You'd think Microtek would get the hint after years of published
reviews that said pretty much the same thing -- good product, bad
support. But then, they're still in business so they must be doing
enough right to stay profitable.
ScottGee1
On 2/3/06, Scott Gomez <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've had a Microtek scanner in the past. They're quite good scanners,
> and they are fairly often available at an affordable cost while being
> ahead of the pack regarding features. However, Microtek are, in my
> experience and in the experience of a number of others, absolutely and
> utterly useless should you ever need any significant support.
>
> My $0.02, obviously, but an issue about which potential customers should
> be aware.
>
> ---
> Scott Gomez
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of swisspace
> Subject: [OM] Whilst on scanners - anyone have or tried the microtek
> artixscan 4000tf
>
> I am still looking for a scanner to cope with my kodachromes, I notice
> that this scanner has a cold cathode light source like the older 5400
> which was good for kodachromes, so has anyone used this scanner - I
> think its similar to the polaroid 4000.
>
> IanW
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|