Xref: utzoo comp.misc:4612 comp.sys.ibm.pc:22839 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!van-bc!sl From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Request for poll of ten best/worst products of 88 Message-ID: <2105@van-bc.UUCP> Date: 5 Jan 89 18:27:56 GMT References: <210@imspw6.UUCP> <109@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <77200@felix.UUCP> Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates, Vancouver, BC. Lines: 97 In article <77200@felix.UUCP> dennisg@felix.UUCP (Dennis Griesser) writes: >From article <210@imspw6.UUCP>, by bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch): >> The losers category: >> The proliferation of cheap FAX machines, X percent of which attach >> to computers. Not that there arent legitimate uses for a FAX >> machine here and there, but sometimes I think American businessmen >> must all take stupid pills; most if not all of the uses I actually >> see FAX machines being put to could be far more effectively and >> inexpensively handled by cheap modems sending WordPerfect formatted >> files over the phone lines using Procomm. Media hype wins again... No, because these fax machines solve a basic problem in a simple and expedient manner. Get a copy of *this* piece of paper to someone else quickly. Last week we got a new WD1006 hard disk controller couriered over from the distributer. It arrived without documentation. Ten minutes later we had a fax of the relevant pages. They are fast. They are cheap (both from the price of the machine and for using them). They are simple to use. The installed base of G3 fax machines is probably higher than the installed base of PC's with modem with Procomm. Finally, they are dedicated. I don't have to figure out if the pc with modem with procomm is turned on waiting for me to call. >> We should not ignore the process, just because it takes 1000 times the band- Not neccessarily true. A more typical ratio would be between 10 or 20 times. The compression method used for G3 fax is fairly efficent (for example if you try to compress a fax data file, it will usually just return as the result would be larger). Typical times for a single 8x11 page of text is around one minute. Assuming 60 lines by 60 chars at 200 cps gives us about 18 seconds. So the actual transfer comparison assuming a 2400 bps modem would be about 3. If both end's had a 9600 bps modem then 12. >Fax is becoming a fad, much-used in places where it doesn't really need to be. >This includes most PCs, I think. .. >Fax has some good uses. Fax has some good uses on a PC. Fax on a PC is >currently being sold as if it's the greatest invention since sliced bread. I get a kick out of computer store salesman. If you mention a PC fax card they immediately trundle out a scanner to sell you as well. (Could it be they make more money selling you a high priced scanner than a cheap fax card?) The biggest use of PC Fax is to simply extend you electronic messaging capabilities. You can now send "electronic" mail to a much larger number of destinations. For example I send email to my accountant and lawyer via their fax because they don't have a Unix system (yet). >Remote printing directly from a mainframe is the worst example that you could >use to justify Fax. The printing is probably text anyway, and if the host >is smart enough to send graphics, he probably uses something better than Fax >anyway! Not true. I have one client who needs to "print" reports for several dozen of his clients and have them delivered quickly (i.e. same day basis). Alternatives include printing on line printer, burst, stuff, address, and use courier or mail (depending on time vs. cost benefits). Or installing a fax on the client site and simply fax'ing the report to him. The benefits of using the fax include elimination of the handling of the printed report, reduced communications costs (postage/courier vs phone costs, which may be zero for local call), and reduced delivery time. The dis-advantage is capital cost of installing fax-originating hardware on the originating system and fax receiving hardware at the remote client sites. Often the client sites have a fax or are willing to help pay to install one because they wish to use it for other purposes anyway. >If you want to scrawl on a preprinted form and get it to somebody fast, one >of the cheap dedicated FAX machines might be a less expensive and more user- >friendly choice than a PC - especially since you have to add a scanner at the >transmitting end of a PC setup anyway. >If you have a PC anyway and figure that the added cost of a cheap Fax card >is better that buying a dedicated machine, you probably "keyboard" well enough >to just type the thing in. My rule of thumb is to use: a fax card to transmit what you already have in the computer. a fax machine to transmit what you already have on paper. a scanner for desktop publishing. Of course if your need to transmit existing documents is small, and you are going to be doing desktop publishing buy a scanner instead of a standalone fax machine. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532