Digital BW, The Print

There's regular discussion on other forums, speculating about
discontinuance of 2400 fyi. Epson would like to replace it with
amateur printers like 1800/1900 and even downstream). The economics of
3800 make it a more attractive machine, both to Epson (ink
packaging/inventory and exclusivity) and to the buyer (price of
machine with ink, price of ink over the long haul for
semi-professionals and professionals).  

2200 does quickly suffer drive problems from use of heavy (eg 300gsm)
paper, top loaded (rather than from rear) and from use of iffy paper,
and from use of certain art papers that are known to shed inside, and
from bizarre, unnecessary cleaning practices (just use printer
cleaning paper from an office supply store, don't feed Windex-wet
paper through the printer).




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Mitch,
> 
> >Here's another perspective on the 2200 . . . I've been told by techs  
> >who repair huge numbers of Epsons that the 2200 is a MUCH more solid  
> >machine than the 2400 . . .    They recommend that anyone replacing a  
> >2200 go right to the 3800, which is also considered (by them) very  
> >reliable   The 3800 is  bigger, of course, and more money -- but not  
> >hugely more than the 3800.
> 
> FWIW, I had a 2200 for 23 months when the paper feed mechanism died,
> and there have been several other similar reports over past couple of
> years.  That's the only weak point I'm aware of.  Otherwise it was a
> super printer.  My 2400 is now at 28 months and going strong, with
> nary a peep or whimper.  I don't doubt what they told you, but purely
> on mechanical terms for me the 2400 has outperformed the 2200.  
> 
> But surely they have reasons for saying that.  If you get a chance to
> talk to them again it would be nice to have some specifics
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>