October 1979: Xerox started production of the Xerox 8200 copier/duplicator. The machine could produce high quality copies, like the Xerox 9500 could do.
The code name for the 8200 was Chainsaw, according to a comment from Dana. Please read the complete comment from Dana, further down this page.
- printed 70 copies in a minute
- 2-sided copying
- stapling and sorting
The machine collated copies without a sorter.
|Copy speed (per minute)||70. First copy after 11 seconds.|
|Paper tray||Main tray: 2500 sheets
Top tray: 550 sheets
|Output tray capacity||350 sheets|
|Reduction/zoom||98%, 75% or 71.6% reduction|
|Document handler||Automatic document handler with 50 sheets capacity|
|Dimension and weight|
|Length||147 (cm) / 58 (inches)|
|Width||140 (cm) / 55 (inches)|
|Height||130 (cm) / 51 (inches)|
|Weight||1014 (K grams) / 2236 (Lbs)|
|Floor space requirements||3 x 2 (meters) / 11 x 8 (feet)|
Do you have any more information about this model, or have brochures / pictures? Please leave a reply in the form below, or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Hola fui técnico para Xerox en Chile desde el 1989 a 1998, adquirí muchos conocimientos de electrónica gracias a estas maquinas.
If I remember correctly, this model was brought out to do battle with the Kodak copiers of the day. We had one on a monthly lease at a shop in Hollywood, CA, it was a monthly lease of about $800.00, unlimited no copy clicks, we ran it like crazy. If you wanted 10 copies of a say a script, it would run the original through the document handler, 10 times. No sorting bins.
My very first machine! It was a bear, and a love-hate relationship ensued. I didn’t get to it until 1988 so it was already fairly worn, but built like a tank. Everything others have said is true: a highly unreliable feeder (grabbed multiple sheets without even skipping a beat and did it so quietly, too! Didn’t have “copy mismatch” like my friend the 1090), always needed service, jams required clearing the entire paper path, and copy quality great for line work but horrible for everything else. I miss it so – I miss everything that used to be well made… Read more »
This was the worst machine of the whole 9000 family. Unreliable RDH, and the plastic top cover latches that were not very sturdy, and it jammed so much you constantly had to open first the top cover, then the big top cover, and then the transports inside. (Remember that? The machine would be humming along making copies, and the top cover would pop open causing it to crash? No dedicated key operator required? Please!) One of our tech reps in Los Angeles started fitting aircraft cabinet hardware to keep the top cover closed. They later came out with a cheaper… Read more »
That was a great machine. I worked for a company 6 years ago. Where I have used this xerox machine. But now they update their everything with new machines. Xerox introduces to our company by Copier Lease Center. Check out their website https://www.copierleasecenter.com/xerox-copier-lease/.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-satisfying-project-you-worked-on-as-a-mechanical-engineer/answer/John-Bailey-43 relies on this site for data and provides some personal background as well. Hope you find it interesting.
Hello All, In Europe because of the number of languages we had to translate into we actually replaced the control panel head with a user interface, but not a graphical one. Because of the limited size of the control head and of our budget we took the green phosphor screen from the Xerox ‘intelligent’ typewriter and mounted it into a new head housing. Diverted the buttons from the Xerox 1045 mid-volume copier because we needed smaller buttons than the large blue ones that existed on the original 8200 and used a ‘step’ selection method for the print options. The various… Read more »
This was interesting reading 🙂 Please send a photo of the 8300 to email@example.com.
In late 1980, the service training was two weeks in Leesburg, and you got trained on the 9500 and 8200 at the same time as the optics and xerographics were the same. The 9500 was for a production environment with a dedicated Key Operator. The 8200 was for a causual walk-up environment. The 8200 reliability was always much better in the dedicated Key Operator environment than it was in the walk-up environment! Keeping that set seperator finger working properly in the recirculating document feeder was key!
Our cross-town rival Eastman Kodak introduced the Ektaprint 100 and the 8200 was a “hurry-up” response to that product. Prior to the Kodak machines, all Xerox duplicators handled the original once, and used a sorter to make sets. The Ektaprint introduced the recirculating document feeder and eliminated the need for a sorter. The 8200 took the 94/9500 engine, added a recirculating document feeder, and eliminated the sorter to compete. The tall console from the 92/94/9500 was eliminated, and in fact the code name for the 8200 was “Chainsaw” as if the console was eliminated by a chainsaw. It worked pretty… Read more »
Your correct Dana on “Chainsaw”. That was the code name for the 8200 during development. Marketing needed new technology right away. Engineering had 1-year to develop a product to use as a “stopgap” measure to use for the Kodak Etaprint 100. We only had the aging 3600’s for that duplicator market at the time, and were losing customers to Eastman Kodak. I was a Product Technical Specialist (PTS) at that timeframe, and participated in the launch of the 8200. We also launched the 9500 at that time. Both had the new XL-10 xerographics. A high density, fine toner technology and… Read more »
I too was a tech rep from 1976 – 1985, trained at Leesburg on everything from 2600s through 9700s – this machine had the worst doc feeder ever designed by man for service. The foam gaskets for the vacuum transport always leaked – the drive pulleys in the back were plastic and constantly failed – trying to keep doc registration adjustments to stay put took an act of god – poor quality bearings seized and consequently caused shafts to get sawn in half… the thing was an albatross. The one saving grace was the 9500 print engine – fresh developer… Read more »
The 8200 was, indeed, based on the 92/9400 frame, but designed to be more affordable. Xerox sold quite a few of these, but they required service more often and went down quite a lot.
I was a field service rep in the 70’s and 80’s.
I remember this machine from when my mom started working for Dow Jones in the 80’s–it was probably one of the first things I knew as a “copy machine.” My elementary school, of course, had a copy machine, but it was inside the school secretary’s office and was off limits even to teachers who were stuck using the mimeograph machine in the teacher’s lounge. I remember this machine seeming very modern with it’s colorful, push button control panel and the smoked window to the paper compartment.
Thanks for your comment on this blog. I have only seen this machine once, and I think it was around 1983. This machine was something similar to the Xerox 9400/9500, but it did not have any sorter like 9400/9500 had. I think the 8200 was also somewhat like inside as the 9400/9500. Anyway, I don’t think Xerox had much success with the 8200 on the market.
Somewhere I remember reading that was considered their 2 1/2 generation technology. I remember TRW in California had one of these in a building during the mid 1980s with over 3 million copies on it. A great machine, built like a tank of mostly metal parts. It was maintained by someone who had worked prior in a offset press environment. She did her best to keep it maintained.