A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Annoying printers



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old October 1st 18, 02:55 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Annoying printers

On 09/30/2018 12:58 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

[snip]

When a toner costs as much as a whole inkjet, no way.* Then you have
fuser, drum, .....


A Toner cartridge lasts a lot longer than an ink cartridge, and it
doesn't dry out which it the cause of much waste. For those other parts,
it could be years before you need a new one.

--
85 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1
day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful." [Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65
A.D.)]
Ads
  #47  
Old October 1st 18, 03:01 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Annoying printers

On 09/30/2018 01:04 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

[snip]

to mention the ****ing annoying animations they insist on
putting into dialog boxes.* I don't need a cartoon to tell me paper is
going into the printer, I can ****ing see it for myself!


The Animation is a separate process that doesn't depend on the thing
it's supposed to be monitoring. The first time I discovered that was
doing a download using MSIE. I had physically disconnected the internet
cable and that stupid animation kept going.

[snip]

--
85 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1
day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful." [Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65
A.D.)]
  #48  
Old October 1st 18, 03:24 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Annoying printers

On 09/30/2018 11:41 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Why is it, that in the 21st century, printers never do what you tell
them to?* They forget you want landscape, they forget the number of
copies, they refuse to cancel a job you've sent, they try to use colour
ink for a black and white image and take 5 times longer, they can't feed
a piece of paper without jamming it, the nozzles clog up every five
minutes, the ink cartridges are stupidly small, and they **** about for
ten minutes doing god knows what, spinning the roller and moving the
cartridge back and forth for no reason before they get to work!


I now have an Epson inkjet that refuses to print anything black (colors
are all OK), even after several cleanings and a new black cartridge.

A new printer probably can't use the same cartridges, so more waste.

Mostly I use the laser, which never has ink clogs.

--
85 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1
day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful." [Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65
A.D.)]
  #49  
Old October 1st 18, 04:00 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Annoying printers

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Presumably if it was a monochrome photo, the printer would reproduce it
even if it did use colour ink.


Yes, but it will have a colour cast. Even when setting properties to
grey-scale there may be a colour cast, because the paper also affects
the final result. IME, the colour cast may take a day or two to appear.


either you're using incredibly bad inks or you're doing something else
wrong.

All things considered, it's amazing we get the generally high quality


true.
  #50  
Old October 1st 18, 04:00 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Annoying printers

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:

A Toner cartridge lasts a lot longer than an ink cartridge, and it
doesn't dry out which it the cause of much waste. For those other parts,
it could be years before you need a new one.


that depends on the size of each and recent inkjet printers rarely clog.
  #51  
Old October 1st 18, 04:00 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Annoying printers

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:

Buying almost any laser printer is the better choice.


not necessarily. for photos, it's a much worse choice.


My current Brother laser printer won't print photos on glossy paper, but
it does a decent job on plain paper.


it's not as good as what an inkjet can do, even if it's not a photo
quality inkjet printer.
  #52  
Old October 1st 18, 04:00 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Annoying printers

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


Buying almost any laser printer is the better choice.

not necessarily. for photos, it's a much worse choice.

What you want to print the photos for? If it's for sales promotion, a
laser printer is best.


false, and photos is only one example, not the only example.


What are your criteria for good-better-best? For a sales brochure or
flyer, cost is a major factor. FYI, I receive snail-mailed flyers
frequently, laser printed in-house by the vendors, and with
near-photo-quality images, which are more than good enough to illustrate
the products. You need a lupe to see the dots. Way better than letter
press with half tones back in the Golden age.


inkjet printers have a wider colour gamut and can be calibrated for a
colour managed workflow, regardless whether they're a photo printer or
not. they can also accept a wider range of media, including directly
printing on cd/dvds.

laser printers are suitable for text. colour laser (which can get
expensive) is suitable for simple graphics where colour accuracy
doesn't matter. laser printers also have a more limited range of
acceptable media.

if this mythical sales brochure includes photos of products, inkjet is
definitely the better choice so that the product is accurately shown.

