#268397 - 31/10/2005 04:54
fecking printers
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 13/04/2001
Posts: 1742
Loc: The land of the pale blue peop...
|
Hateful hateful little things i hate them i want to kill that snotty little piece of junk i'm going to mutilate it.
Okay i have a few problems with printers as you know i have a job that means i go away every few months for 4 months at a time normally. This means that hateful little crap of a printer sits there and the print heads dry out as it is a bubble jet. now i have tried the normal solution of chucking the print head in really hot water and no dice. Now i can either go out and buy a new printhead which is normally almost as much as a new printer so it normally means i buy a new printer. I usually buy a bubblejet as they are the cheapest.
Now this time i am considering a different kind of printer possible a laser type so i am wondering what kind of printer is best at doing nothing
I have no interest what so ever photoprinting and little interest in color
_________________________
P.Allison fixer of big engines
Mk2+Mk2a signed by God / Hacked by the Lord
Aberdeen Scotland
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#268398 - 31/10/2005 04:59
Re: fecking printers
[Re: thinfourth2]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31578
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Yes, absolutely, laser printers are best at doing nothing.
Now, for the record, it's the Epson inkejet printers that are notorious for clogging up when they sit and do nothing. My Canon inkejet printer has been fine even when it sits and does nothing.
But if you don't care about color, a laser printer definitely will do the trick. And you can get some pretty cheap lasers these days.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268399 - 31/10/2005 08:25
Re: fecking printers
[Re: tfabris]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
We've had a whole herd of printers over the past few years, and there are quite a few things to note.
Tony's right about Epsons, we had a Stylus Colour something or the other a few years ago and it had a lot of problems. Heads clogged up, banding issues, general lameness. It didn't last long.
Another one to avoid is Lexmark. There is an all-in-one here which requires 100MB+ of drivers to get working, and brings the computer down to a crawl when it is in use. Not just that, but the cartridges are expensive, the print quality is lame and only the scanner works now. Total waste of time, I'd love to Office Space all over it - definately one to avoid.
As for other inkjets, I totally recommend HP. My Deskjet 5550 can sit at home idle for months on end and still be able to print flawlessly when I ask it to. The quality is great too. That one replaced a Deskjet 510 which was working for nearly 10 years! In fact it is in my garage and I bet it still works - its like a cross between a printer and a tank.
Laser though is defiantely the way forward. I bought my sister a Samsung ML-something (there is a ML1610 here which is on offer today at 50 pounds inc VAT if you are in the UK). The printer is cheap, the toner is comparatively a little expensive but not a great big deal. For light printing, its ideal. Fast, and the quality is fantastic. As a bonus, this Samsung and my HP both work near enough plug and play in CUPS on my Linux file/print server and on Mac.
Another alternative is Brother. At work we have a HL-5140, which never fails and I still haven't needed to change the toner in 10,000 pages! Very much recommended if you print a lot.
Edited by sein (31/10/2005 08:38)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268400 - 31/10/2005 09:02
Re: fecking printers
[Re: sein]
|
member
Registered: 24/05/2000
Posts: 108
Loc: UK
|
Until, recently I had an Epson Stylus Photo 950 (960 in the US), and it was the biggest pile of cr*p ever.
If you were a Windows user, then all of the advertised features worked just fine. Try and print borderless with a Mac or Linux, and you were stuffed. Epson simply don't have a clue when it comes to plaforms other than Windows.
In addition, any time I left the printer for more than a few days, the head would dry out, and I'd spend about half an hour running cleaning cycles.
As for the cost of the ink......just don't get me started.
I've recently purchased a Canon Pixma 4000, and it's the best printer I've ever owned. It's great at text and graphics, and also fantastic for photos. It has a duplex capability for double sided printing, two paper trays (so you can have your A4/letter and photo paper loaded at the same time) and CD/DVD printing (in the UK, anyway. I believe the US models, don't have this.). I was a bit sceptical about the quality with only 5 inks (cyan, yellow, magenta, black and photo black), but it's brilliant. It easily produces prints that match my old Epson (which had 7 inks).
Best of all, it uses the same ink tank system that most Canon printers from the last 5 years have featured. This means that the cartridges are very reasonable. If you use non-OEM ink, you can buy a whole set for about $5!!!!!
There is a new version of this printer (IP4200), which is supposed to deliver even better results. The only downside is a new ink tank system, which means the existing cartridges aren't compatible.
If you are in the market for a great all round printer, you can't go wrong with the Pixma.
Andy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268401 - 31/10/2005 09:49
Re: fecking printers
[Re: sein]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
Quote:
As for other inkjets, I totally recommend HP. My Deskjet 5550 can sit at home idle for months on end and still be able to print flawlessly when I ask it to. The quality is great too. That one replaced a Deskjet 510 which was working for nearly 10 years! In fact it is in my garage and I bet it still works - its like a cross between a printer and a tank.
