KeepItPrinting.com

[cmwade77]

GR81 wrote:

Wow, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but..... I have also seen the KIP 800 series and the HP Pagewide side by side and the KIP is by far the better product for the AEC industry. First off most of the comparisons above were against the KIP 9900, well the KIP 9900 is dead. The fact of the matter is the KIP 860 is a full .05 per sq ft cheaper than the pagewide. As pointed out above (and I have seen it as well) I can't run the Pagewide on 20# bond and still have my blacks print good enough so I have to run a bond paper that cost twice as much. As far as toner vs ink, come on people toner will ALWAYS be less than ink and if you have a manufacturer that says ink is cheaper you should be seeing red flags all over the place. Just use your head if ink could even come close to toner every office copier manufacturer would be switch their product line over to ink based equipment. We have an 860 in our office, and another out in the field with a whole bunch more on order. Every customer that has come in for a demo has ordered one every single one. The graphics on the Pagewide are better, but not enough to warrant the price difference and the special paper needed to make them look better. The other thing to consider is the footprint of the HP, that thing is a monster. A lot of HP Koolaid being drunk in here but the KIP will out sell the HP 5 to 1.

I find it hard to believe that the 860 is $0.05 per square ft. cheaper than the HP 8000, especially considering that we have managed to get our costs, including maintenance, machine, ink, paper, etc. down to under $0.05 per square foot.

Also, how does it compare on speed? I mean 30 D size per minute that the HP 8000 does in full color is pretty good and yes, this is a pretty realistic number.

As for plot quality, the reality is for our average drawings that we do, the quality is far better than the KIP has ever produced, especially with any shading. And this is on standard bond, the exact same as we use in our KIP, although we did try ordering the paper from the company we just bought our plotter from and didn't like the paper as well, so we are going back to our old paper, which is a nicer quality for less money.

Yes, blacks are just a little different, but their pretty darn good still.

As for the foot print, it takes up slightly less space than our KIP 8000 did since it no longer need a separate computer.

Yes, it definitely is a tall machine though, but it can take 6 rolls.

Just my thoughts on it all, it may turn out to not be the way things work in the long run, but after about a month, this is what we are seeing so far.

[KIPDOCTOR]

Another big issue that sime of the operators of the HP 8000 told me is the the cut length accuracy. Operators I spoke to said the HP is deadly accurate as far as cut length. I am pretty sure we are all familiar with the inaccurate cutting that the Kips have had pretty much since forever.
_________________
What we have gained in technology, we have lost in humanity.

[cmwade77]

KIPDOCTOR wrote:

Another big issue that sime of the operators of the HP 8000 told me is the the cut length accuracy. Operators I spoke to said the HP is deadly accurate as far as cut length. I am pretty sure we are all familiar with the inaccurate cutting that the Kips have had pretty much since forever.

We haven't had too much of a problem, unless we had to plot some on the KIP 8000 and some on the KIP 3100. But even that doesn't appear to be an issue with either of our HP plotters.

Now if I can just figure out how to programmatically retrieve the accounting log from the HP Pagewide 8000 instead of having it emailed to me or manually downloading it, I will be doing good.

[GR81]

Actually Doc the 800 series seems to be dead on on the cut lengths.
Again way to many comparisons to old antiquated equipment.
Its like comparing the KIP 800 to the HP 1050C. Heck why not compare it to the Xerox 2510?
I see that HP went and hired a whole bunch of Oce people for the sales and marketing of the new Pagewide systems...I thought I recognized the Oce marketing tricks.
First off they compare numbers against the KIP 9900 and not the KIP 800.
Then they call the printheads and maintenance kit consumables so they don't have to include them in maintenance pricing. (Oce did this all the time with drums and developer). The only advantage the HP has is speed and I don't have one customer who need 30 D's a minute. It is a great machine for Repro shops but I don't have one end user who would buy one. We only placed (1) 9900 out in the field that was not a repro shop and even that one was a mistake as a 7970 would have been a much better fit.
I'm glad to see that everyone is happy with their new HP's again they all seem to be Repro shops. I would love the here from someone who has put one in a customers office and how that is working out. I have 3 800s in customers offices and I'm waiting to get machines for a dozen more.
It sounds like both machines are winners and both have their own niche in the market.

