Placeholder image

ThinPrint survey finds “dangerous misconceptions”

November 30, 2016

technologyThe MPS provider found that a “dangerous lack of knowledge on virtualisation and high availability” when it comes to print servers.

In a press release, ThinPrint – which calls itself a “leading provider of print management software and services for businesses” – stated that it surveyed 1,500 attendees at two events in Barcelona and Las Vegas, asking them about “virtualisation and high availability printing”. It found that an “astonishing” 68 percent of respondents “mistakenly believe that high availability when printing is guaranteed solely by virtualising print servers”.

Another 49 percent said “high availability is required for printing in their companies”, while 20 percent were uncertain, and 58 percent “have already virtualised their print servers”, with 15 percent “planning to do so in the near future”. Half surveyed that had “either already virtualised their print servers or are planning to” did so to “achieve high availability or easier maintenance”.

ThinPrint’s perspective was that these results revealed “dangerous misconceptions regarding virtualisation and high availability in the area of printing”, as virtualising servers “mainly protects against hardware or virtual server failures”, but “far more common” issues are “print-specific problems”, including “faulty printer drivers or driver incompatibility”, which are “not solved by virtualisation alone”. ThinPrint advised IT officers to “fully engage with the topic” before upgrading.

Thorsten Hesse, Chief Product Officer at ThinPrint, commented: “We were somewhat shocked by these survey results. Since Windows Server 2012 and continuing with Windows Server 2016, print server clusters can no longer be formed, leaving a severe gap when it comes to high-availability printing. However, with the right solutions in tow, IT admins can overcome these obstacles all while increasing productivity and reducing costs and resources.”

Categories : Around the Industry

Tags :

Leave a Reply