HP 602 usage page and configeration page different

[dan7777]

We are having different pages meter counts so my boss sent me out to get meter counts. He asked for configuration pages and usage page which it looks like only newer ones have usage page. He found the usage page and configuration page meters are different. Might be total engine pages where pm kit counter is. Can anyone tell us why these are different. I think you can go in service page and change configuration count. One had half a million on configuration page and 2 million on usage page. Big difference. Any one knowing exactly and not guessing would help us bill the customer correctly, thanks in advance. And can the usage page be changed without changing a board?

[techie0419]

Wish I had a solution for you. But this is something I've noticed as well, with a few of the newer models, particularly the 602/605 types, not so much on the smaller models. The meter collection system that my company uses tends to pull what is on the configuration page, rather than the usage page, so I have to keep that in mind if I print a usage page when closing a call, and there's a significant difference in meter (either much higher, or sometimes lower than what's on the config page, which often says Engine Cycles, with a note saying "not weighted for billing".) In the case of a network-pull, it may be easier to be consistent, rather than 100% accurate. But this may still cause problems if the percentage gets way off, like in your instance. If printing 10 pages causes 15 engine cycles, or vice-versa, we'll either be over-billing or under-billing.

Usage page is the more accurate number for billing, but the question still remains--how do we correct the previously incorrect billing?

[blackcat4866]

I believe the usage page is based on LTR (that's 0.060264 m2) or A4 (that's 0.0625 m2) sized images depending on your area. That will more accurately reflect part wear rather than the vagaries of page count with all the different paper sizes.
=^..^=

[dan7777]

Wish I had a solution for you. But this is something I've noticed as well, with a few of the newer models, particularly the 602/605 types, not so much on the smaller models. The meter collection system that my company uses tends to pull what is on the configuration page, rather than the usage page, so I have to keep that in mind if I print a usage page when closing a call, and there's a significant difference in meter (either much higher, or sometimes lower than what's on the config page, which often says Engine Cycles, with a note saying "not weighted for billing".) In the case of a network-pull, it may be easier to be consistent, rather than 100% accurate. But this may still cause problems if the percentage gets way off, like in your instance. If printing 10 pages causes 15 engine cycles, or vice-versa, we'll either be over-billing or under-billing.

Usage page is the more accurate number for billing, but the question still remains--how do we correct the previously incorrect billing?

thank you. That is really useful information. I guess I will use usage count on printers that have it. I have always used configuration as I use that for pm kits.

[dan7777]

I believe the usage page is based on LTR (that's 0.060264 m2) or A4 (that's 0.0625 m2) sized images depending on your area. That will more accurately reflect part wear rather than the vagaries of page count with all the different paper sizes.
=^..^=

Thanks.