FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W106977024> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W106977024 startingPage "96" @default.
• W106977024 abstract "Most banks have a hunch that their computer printing costs are huge Now, they have a way to prove it. Better yet, vendors say more rational printing could reap savings in the millions of dollars for banks. Last year we got a lot help from the `thin client' movement, says Glen Hudson, vice-president of the network printer division at computer printer maker Lexmark International Inc., explaining what has prompted banks to reappraise their printers. As discussed in the May issue, thin clients, otherwise known as network computers (NCs), synthesize the best of centralized, mainframe computing, and its successor, distributed, personal computing. Now that the of administering PC network is becoming known, companies are considering the alternative of NC networks to restore control and accountability to network managers, and, in so doing, to cut costs. There's a parallel discussion going on about printers. There's talk of of ownership -- meaning the of operating equipment over its lifetime -- rather than just the initial outlay for the machine. It's a discussion that's highly relevant for banks, since they about three times as much paper as the average company and, according to The Ashburnham Group, a Toronto-based consultancy, computer printing costs the average company between 6% and 13% of what it makes, when everything from wasted time to mislaid documents gets taken into the reckoning. The idea that printing costs should be gauged not by paper and toner outlay, but by all the processes surrounding the printing function -- or the burdened cost of printing -- was introduced by Ashburnham in 1991, and it has been gathering momentum since. Printer-copier convergence Part of the impetus comes from a price war that has arisen between vendors of printers and vendors of photocopiers as new devices erode the traditional distinction between the two. The advent of the digital a hybrid printer-copier, upset the traditional consensus that printing is more expensive than copying, explains analyst Lou Slawetski. This printer of sorts could compete with the cost-per-page of copier output, spurring both the printer and copier vendors into comparisons. Both sides, for the first time, are really trying to get a handle on what it costs companies to use their equipment, says Slawetski, who is president of Industry Analysts, a Rochester, N.Y.-based imaging consulting firm. It all came to the fore when Hewlett Packard launched its `mopier' -- they refused to call it a copier, says Slawetski. (It's a point of contention among vendors whether copiers are replacing printers or printers are replacing copiers.) HP's multiple-output-printed-pages device, otherwise known as a digital was released last November. Its per page produced is about 1.6 cents. That's right in line with the of photocopying a page -- one to two cents, according to the estimate of George Clark, vice-president of sales and marketing at Pitney Bowes Corp. That compares with, probably, five cents for a page printed on a conventional computer printer. Inverse to Hewlett Packard, Pitney Bowes, traditionally a copier manufacturer, recently made a move into the business, with the launch of its digital copier. A digital copier is like a printer in that it takes data in, rather than just reflecting an image. The original page can be stored as computer code, allowing for reproductions to be made at a future date (just like a printer does from a computer program). Meanwhile, printers are adopting all sorts of copier-type features, such as collating, stapling, printing front and back. Digital copiers improve on traditional printers by circumventing PC/printer compatibility problems. The copier doesn't need an application to print from; the image is scanned into memory and reproduced as if it were coming from a computer program. …" @default.
• W106977024 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W106977024 creator A5045979403 @default.
• W106977024 date "1997-09-01" @default.
• W106977024 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W106977024 title "If NC=1/2xPC, NP=?xPP" @default.
• W106977024 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W106977024 type Work @default.
• W106977024 sameAs 106977024 @default.
• W106977024 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W106977024 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W106977024 hasAuthorship W106977024A5045979403 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C134306372 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C14036430 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C21547014 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C2775924081 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C75306776 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C76155785 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W106977024 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C127413603 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C134306372 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C14036430 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C144133560 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C154945302 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C21547014 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C2775924081 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C33923547 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C41008148 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C75306776 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C76155785 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C78458016 @default.
• W106977024 hasConceptScore W106977024C86803240 @default.
• W106977024 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W106977024 hasLocation W1069770241 @default.
• W106977024 hasOpenAccess W106977024 @default.
• W106977024 hasPrimaryLocation W1069770241 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W125513684 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W126848816 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W144347450 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W148772608 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W1981924204 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W1999032106 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W2077973277 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W2133331761 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W234495390 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W2377288029 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W2501015759 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W2522912699 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W297627420 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W2993305286 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W2994032031 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W3005363648 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W35604007 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W38562573 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W89298267 @default.
• W106977024 hasRelatedWork W939616881 @default.
• W106977024 hasVolume "89" @default.
• W106977024 isParatext "false" @default.
• W106977024 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W106977024 magId "106977024" @default.
• W106977024 workType "article" @default.