[cmwade77]

GR81 wrote:

Actually Doc the 800 series seems to be dead on on the cut lengths. Again way to many comparisons to old antiquated equipment. Its like comparing the KIP 800 to the HP 1050C. Heck why not compare it to the Xerox 2510? I see that HP went and hired a whole bunch of Oce people for the sales and marketing of the new Pagewide systems...I thought I recognized the Oce marketing tricks. First off they compare numbers against the KIP 9900 and not the KIP 800. Then they call the printheads and maintenance kit consumables so they don't have to include them in maintenance pricing. (Oce did this all the time with drums and developer). The only advantage the HP has is speed and I don't have one customer who need 30 D's a minute. It is a great machine for Repro shops but I don't have one end user who would buy one. We only placed (1) 9900 out in the field that was not a repro shop and even that one was a mistake as a 7970 would have been a much better fit. I'm glad to see that everyone is happy with their new HP's again they all seem to be Repro shops. I would love the here from someone who has put one in a customers office and how that is working out. I have 3 800s in customers offices and I'm waiting to get machines for a dozen more. It sounds like both machines are winners and both have their own niche in the market.

Well, we are not a repro shop either, but we definitely need at least the 22D size per minute that the KIP 8000 we were replacing offered, so we like the 30D size per minute that the HP offers. And no, we don;t need that speed all the time, but when we need it, we need it and it is almost always at a time that blueprint shops are closed for the night.

As for printheads, etc., all of that is factored into our costs of under $0.05 per sq. ft. on the HP Pagewide 8000XL.

Just for the record, we are a customer, not a technician, the only reason I ever started coming to this site was all of the problems we were having with our old KIP 3000 and that the technician we were using at that time couldn't figure out how to fix it.

Comparing the HP 8000 to the KIP 800 doesn't really work, due to speed, comparing print quality, I have to say that for our particular needs and what we plot, the HP 8000 has a much higher quality than the KIP 800 does (yes, I had the same documented plotted on both machines).

Although, like I said before, after a year or so I may have a different opinion, but for now this machine works well and no, HP never compared their machine to the KIP 9900, that was us, as we had to compare it to a machine that would provide the speeds we need and that was the only other viable machine that would until it was discontinued.

[GR81]

I Know you mentioned the 9900, but when HP actually did do a comparison with the KIP it was with the 9900, not the 800. They had to or they would not have been able to get their numbers below KIPs. I mean lets face it.
Machine..KIP is 1/3 the price of the HP
Ink\Toner... on the 800 Toner is half the cost of the HP (other KIP models it is close)
Media KIP is lower as I do not need coated paper on the KIP(I know I can use 20# bond on the HP but it does make a substandard black).
Maintenance I guess is an unknown as both are so new and the printheads are priced out around the same price as the KIP drums. This will probably be close.
I'm glad you are loving your HP8000 and that is all that matters, and I really appreciate the input!!!

[cmwade77]

GR81 wrote:

I Know you mentioned the 9900, but when HP actually did do a comparison with the KIP it was with the 9900, not the 800. They had to or they would not have been able to get their numbers below KIPs. I mean lets face it. Machine..KIP is 1/3 the price of the HP Ink\Toner... on the 800 Toner is half the cost of the HP (other KIP models it is close) Media KIP is lower as I do not need coated paper on the KIP(I know I can use 20# bond on the HP but it does make a substandard black). Maintenance I guess is an unknown as both are so new and the printheads are priced out around the same price as the KIP drums. This will probably be close. I'm glad you are loving your HP8000 and that is all that matters, and I really appreciate the input!!!

I'm curious, what are you getting as cost per sq. ft (including machine cost averaged out over the life expectancy of the machine, paper, toner, drums, maintenance, in other words including everything that costs) on the KIP 800?

On the HP 8000, after a month in real world usages we are seeing are costs run around $0.045 per sq. ft, including machine costs, printheads, ink waste collector, paper, ink, projected maintenance costs, etc. And if HP wouldn't keep such a tight grip on who can sell ink to whom, we could bring that down closer to $0.03 per sq. ft.

One nice feature is we know exactly how much capacity is left on each of the printheads and can better estimate the cost per square foot as a result.

Now as for comparisons, comparing the KIP 800 series to the HP 8000 isn't really the right comparison to make. The 800 series should be compared to one of the following:
HP Pagewide 4000 - 8 D Size Per Minute
HP Pagewide 4500 - 12 D Size per minute
HP Pagewide 5000 - 14 D Size per minute

These speeds seem more in line with the 800 series, even the faster of the KIPs, the 940 is still slower than the 4500.

Not trying to belittle your opinion of the KIP, just curious how it compares when comparing like for like.