If it's for sharing snapshot size prints with
family and friends, a photo-quality printer is certainly better.


a photo-quality inkjet printer is not required to be better than laser.

If it's
for larger, archival quality prints for sale, a high-end "giclee"
printer is better still.


not necessarily.


"It ain't necessarily so." Of course.

You persist in parsing generalisations as universals. Only way to score
a "win", I guess. Your problem, not mine.


backpedaling.
  #53  
Old October 1st 18, 05:06 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Annoying printers

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Presumably if it was a monochrome photo, the printer would reproduce it
even if it did use colour ink.

Yes, but it will have a colour cast. Even when setting properties to
grey-scale there may be a colour cast, because the paper also affects
the final result. IME, the colour cast may take a day or two to appear.


either you're using incredibly bad inks or you're doing something else
wrong.


I'm using same brand ink as printer. A variety of papers.


it shouldn't be changing at all. that is *not* the norm.
  #54  
Old October 1st 18, 05:57 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Apd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default Annoying printers

"nospam" wrote:
inkjet printers have a wider colour gamut and can be calibrated for a
colour managed workflow, regardless whether they're a photo printer or
not. they can also accept a wider range of media, including directly
printing on cd/dvds.


I don't own an inkjet but have seen many cases where the ink runs on a
print if it gets wet. Are models available where the ink is permanent?

laser printers are suitable for text. colour laser (which can get
expensive) is suitable for simple graphics where colour accuracy
doesn't matter. laser printers also have a more limited range of
acceptable media.


And the ink won't run.

if this mythical sales brochure includes photos of products, inkjet is
definitely the better choice so that the product is accurately shown.


Not if a postman has to deliver them on a rainy day.


  #55  
Old October 1st 18, 06:35 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Annoying printers

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 08:55:29 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 09/30/2018 12:58 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

[snip]

When a toner costs as much as a whole inkjet, no way.Â* Then you have
fuser, drum, .....


A Toner cartridge lasts a lot longer than an ink cartridge, and it
doesn't dry out which it the cause of much waste. For those other parts,
it could be years before you need a new one.




Yes. As a general rule, ink-jets are less expensive to buy than laser
printers, but they cost more per page to operate. In the long run,
most people are financially ahead with a laser printer.

Ink-jets have often been compared with Gillette razors. Gillette
sometimes gave away the razors, but made their money selling blades
for it.
  #56  
Old October 1st 18, 08:05 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Annoying printers

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

A Toner cartridge lasts a lot longer than an ink cartridge, and it
doesn't dry out which it the cause of much waste. For those other parts,
it could be years before you need a new one.


Yes. As a general rule, ink-jets are less expensive to buy than laser
printers, but they cost more per page to operate. In the long run,
most people are financially ahead with a laser printer.


maybe so, but many people want the highest quality, not the cheapest
option.

for photos, laser is an incredibly bad choice, no matter what any cost
advantage might be.

in some cases, using a print shop is even more cost effective than
laser or inkjet, particularly with large format prints, where the cost
of the printer is quite high and very hard to justify for a home user.

don't assume everything is letter-sized b/w text output.

Ink-jets have often been compared with Gillette razors. Gillette
sometimes gave away the razors, but made their money selling blades
for it.


same for laser printers.
  #57  
Old October 1st 18, 08:05 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Annoying printers

In article , Apd wrote:

inkjet printers have a wider colour gamut and can be calibrated for a
colour managed workflow, regardless whether they're a photo printer or
not. they can also accept a wider range of media, including directly
printing on cd/dvds.


I don't own an inkjet but have seen many cases where the ink runs on a
print if it gets wet. Are models available where the ink is permanent?


for dye-based inks, it might run if it gets wet immediately after
printing, but once it dries (minutes), it won't. pigment-based inks
don't need additional dry time.

very few people print something and then get it wet, so its not
actually a problem.

laser printers are suitable for text. colour laser (which can get
expensive) is suitable for simple graphics where colour accuracy
doesn't matter. laser printers also have a more limited range of
acceptable media.


