Sorry for the delay in responding to this post. I inquired again and was told that the CuttorPro machine does indeed use the same (16 bit) mainboard as ours. The "CR" model which they sell represents the different case and molding, and it was initially intended that the machine would use the newer mainboard, but from what I understand they old mainboard was used instead. I think that this is just a case of CutterPro copying the specs from the manufacturer without understanding the product.
I would say that the 16-bit model is actually better than the 32-bit model for several reasons:
1. The 32 bit model is a brand new design. I think the primary reason for its introduction was for cost-cutting. Since it is a different architecture, it will not be compatible with all the software that the PCUT currently works with.
2. Chinese manufacturers have a reputation for releasing unfinished products and we actually turned down the 32 bit mainboard in favor of the 16 bit mainboard because of the understanding of the general release cycle that the manufacturers are using. They do not do sufficiently thorough testing and primarily rely on the customers to do the testing for them. I have personally visited the factory several times, and each time, they say they are "close" to solutions solving problems that they are working on, but to date, I haven't seen a satisfactory solution.
We have come to the conclusion that all the plotters we sell (with the exception of the Copam) are not technically sofisticated enough to offer any advantage over a relatively "dumb" machine. We instead, work with relatively sophisticated software developers (SignBlazer is our #1 choice) who years ago recognized the eventual popularity of low-cost machines and as such developed sophisticated ways to manipulate these relatively (dumb) devices. Much in the same way that printers have transitioned from having a great deal of internal processing capability to instead using the computer CPU, plotters have done the same. Instead of relying on relatively unsophisticated hardware-based algorithms, we rely on the software (which is updated regularly) to provide extremely sophisticated processing capability.
3. I asked about the relative reliability of mainboards (in terms of failure over the first year) and I was told that the old mainboard has a failure rate of about .5% while the newer mainboard technology has a failure rate of 2%. In practice, I believe that our failure rates are higher than .5%, so I would say "scale accordingly". From what I understand, most of the failures are caused by plugging and unplugging ports and the associated "static zap" that can occur and it seems that the newer electronics are more sensitive to such problems.
