Brother ImageCenter ADS2000e Review PCMag

Imagecenter Ads 2000e. Brother ImageCenter ADS2000e (ADS2000E) 1200 dpi x 1200 dpi Desktop Using the 50-page capacity auto document feeder, this scanner is able to capture single and double-sided documents in a single pass at speeds of up to 24ppm‡, making it perfect for scanning multi-page, two-sided business documents, as well as single-page documents up to 34" long ; Brother ImageCenter ADS-2000e High Speed Desktop Document Scanner ; Moderate scratches on unit but fully functional

Brother ImageCenter ADS2000e Review PCMag
Brother ImageCenter ADS2000e Review PCMag from www.pcmag.com

Brother ImageCenter, High-Speed Desktop Document Scanner, ADS-2000e, Multiple-Page Scanning, Multiple Scan Destinations, Duplex Scanning $470.00 ($2.95 / oz) Only 1 left in stock - order soon ; Brother ImageCenter ADS-2000e High Speed Desktop Document Scanner ; Moderate scratches on unit but fully functional

Brother ImageCenter ADS2000e Review PCMag

; Brother ImageCenter ADS-2000e High Speed Desktop Document Scanner ; Moderate scratches on unit but fully functional ; Fully Cleaned inside and Out Replacing any Parts showing signs of wear ; Product may have cosmetic discoloration Windows Support; macOS Support; Brother will not provide new Brother software nor update previously provided software for the Windows OS versions that Microsoft no longer supports or for the Mac operating systems older than the last three systems.

Brother, ImageCenter ADS2000 Document Scanner, Tested Working. The scans produced by the Brother ImageCenter are totally legible, but. ; Brother ImageCenter ADS-2000e High Speed Desktop Document Scanner ; Moderate scratches on unit but fully functional

Brother ImageCenter ADS2000e (ADS2000E) 1200 dpi x 1200 dpi Desktop. Brother ImageCenter, High-Speed Desktop Document Scanner, ADS-2000e, Multiple-Page Scanning, Multiple Scan Destinations, Duplex Scanning $470.00 ($2.95 / oz) Only 1 left in stock - order soon The Brother ImageCenter ADS-2000e earned an average overall score in our testing, as you can see in the table above, and was mostly held back by its relatively poor scan quality