Ditto. I've got an HP Deskjet and I've never had any problems with it even with very infrequent use. You're paying for the extra reliability however because the cartridges contain the ink + printhead. Get the duplex module as well for it if you can as it very handy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268402 - 31/10/2005 09:58
Re: fecking printers
[Re: sein]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4174
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Another one to avoid is Lexmark. There is an all-in-one here which requires 100MB+ of drivers to get working, and brings the computer down to a crawl when it is in use. Not just that, but the cartridges are expensive, the print quality is lame and only the scanner works now.
I recently got a Lexmark E332N, and while I've certainly not had it long enough to have anything sensible to say about its reliability, the print quality is fine and the toner seemed quite sensibly-priced. (The Samsung was cheaper, but didn't have Postscript.)
I hear you on the drivers, though: all the documentation said that I had to download and install a 10Mb binary RPM in order to print to it, but the whole reason I got it is that it's a networked LPD printer, and all it actually needed was a single line added to /etc/printcap...
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268403 - 31/10/2005 10:06
Re: fecking printers
[Re: thinfourth2]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 13/04/2001
Posts: 1742
Loc: The land of the pale blue peop...
|
Well tryed a new method of fixing it, hovering the printhead, it got mixed results so i decided to try a 5 pound lump hammer. Still doesn't work but i feel a bit better about it.
So i have now got a HP laserjet 1020 apart from the problem of getting it home in the caterham ended up strapping it in with the 4 point harness into the passenger seat. We shall see how it goes.
_________________________
P.Allison fixer of big engines
Mk2+Mk2a signed by God / Hacked by the Lord
Aberdeen Scotland
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268404 - 31/10/2005 10:09
Re: fecking printers
[Re: peter]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/08/2001
Posts: 886
Loc: London, UK
|
I ditched my HP Deskjet a while back and replaced it with a cheap Samsung ML1710 Laser which just works great. It's pretty quick, quality is good, and it's small.
Replacement toners are about as much as the printer itself, but a quick google reveals that the toner can be easily refilled for about £8 - I've refilled it twice now and it's still churning out good quality prints. With "toner save" turned on, it seems to last almost for ever anyway.
_________________________
Mk2a RioCar 120Gb - now sold to the owner of my old car
Rio Karma - now on ebay...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268405 - 31/10/2005 10:31
Re: fecking printers
[Re: thinfourth2]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
Quote:
i decided to try a 5 pound lump hammer. Still doesn't work but i feel a bit better about it.
heh. If it doesn't work then hit it. If it still doesn't work then hit it with something bigger 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268406 - 31/10/2005 11:03
Re: fecking printers
[Re: tman]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
I've got a six year old HP Deskjet 970ix and still use it as my primary home printer. My only complaint is that b&w document printing speed sucks compared to a laser printer.
Warning: the very newest HP printers have changed the design to have fixed print heads and replaceable tanks. While this may keep their costs down, I'm concerned that this moves them much closer to the Epson camp, in terms of unreliable design.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268407 - 31/10/2005 11:26
Re: fecking printers
[Re: sein]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5682
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
Another one to avoid is Lexmark.
I've got a Lexmark Z-something inkjet. The quality's pretty good, but the cartridges tend to dry out. Lexmark-branded cartridges cost 30% of the price of the printer, which can get expensive really quickly.
I bought it to do general documents and a bit of photo printing. However, it takes so long for the photos to print (although they are good quality), that I hardly ever do that now. So, I'm going to replace it with a B&W laser printer at some point soon.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268408 - 31/10/2005 12:20
Re: fecking printers
[Re: DWallach]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
Quote:
Warning: the very newest HP printers have changed the design to have fixed print heads and replaceable tanks.
*gasp*. Everyone has always been telling me HP disposable heads are expensive and this is bad - but I've always seen it as a great thing for reliability and consistant quality printing. I hope they can make fixed heads work as well.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268409 - 31/10/2005 12:49
Re: fecking printers
[Re: sein]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5914
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
As for other inkjets, I totally recommend HP. My Deskjet 5550 can sit at home idle for months on end and still be able to print flawlessly when I ask it to. The quality is great too. That one replaced a Deskjet 510 which was working for nearly 10 years! In fact it is in my garage and I bet it still works - its like a cross between a printer and a tank.
I'll put up another vote for HP Deskjets, I often leave them for months at a time and they never clog up.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268410 - 31/10/2005 12:50
Re: fecking printers
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
Quote:
Warning: the very newest HP printers have changed the design to have fixed print heads and replaceable tanks. While this may keep their costs down, I'm concerned that this moves them much closer to the Epson camp, in terms of unreliable design.
Hmm. Good to know that. Unfortunately I don't see how it'll be any better than Epson however just because there is only so much you can do to prevent the head from clogging.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268411 - 31/10/2005 13:08
Re: fecking printers
[Re: sein]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
Quote:
Another one to avoid is Lexmark. There is an all-in-one here which requires 100MB+ of drivers to get working
I have to correct myself, its actually 20MB of drivers. I did think it was more than that on the CD but that probably included a bunch of other fluff, in probably a few other languages too.
