Your comments bring a smile to my face. Although they are economically
reasonable and express pragmatic prudence, I fear they are no longer
applicable, economically rational, or pragmatically sound in today's high
technology world.
The pace of advances far outstrips the longevity and operability of the
technological products produced by it. Things are outdated and obsolete
much before they drop from a hardware or software point of view, which is
why the tax schedules now accept three year depreciation of high tech
devices rather than the older standard of seven years.
In today's world, you never get your money's worth out of equipment in the
sense that you are using the phrase. Aside from the fact that as new stuff
comes out expectations rise and we are no longer satisfied with the
operation or quality of the older stuff we have, there is the fact of life
that there is no point in waiting for the near perfect or perfect device or
software since perfection is an unachievable moving target that is never
reached or even approximated. If one waits for something that meets your
standards of perfection before you get it, you will never get the item.
What was considered archival today is no longer considered archival tomorrow
because it has been replaced by something that has set new standards of what
is meant operationally as archival as well as establishing a new
unachievable goal of archival ness for future items to try and achieve.
Ironically, the same sort of thing can be said to be true for analog
photography. Color photography went through a long period of several
decades to finally get to the point of being as archival as it is now, which
is no where near he standard for B&W silver halide photography, which in
itself is in a constant but slow state of change.
It is sage advice to buy items that are two steps behind the bleeding edge
and at the best price you can for the best devices of that generation that
you can get. That way, you are still more or less cunt and can afford to
upgrade more often to stay current. Obviously, some items last longer than
others. I still use an Epson 1200 inkjet for my images which I produce as a
working stage in a longer production process; but I no longer use the Epson
original Photo Stylus model for that process. It has been relegated to home
use now and considered too obsolete for commercial use by myself. An old HP
660 inkjet which is than the Epson Photo is still being used as a home
printer for text. At work, I am still using an old QMS B&W postscript laser
printer for text. Given my uses for the 1200 and its relative newness in
terms of models, I should be able to use it for another couple of years
before needing to replace it with a more up-todate model; whereas the laser
can be used until it drops.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo
Corbett
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:27 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
It's pretty much like buying a new car (which I just did 2 weeks ago). The
value drops by thousands the moment you drive it out the door. However, my
wife and I intend to drive it for the next 10 years or so -- being a Toyota,
it is built to last. The point is, if you're figuring on driving it until
it drops -- or use a printer or other piece of hardware until it drops -- or
it no longer operates on whatever the OS is that has supplanted (perhaps by
several times) whatever you're using now -- then you've gotten your money's
worth.
Hart Corbett
----------
>From: derek_c@cix.co.uk (Derek Clarke)
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 4:00 AM
>
> There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear to use the
> same ink technology as the 2000P and therefore might have the same
> longevity, but i can't remember the model numbers offhand.
>
> Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now?
>
> I just this moment bought an 890, that has just arrived in the UK, and
> already it's been made obsolete by the 900XMP that's on their Japanese web
> site...
>
> In article <EJEKINMEKEDPJJMHLODJEEGLCGAA.marshalt@spiritone.com>,
> marshalt@spiritone.com (Frank Paris) wrote:
>
>> That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I
>> suppose
>> that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years.
>>
>> Frank Paris
>> marshalt@spiritone.com
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>> > [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM
>> > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl
>> > (bobkehl@kvernkehl.com) wrote:
>> >
>> > > However, when
>> > > something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll
>> > let you know
>> > > in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro
>> > 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl,
>> > Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. #2,495GBP
>> > tho'.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Tony Sleep
>> > - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film
>> > scanner info &
>> > comparisons
>>
>>
>
