Summary: Xerox Docuetech and Kodak Lionheart info

Subject: Summary: Xerox Docuetech and Kodak Lionheart info
From: Rick Sapir <RICK_SAPIR -at- GROTTO -dot- MUX -dot- ENG -dot- GILBARCO -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:01:22 EST

re: My request for Xerox Docuetech and Kodak Lionheart info...

Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences with me. My company is _still_
evaluating both machines and is considering entering an FM (facilities
management) agreement with Xerox (XBS) or Kodak (KIS).

Another request: Do you have any experience with XBS or KIS in a facilities
management agreement? If so, please send email to me. Thanks again.

My company is exploring using a Xerox Docutech (with USI's Documetrix) or
Kodak Lionheart system for on-demand printing. Does anyone have any experience,
war stories, testimonials, etc. using this system? Especially in light of
kitting, pic-pack-ship, etc.

We're using FrameMaker on Macs with a Novell network.

Please e-mail response to me, directly.

While both companies have promised us "plug and play" installation, the majority
of responses indicated is was not the case. Many people are sending their files
to print shops off-site instead of a networked solution.

A few people mentioned problems with Kodak Lionheart failing to print due to
postscript problems caused by Kodak's interpreter.

"...we do seem to have more than our fair share of PostScript problems. I
believe this is because the Lionheart system uses a PostScript clone, whereas
Docutech uses an Adobe-licensed interpreter. I've had files that wouldn't print
on the Lionheart print flawlessly on the Docutech.:
(johnsf -at- cts -dot- com)

Another person had PS problems that Xerox claimed were due to the printer
drivers in system 7.0 and 7.5

Several people indicated that the Xerox Docutech seems to have limited storage
capacity and this created the need to re-RIP documents more than once.

"If you want more storage capacity to server you must buy the system from Xerox
and pay extra for that. (Extended storage is based also to SUN)"
(Pertti -dot- Makitalo -at- hut -dot- fi)

"...because of the limited memory on the Xerox, we sometimes have to delete
documents to make room for others."
(ggatien -at- adams -dot- com)

Many people indicated that output on Xerox Docutech gets lighter. In several
tests files that I used, I found this to be true also (especially with line art
and screened images). I checked with Xerox and they are investigating the

"Xerox takes your PostScript and translates it into a proprietary page-
description language and somewhere along the way half-tone dots get smaller."
(h_finger -at- nsmd -dot- aus -dot- hp -dot- com)

"We found that the grey shaded backgrounds come out differently than they
do on our SparcPrinter here (I think they come out lighter on the Docutech, if
remember correctly)."
(tracy -at- ftms -dot- com)

Other than this problem, everyone agreed that the output on Docutech was top-
notch. Both machies have are able to collate quickly. Docutech handles 11x17
better than Lionheart, but Kodak seems to have a faster print engine.

Rick Sapir Gilbarco, Inc. "Technical writers
Technical Communicator Greensboro, NC do it step-by-step"
Rick_Sapir -at- grotto -dot- mux -dot- eng -dot- gilbarco -dot- com
+---------------------------------------------------+ ;-)

Previous by Author: Seeking Xerox Docutech & Kodak Lionheart info
Next by Author: Tech. Writers and the Organization (Long Posting)
Previous by Thread: <$$>US-Central NJ-TECH WRITER-FrameMaker-Telecom.
Next by Thread: Re: Summary: Xerox Docuetech and Kodak Lionheart info

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads