Mark Bixby wrote:

> C40Ds have been abandoned because they're too bug-ridden, i.e.
> mechanical breakdowns, software issues, high rate of consumables, etc.
>
> HP, you have a major customer satisfaction problem here.  We
> periodically complain to local HP management about these printers, and
> the managers mumble in a non-committal way about maybe upgrading us to
> the newer 640 printers, but nothing ever happens.

"Upgrades" would be welcome but unlikely.  The C30/C40D printers are
actually Kentech (sp?) printers with some HP software tweaks.  They
were also roughly twice the cost of a 640D at half the resolution.  The
consumables cost is indeed high, and in most cases don't live up to the
rated life cycles.  This is compounded with print quality
troubleshooting involving "replace the developer", "replace the fuser",
etc., and by the time you're printing decent output again, you're out
a couple thousand bucks in "consumables".  If a consumable doesn't meet
at least 2/3rds of it's rated life, I consider this a defect and not an
expense to be placed on the customer.

We used to be somewhat unhappy with the old 2680A laser printer due to
the maintenance and occasional problems and thought the C40D would be
an end of those concerns.  We were sadly disappointed.

> Overall, we're quite happy with HP quality and customer support, but
> these C40D printers are a definite sore spot with us that could be
> handled better.

I'd like to echo the same sentiments.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>