Why is the fax machine not dead yet?
Terry
been replaced with an email address years ago.
M.H.
> Instead of faxing to a phone number I would have thought it would have
> been replaced with an email address years ago.
>
Fax > Sent easier than Scan > Fax > Sent.
mark_digital©
"Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1169593581....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Instead of faxing to a phone number I would have thought it would have
> been replaced with an email address years ago.
>
machine itself but the transmission.
For myself, I prefer sending and receiving faxes.
ato...@hotmail.com
On 24-Jan-2007, "mark_digital©" <976...@comcastnot.com> wrote:
> > Instead of faxing to a phone number I would have thought it would have
> > been replaced with an email address years ago.
PC's can fax with WinFax Pro or similar, and there are Fax to email
services.
A fax machine gives you hard copy, a fax machine can
send hard copy drawings and images without having to scan
them into a PC, which can be quicker, more convenient, and
sometimes better if the drawing has small print.
Sam Louis
This is another reason why fax is used by businesses still.
ato...@hotmail.com wrote:
Arthur Entlich
printing it. Fax is more secure since it goes to a specific phone number.
Art
mark_digital©
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:mZ0uh.783489$1T2.663548@pd7urf2no...
> Some people want hard copy without the hassle of converting a file and
> printing it. Fax is more secure since it goes to a specific phone number.
>
> Art
>
fight unsolicited, meaningless, unwarranted incoming FAX transmissions.
Dan G
email is still not considered "legal delivery", but fax is. The financial
world has recently moved forward in this regard, but acceptance is slow to
happen.
I'd be happy to see digital fax, quality would improve hugely.
"Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1169593581....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mark_digital©
"Dan G" <no...@12345.org> wrote in message
news:tOedneUe5ur4WiXY...@comcast.com...
> In a number of business and financial worlds, as well as the legal world,
> email is still not considered "legal delivery", but fax is. The financial
> world has recently moved forward in this regard, but acceptance is slow to
> happen.
>
> I'd be happy to see digital fax, quality would improve hugely.
>
sending. On my end it's an environmental thing.
mark_
Bennett Price
jasee
A fax is generally quicker and even though an email may have reached the
persons mail server it may not be delivered for days. A receipt that's it's
been delivered is optional. So you never know that it's been delivered
anyway.
An email is (debatably) more likely to reach the intended recipient, in a
company there only a few fax machines so the one for the person it's
intended for lies for ages in a great pile of faxes for other people.
The Natural Philosopher
> Bennett Price wrote:
>> Add the need, sometimes, for a handwritten signature.
>>
>> Terry wrote:
>>> Instead of faxing to a phone number I would have thought it would
>>> have been replaced with an email address years ago.
>
> A fax is generally quicker and even though an email may have reached the
> persons mail server it may not be delivered for days. A receipt that's it's
> been delivered is optional. So you never know that it's been delivered
> anyway.
A lot depends on exactly which setuop.
Faxes recieved at the central corporate fax machine that get put in
brown envelopes and left in pigeon holes may stay there for days.. I
remembert a job I did once for Christian Dior, where the advances were
to receive TELEXES on a box, on a PC and then select them and manually
e-mail them on (via a ghastly IMB mainframe e-mail) to the person whose
attention it was marked for..
> An email is (debatably) more likely to reach the intended recipient, in a
> company there only a few fax machines so the one for the person it's
> intended for lies for ages in a great pile of faxes for other people.
>
>
Most corporate e-mail systems will get there faster than a fax.
Of course if you are not polling to pickup the e-mail, it will stay on
the server..mine is set to poll every 5 minutes, giving an average
latency of 2.5 minutes.
A considerable advance on the 'poll once an hour' UUCP that we USED to
use..when fax WAS quicker.
measekite
jasee wrote:
> Bennett Price wrote:
>
>> Add the need, sometimes, for a handwritten signature.
>>
>> Terry wrote:
>>
>>> Instead of faxing to a phone number I would have thought it would
>>> have been replaced with an email address years ago.
>>>
>
> A fax is generally quicker and even though an email may have reached the
> persons mail server it may not be delivered for days.
False
> A receipt that's it's
> been delivered is optional. So you never know that it's been delivered
> anyway.
>
True
> An email is (debatably) more likely to reach the intended recipient, in a
> company there only a few fax machines so the one for the person it's
> intended for lies for ages in a great pile of faxes for other people.
>
True
>
>
jasee
> jasee wrote:
>> Bennett Price wrote:
>>
>>> Add the need, sometimes, for a handwritten signature.
>>>
>>> Terry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instead of faxing to a phone number I would have thought it would
>>>> have been replaced with an email address years ago.
>>>>
>>
>> A fax is generally quicker and even though an email may have reached
>> the persons mail server it may not be delivered for days.
>
> False
How so?