Macworld Forums: Xerox ColorQube 8570DN - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Xerox ColorQube 8570DN here

With the demise of the ALPS printers (apparently they stopped producing in Japan last May), there is a small group of users desperate for a technology that will print white ink. (Example usage: Decals that get applied to dark surfaces.)

Apparently there are real problems with white inks for ink-jets, so this wax technology got me excited. But there's no indication of white "ink" on the Xerox site, so I guess we'll have to wait for another technology that will actually print white, rather than depending on the (often invalid) assumption that every background for printing is white...

" A waste tray to collect leftover ink, replaceable as needed, costs $46". In my opinion, a waste tray should not be a consumable. At least Xerox is being transparent about this. I had to discover the consumable waste toner tank on my Samsung CLP 510N. That lead to some internal rewiring. But, if the goal is to be more environmentally friendly, or "green", by eschewing the plastic housing of the ink containers, then tossing out the presumably plastic waste tray would seem to defeat that purpose. I understand all things eventually wear out, but make the silly waste trays or tanks cleanable and reusable for maximum environmental green, not maximum corporate dollar green.

deemery, on 10 November 2010 - 05:47 AM, said:

Xerox used to make a variation of the solid ink printer for doctors to print x-rays. It used grayscale and a white color wax cube. You might Look for one of those, I don't know if they still make them.

I am being cautious with Xerox claims.

The Xerox WorkCentre 3220 claims to have PostScript emulation. However, when you print an embedded .eps file, the scalable graphics printed in half-tone dots instead of printer's native resolution.

This same test file with embedded .eps printed fine with true Adobe PostScript printers.

The whole intention and purpose of a promised PostScript printer is not fulfilled. Till now, I have not heard of any word from them to rectify the problem.

I own one and it's great. I have an older 8560 as well. I highly recommend them for daily printing, &c. Very reliable and easy to use.

He is right that you would not print "photographs" on this printer, but it's not a photo printer. If I need something that is "color critical" or photo-realistic then I go to my Epson R2400.

But if you need a work horse to print that 300 page booklet in color for a presentation then this thing is fantastic (and fast).

Note: The "waste tray" is totally re-usable. It's hard plastic - you pull it out and dump it out upside down over the trash and then stick it back in. I don't know what one poster is referring to when they infer that it's a one-time use thing.

This type of printer has been around for a long time from Xerox. It is still plagued by it's same shortcomings. When in use if you tip the printer you risk molten wax being spilled isndie the machine making a mess that is not easily cleaned. Prints from the unitl do suffer from gaininess but are also subject to staining anything they are placed against if in a warm or hot environment. Don't put these prints on your car seat in a hot car or you will have colored wax stains on your seat. A stack of prints will fuse together too. Same issue if one should sit on a print that was sitting in your car or sitting in sun. Getting stains out of fabric are very difficult if not impossible.

I had two printers that used this technology. The first was under the techtronic brand (xerox latter bought them) and the second was an early offering under the xerox brand.

I had a love hate relationship with them. I primarily used them for creating medium sized mailings of newlsetters (a few thousand pieces). The speed, the ability to have some color (but I did not require full coverage) and the cost of consumables was fantastic, made even better by the duplex printing. This was 10 years ago and the quality then was more or less on a par with ink jet for photos.

It sounds like not much has improved in that time. Ink jet now has incredible output, albeit at an extraordinary price for consumables, while the image quality for these printers has not improved.

If you are not doing photos, and are only interested in high value duplex business documents, I don't think this line can be beat.

My hate came when I stopped creating mailings (thanks to email and the Internet) and i was not using the printer for the volume it is designed for. Because it often sat it wasted a huge amount of wax cleaning itself regularly, raising the costs of consumables by a factor of 5 or more.

This is not the printer for casual use, but if you a doing the volume it is worth looking into.



[Edited to fix my usual too fast typing in an iPad]

This post has been edited by MacTechAspen: 10 November 2010 - 12:40 PM

do they still give out free black soild ink?

marbachan, on 10 November 2010 - 08:22 AM, said:

I have no idea why you would complain about the Xerox WorkCentre 3220 when this is not the Xerox WorkCentre 3220. You purchased a printer whose specifications are clearly listed in Xerox's literature. It worked as advertised. If it did not satisfy you, then you have only yourself to blame.

I am the proud owner of a Xerox Phaser 8400/DN [at home] and a Xerox Phaser 8550/DP [at work]. Both are genuine PostScript® 3™ printers that can output 30 pages per minute. They are both built like anvils. I could not be more pleased with both printers. I am torn between renewing my service contract and buying the new ColorQube 8570/DN. As much as I love my 8550/DP, it is five years old. What to do? what to do? what to do?

MrMe, on 10 November 2010 - 05:03 PM, said:

The Phaser series have been great printers. I have used several of them and have only positive things to say. I would not trade a phaser for a ColorQube. I would keep the phaser.

We use the predecessor to the Colorqube 8570s at work = Xerox Phaser 8560dn, and for the most part have been pleased with the print quality. We use them to assemble catalog proofs, and they seem well-suited to that job. Like most printers with driver enhancements, printing from Adobe apps can be a byzantine maze of dialogs and options - but it works fine.

A couple of comments regarding the review.

First, we did indeed use a third part generic SODIMM to expand the available RAM on our printer.

Right after we purchased our last 8560DN, we called Xerox with a support question. During the call we mentioned that we had installed third party (in this case Kingston) RAM - and - immediately during the call, the tech flagged our machine and removed its factory warranty. We had used a third party SODIMM, and even though it was not at all the issue that we were calling about - we were SOL.

Escalation at Xerox resulted in no change - our brand new printer no longer had a warranty because we'd used third-party RAM.

Second, the "drum and fuser kit" that the reviewer mentions, is actually the maintenance kit. It's not a laser printer type drum and fuser kit - it's essentially a microchipped roll of baby wipes that is used for cleaning the inside of the printer. I can only assume that the reviewer was much more familiar with laser printers and was trying to find a term for a part that they perhaps did not get a chance to see.

All in all - the printers have been good. Better than the HP Color Laserjets that they were purchased to replace.

Xerox support, not so much.

I have a Xerox Phaser 8500N and my experience mirrors MacTechAspen. As a printer for home usage, I cannot recommend the Xerox solid ink printers. Even considering the volume of printing my wife generates, the printer sits idle 23 hours a day and thus wastes a lot of wax/ink and electrical power. The cost per page is thus much higher than advertised. It is also not suitable for photographic work, and colour calibrating it with a professional calibrator (EyeOne) has not been successful. Also, the printouts are hard to write on because of the waxy inks; that's not good if you like to make handwritten notes on what you print. Finally, it uses dithering to make shades of colour rather than halftoning (which you would likely find on a toner-based laser printer) — you may have a personal preference in this regard.

I actually have a lot of good things to say about the function of the printer, particularly speed, but had I known what I have shared above before I bought the printer, I would not have bought this wax-based ink technology. Just making fellow readers aware.

Silent, on 10 November 2010 - 07:05 AM, said:

We use a phaser 8560. The waste tray is a small slide out tray that collects excess wax. To clean it just slide it out, empty it and put it back in. You really don't need to replace it till you break it.