I know the weakness of all the machines mentioned and could easily poke holes in your logic. I do not want to say anything bad about any specific company, so I won't. But let's just say the cost of ownership Roland vs all others is LESS. The narrative you are driving is false.
Sorry, I just can't remain silent here.
"...the cost of ownership Roland vs all others is LESS..." Really? Quite a bold statement and one that is absolutely NOT true!
Also, Jesse is in no way driving a false narrative, he is spot on in his assessment. We do very well in this market (upgrading users of existing mills),very well indeed.
The same holds true with old technology. It's pretty simple: technology advancements in terms of motion control systems, guide systems, spindle drives, motors, work and tool holding, high-speed machine controls and more all have a significant effect on machine operation, reliability, consistency, maintenance, etc. not to mention restoration quality (restorative margins, fit, finish, etc.) and post-machining hand-work.
If technological advancements didn't make a difference there would be no need for new products, component updates/upgrades, or for a user to, in this case, purchase a DWX-51- just get a DWX-50.
Frankly, it surprises me that anyone involved in supplying digital dental manufacturing solutions would make such claims, re: cost of ownership or technology.
I started in the industrial machine tool business 1978 with extensive experience in service (machine and control),applications and sales. Seeing this back and forth makes me shake my head...no wonder machine sales rep's in this business get such a bad rap...
I will say however, that while the Roland at one time was the most economical choice, that is no longer the case- particularly considering the release of the versamill 5X-300D as previously mentioned.