I still hate it with a vengence. The one I am talking about is an X73 All-In-One which my dad 'wisely' bought from QVC. It was cheap, but if you take a look inside you can see less circuitary than a calculator - it is all done by the host. It looks cheap, feels cheap... but it was cheap, that is true.
Some people are happy with their Lexmarks, and so I will keep a semi-open mind about the other models.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268413 - 31/10/2005 21:12
Re: fecking printers
[Re: thinfourth2]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5543
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
I usually buy a bubblejet as they are the cheapest.
No, no, a thousand timesl NO.
What you pay for the printer itself is almost irrelevant. The expense you must consider is your cost per copy.
Some "inexpensive" ink jet printers will have a cost per copy in excess of 10 cents per page. A $99 printer will will cost you more for the ink than you paid for the printer before you've used your second ream of paper.
By contrast, the Kyocera printer I use at work (and I have one at home as well) prints at a cost of less than 1/4 cent per page. (CPP figures exclude cost of the paper). We paid a fair chunk of change for the printer at work, but it is saving us more than $2,000 per year in consumables, compared to what even a reasonably efficient HP laser printer (2.5 cents per page) would cost us. In the time we've had it, the printer has saved us at least six times what we paid for it. It has been nearly as reliable as an anvil (about all we've had to do is replace a registration clutch) and is completely user serviceable without tools due to its modular construction.
Pay little attention to the up-front cost of purchasing the printer. Watch your operating costs instead, because that is where the vast majority of your printing money goes.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268414 - 31/10/2005 22:14
Re: fecking printers
[Re: Bagpuss]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14484
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
.. Canon Pixma 4000, and it's the best printer I've ever owned. It's great at text and graphics, and also fantastic for photos. It has a duplex capability for double sided printing, two paper trays (so you can have your A4/letter and photo paper loaded at the same time) and CD/DVD printing (in the UK, anyway. I believe the US models, don't have this.)
...
There is a new version of this printer (IP4200), which is supposed to deliver even better results. The only downside is a new ink tank system, which means the existing cartridges aren't compatible.
The duplex capability is worthless -- it scrubs/cleans the printheads between paper-flips (every sheet), wasting tons of ink. Don't bother using that feature. But the rest of it is wonderful
I have been using an Epson 1270 wide carriaged inkjet for the past 4 years or so. Really good photo prints, in hefty sizes, too. But the single combined colour cartridge was expensive, especially since the printer forces me to replace it before it is actually empty -- "chipped" cartridges, rather than a real low-ink detection system. And this is one SLOW printer. 5 minutes or so for an 8x10", and no "borderless" capability.
So I just (last week) bought an 8-ink (individual cartridges) Canon Pixma ip8500 -- top of the line 8.5" carriage photo printer. VERY VERY fast compared with the Epson -- about 90 seconds in real life for an 8x10" glossy photograph. Better quality than the Epson (kinda expected, since it is a couple generations newer than my ancient 1270). Same paper handling features as the Pixma ip4000, and the same cartridges too -- though mine also uses additional colours over the basic ip4000 set. And like the ip4000, it has an optical ink-low detection system, which does NOT force me to change cartridges unless I choose to. Fantastic!
But the best feature is, it lives on my bookshelf over my desk -- completely front-access for paper handling and general operation, so it sits with a mere 10mm clearance under the shelf above. At least until I need to replace an ink tank..
Now, what to do with the 1270.. ?? I still like being able to print large format photos, but it's pretty easy these days to have those done at the local camera shop for CAD$10 or so. And I can free up half a table top by getting rid of the beast..
Cheers
Edited by mlord (31/10/2005 22:15)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268415 - 31/10/2005 22:19
Re: fecking printers
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14484
Loc: Canada
|
One further note on Canon Pixma printers:
Both the ip4000 and the one I have, the ip8500, are 2004 model-year printers. The new 2005 editions have the same stupid "chipped ink cartridge" feature that my Epson had, and are rumoured to hold (slightly) less ink than the 2004 generation as well.
So, avoid Canon Pixma printers with a "2" in the second digit, as well as any obviously new models. Go for the ones that use BCI-6 inks -- those are the non-chipped generation. The ip5000 is the rare hybrid -- has the newest tiny droplet size, but still uses the old cartridges. I almost got that (CAD$150) rather than the older ip8500 (CAD$400).
cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#268416 - 01/11/2005 00:58
Re: fecking printers
[Re: sein]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 17/12/2000
Posts: 2665
Loc: Manteca, California
|
Quote:
Another alternative is Brother. At work we have a HL-5140, which never fails and I still haven't needed to change the toner in 10,000 pages! Very much recommended if you print a lot.
I'll second this recommendation. Least expensive cost per page in a small laser printer. It's quiet when not in use and quiet enought otherwise.
The most trouble I've had with it, is after the power fails and I have to bump the power button to restart it. That and my neice steeling all the paper from it for coloring.
_________________________
Glenn
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index