopper" <mikehopper@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:78ednRtGjLGT6_vfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>
> "Thomas Bunetta" <advanced@ewol.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>>>
>> thanks Mike...
>> If the printer is no longer sold as new, is there a "better" model
>> replacing it?
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>>
>
> Tom
>
> The newer model is the 8400 which has a better ink set and an puts less
> solid ink on the page.
>
> mike
Thanks Mike...
Do you feel that this type of printer is superior to a color laser
(considering cost of toner, supplies, etc)?
Thanks,
Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Thomas Bunetta" <advanced@ewol.com> wrote in message
news:42667824$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Michael Hopper" <mikehopper@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:78ednRtGjLGT6_vfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>>
>> "Thomas Bunetta" <advanced@ewol.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
>>>>
>>> thanks Mike...
>>> If the printer is no longer sold as new, is there a "better" model
>>> replacing it?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> The newer model is the 8400 which has a better ink set and an puts less
>> solid ink on the page.
>>
>> mike
> Thanks Mike...
> Do you feel that this type of printer is superior to a color laser
> (considering cost of toner, supplies, etc)?
> Thanks,
> Tom
>

The solid ink printers are "better" (hardware cost is lower; supplies cost
per page somewhat lower) than a color laser of similar rated speed (the 8400
can print in color at more than 20 ppm). I chose a laser printer as I print
mostly black (24 ppm) and use little color (5 ppm) and could get a unit at
about a third of the price of the 8400.

mike

 

[mark]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Thanks Mike...
> Do you feel that this type of printer is superior to a color laser
> (considering cost of toner, supplies, etc)?
> Thanks,
> Tom


Just a personal opinion, but I like the brighter colors and the gloss that
come from a solid wax printer, as compared to Color laser.

Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<snip>
> The solid ink printers are "better" (hardware cost is lower; supplies cost
> per page somewhat lower) than a color laser of similar rated speed (the
> 8400 can print in color at more than 20 ppm). I chose a laser printer as
> I print mostly black (24 ppm) and use little color (5 ppm) and could get a
> unit at about a third of the price of the 8400.
>
> mike
>
Thanks for all your input, Mike...
I haven't decided as yet, but I am seriously considering producing my own
newspaper inserts.
Full duplex printing and colors that won't bleed are a definite plus.
It will probably be a close call as to costs between doing my own and
allowing the paper people to do it, but the hassle of getting them to
faithfully replicate my copy (I have an OOOOOld copy of Quark, but the
learning curve seems near vertical) and their deadlines might make it
worthwhile.
Tom
PS
Thanks again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Thomas Bunetta" <advanced@ewol.com> wrote in message
news:42664d6f$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>I posted a question about it earlier, and recieved no replies...
> I am totally unfamiliar with solid ink printers, and don't wish to
> make a costly mistake.

I have heard some users complain that if you don't print a lot the
inks can discolor over time due to them being continuously
heated/cooked, and if that happens the old/discolored ink must be
cleaned out, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Thomas Bunetta" <advanced@ewol.com> wrote in message
news:42664d6f$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>I posted a question about it earlier, and recieved no replies...
> I am totally unfamiliar with solid ink printers, and don't wish to make a
> costly mistake.
> All (helpful) input appreciated.
> TIA,
> Tom
>
Thanks for your input, folks...
I appreciate it.
Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In message <116db4j9t7boc79@corp.supernews.com>, Mark <marklb@bogus.net>
writes
>
>> Thanks Mike...
>> Do you feel that this type of printer is superior to a color laser
>> (considering cost of toner, supplies, etc)?
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>
>
>Just a personal opinion, but I like the brighter colors and the gloss that
>come from a solid wax printer, as compared to Color laser.
>
I have a 8200N (same model but without the duplex) and a second hand
Canon colour copier. The Xerox produces brighter output than my
previous QMS 2200 but the Canon is rather brighter and clearer (should
be - it was about $20,000 new!)

The Xerox is a good machine, it likes to be left on all the time and
isnt ideal for laminating (the heat tends to melt (and thus blur the
image))

--
Timothy