[GR81]

That is easy enough, as our Repro Dept just ran a 3600 sq foot job on it Friday with cost being $0.028. It is probably less than that as KIP always under estimates how long their drums last, heck we have some that last the lifetime of the machines.
Speed is a non issue with 99% of the customer base, like I said I don't have one customer who would even consider a 30 D a minute machine. I have one customer who purchased five 800 series machines not for the speed but for the reliability and they will never be down. They probably paid pretty close to the same as your one HP8000.

[cmwade77]

GR81 wrote:

That is easy enough, as our Repro Dept just ran a 3600 sq foot job on it Friday with cost being $0.028. It is probably less than that as KIP always under estimates how long their drums last, heck we have some that last the lifetime of the machines. Speed is a non issue with 99% of the customer base, like I said I don't have one customer who would even consider a 30 D a minute machine. I have one customer who purchased five 800 series machines not for the speed but for the reliability and they will never be down. They probably paid pretty close to the same as your one HP8000.

That barely covers our paper cost, so may I ask where you get your paper from?

Also, does this really include the cost of the machine itself (based on a 72 month average life expectancy) or just the paper, toner, drums and other maintenance?

As for multiple machines costing the same, The problem for us is we wouldn't have room for more than one machine, so that's not a viable solution for us.

[GR81]

Azon, now we are one of there biggest dealers so I can not guarantee you will get our pricing.
Not too many companies have room for 5 KIP 800's, I just used that as an example of how some companies have options due to the pricing of the KIP.
Yes that does include everything, I went 60 months instead of 72 so the numbers will be better at 72.

[cmwade77]

GR81 wrote:

Azon, now we are one of there biggest dealers so I can not guarantee you will get our pricing. Not too many companies have room for 5 KIP 800's, I just used that as an example of how some companies have options due to the pricing of the KIP. Yes that does include everything, I went 60 months instead of 72 so the numbers will be better at 72.

Ok, I am doing a preliminary review of our logs for the end of the month to make sure I have everything setup right and input our current costs for ink, paper (which I just checked and has gone down substantially since I last checked in with Accounting on it), maintenance, etc. and our cost per Sq. Ft. is actually $0.026 on average including everything. Some jobs are obviously a little higher and some are a little lower, but this is on average.

[GR81]

One of our sister companies sent me some numbers off an HP 8000, I got to see the numbers and it was pretty much what I expected.

[lead guitarist]

Toner would be completely dead if water based plotters were producing images that were water proof. I have yet to see an HP pagewide running. I have not even seen one in real life.

I can compare the build quality and reliability to what Hp is building now with the T series. In my opinion it's crap! So many issues with firmware and that dreaded auto update the firmware B.S. that usually crashes when updating. I guess I will hold off speaking of pagewide demise until I see one run.

Because we are not fully in with Hp and only get certain privileges because of the RSA my attitude towards Hp is rather combative. Canon on the other hand just flung the door open for RSA members and gives really good support. Kip does a great job for us, getting parts and phone support from a human that speaks English, It will be interesting to see how it all plays out?

Pretty sure Kip is developing and or building something fast and in full color!

Time will tell.


Rgards,
Lead Guitarist
_________________
If it's too LOUD get some plugs!!

[scanmike]

Doc: Just bought a 5000 for my shop. As a service guy it kills me to watch this thing run. If the heads hold up it is going to kill us. It almost seems simplistic. No developer housings, no expensive writings heads, no fusing. Mostly electronic. Put 15,000 feet in 9 days. I have to agree with you doc about the future of toner. I don't see me buying a toner machine in the future if this thing holds up in the next six months. I will always admire the Xerox 721 I have, they perform beautifully but need attention.

I am on both sides of the fence, just want you guys to know how I feel. Should we embrase the future?

Mike

[KIPDOCTOR]

I am please to announce the relaunch of the www.pagewideforum.com. If you were an early joiner of this forum you know that we had some issues with permissions and posting rights. We also had a lot of problems with bots and spammers. I am confident that we have resolved these issues now and the forums should be much easier to use. The main problem was that the HP site used a much newer version of the BB software than these KIP forums use. It has much more in depth features but with that came a pretty big learning curve for me. Please go back and visit them and let me know your experiences. I will be heavily promoting the HP site with advertising in key wide format publications. I hope to even surpass the size of these fine KIP forums.
Thanks
Steve
_________________
What we have gained in technology, we have lost in humanity.