Talk:Solid ink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed the POV tag since the article now contains both positive and negative aspects of the technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.191.174 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed product images and links. The rest is informational and similar to existing articles on other technologies.

Edited the page to include numerous disadvantages to the technology; hopefully the article is more neutral as a result, as it previously only cited benefits (some of which are valid.) I welcome help in putting down specifics and citations; everything I've added is a based on personal experience supporting 2-3 Xerox printers in a several-hundred-person company. I also think that the advantages should be separated out into a section as I've done with the disadvantages; I have a few I can add in myself (for example, the ink is a dream to handle compared to toner...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.97.38 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of disagree with the bit about anti-competitiveness. Without any kind of proof I'd give xerox the benefit of the doubt. There may be variations in the ink to help either reduce the heat, or raise it tailoring the ink to the type of machine.

I would also like to point out that this article looks extremely negative from an outside perspective listing only disadvantages like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.2.81.84 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I represent Xerox and wanted to share some third-party reviews of solid ink technology for your consideration: • Small Business Computing: http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/testdrive/article.php/3529196 • IT World: http://www.itworld.com/nl/network_mgmt/03012007/ • Government Computer News: http://www.gcn.com/print/26_07/43385-1.html • Computer Shopper: http://computershopper.com/reviews/xerox_phaser_8560n Solid ink technology does have several benefits some of which are cited in these reviews.Lorraine67 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be more of an advertisement - particular uses of words such as 'vibrant, lively color', 'intelligent architecture' and so forth. It also talks of Xerox's continued heavy investment into the product, which is not the supposed main object of this article. Nox13last 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nox13last (talk • contribs)

I disagree, except for "intelligent architecture", that's what Frank Llyod Wright does (did), right? I was just reading the advantages section and the "vibrant, lively color" simply does not go far enough to explain to reader to stunningly great output. This printer, and the ALPS printer produce the very best prints I have ever seen. Other printers are quite good, but the 8400-8500 and the ALPS are far and away the superlative best for small format color prints. And then I read your comment. I think we need to do more to help someone who has not used one to appreciate this printer as THE gold standard by which all others should be judged. I have no financial or personal interest in Xerox or ALPS. Ace Frahm (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)