Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
zakezuke wrote:
>>...millions of users choose canon because they want to print 5 to 20 page
>>documents on both sides of the paper by pressing the print button and
>>comming back a few minutes later with a properly colated stack of output
>>
>>
>
>I know
>
MATT ZAKOWSKI - HERE COMES ANOTHER THESIS
>i'll get harrassed for this.
>
>Manual duplexing results in properly colated stack of output. This
>might not be true on some printers who's output is copy side down but
>on cheap inkjets who leave copy side up i.e. no U turn after an image
>is printed manual duplexing = colated.
>
>*It was their target goal to sell 15 million units by the end of 2004
>I don't know if they met their goal but there are at least millions of
>canon users of which only a fraction have printers that duplex as in
>2004 you could buy low cost non-duplexing models. And of those only a
>fraction actually duplex. And Canon's focus has been mostly single
>fuction photo printers which duplexing isn't really nessicary manual or
>otherwise.
>
>It is possible that canon may have sold millions of pixmas but what
>evidence do you have that the majority of canon users use duplex
>printing. None at all. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice enough
>feature. In fact I know many ip3000s were purchaced by businesses by
>the bucket load when they learned that a sub $100 inkjet with a very
>low cost per page for black could duplex, even if it's a slow duplex.
>But I don't see this as being millions. I see this as being handy for
>SOHO or a branch office. Home users I don't see bothering even though
>canon is trying to push double sided photo paper.
>
>But as others have pointed out, quality might suffer as a result of
>auto duplexing, and manual duplexing is faster esp since the printer
>offers two trays. And let's face it, inkjets require dry time and are
>not the best devices to auto duplex, but manual duplexing at the very
>least allows for maxium dry time for each sheet.
>
>*http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2004/07/06/2003177949
>
>So anyone who makes it a point not to auto duplex isn't stupid. They
>are using their own skills at observation to establish that it's not a
>time effective means to print on a Pixma, and others observe there is a
>loss in quality. It's up to the user whether they want to use auto
>duplex and fetch a cup of coffee or manualy duplex. Given the yield on
>the pixma is limited to 500p for the bci-3e I would suspect that
>massive amounts of duplexing isn't a viable option anyway so it's
>rather a moot point.
>
>
>