And the ink won't run.


modern inkjet prints don't run in normal use (and most abnormal use for
that matter).

if this mythical sales brochure includes photos of products, inkjet is
definitely the better choice so that the product is accurately shown.


Not if a postman has to deliver them on a rainy day.


even then, since the mail will be in a mailbox and not sitting outside
in the rain.

or try using an envelope.
  #58  
Old October 1st 18, 08:56 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
malone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Annoying printers

On 2-Oct-2018 8:05 am, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

A Toner cartridge lasts a lot longer than an ink cartridge, and it
doesn't dry out which it the cause of much waste. For those other parts,
it could be years before you need a new one.

Yes. As a general rule, ink-jets are less expensive to buy than laser
printers, but they cost more per page to operate. In the long run,
most people are financially ahead with a laser printer.

maybe so, but many people want the highest quality, not the cheapest
option.

for photos, laser is an incredibly bad choice, no matter what any cost
advantage might be.

in some cases, using a print shop is even more cost effective than
laser or inkjet, particularly with large format prints, where the cost
of the printer is quite high and very hard to justify for a home user.


Yes, I agree.

I stopped buying printers years ago. For the very few times I need a
printer it's easier - and much more cost-effective - to go to one of the
local print shops where they have the best and most recent printers and
the expertise to advise me which printer is best for my job. For a few
dollars it removes all the problems with blocked ink-jets, expensive
toners and stuck paper which I used to have to deal with ...

don't assume everything is letter-sized b/w text output.

Ink-jets have often been compared with Gillette razors. Gillette
sometimes gave away the razors, but made their money selling blades
for it.

same for laser printers.


  #59  
Old October 1st 18, 10:16 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Annoying printers

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:31:07 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2018-10-01 09:55, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 09/30/2018 12:58 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

[snip]

When a toner costs as much as a whole inkjet, no way. Then you have
fuser, drum, .....


A Toner cartridge lasts a lot longer than an ink cartridge, and it
doesn't dry out which it the cause of much waste. For those other parts,
it could be years before you need a new one.


Jimmy is confusing cost of acquisition with cost of ownership.


No I'm not. I've used inkjets and lasers at work and the lasers cost more to buy and more to run. Plus they only print in black, unless you use the very expensive colour lasers.

Even
these days, with laser costing a fraction of former price, lasers are
still cheaper than ink-jets in most cases.

However, things are changing.

Epson and Canon are now offering inkjets with large tanks (300ml or
thereabouts) instead of cartridges. This cuts the ownership cost
enormously: I estimate that by the time I've used up the ink in my Epson
ET 3600, I will have saved around $1500 to $2000 compared to a cartridge
printer. The printer cost $300. Cartridge printers cost anywhere from
$50 to $150, depending on what's "on sale this weekend only".


I fitted a continuous ink system to my inkjet, it costs me 1p per ml. The real cartridges were 13ml, but cost £3 for refills, and £10 for genuines. So at least 24 times cheaper.
  #60  
Old October 1st 18, 10:17 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Annoying printers

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 20:56:38 +0100, malone wrote:

On 2-Oct-2018 8:05 am, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Blake
wrote:

A Toner cartridge lasts a lot longer than an ink cartridge, and it
doesn't dry out which it the cause of much waste. For those other parts,
it could be years before you need a new one.
Yes. As a general rule, ink-jets are less expensive to buy than laser
printers, but they cost more per page to operate. In the long run,
most people are financially ahead with a laser printer.

maybe so, but many people want the highest quality, not the cheapest
option.

for photos, laser is an incredibly bad choice, no matter what any cost
advantage might be.

in some cases, using a print shop is even more cost effective than
laser or inkjet, particularly with large format prints, where the cost
of the printer is quite high and very hard to justify for a home user.


Yes, I agree.

I stopped buying printers years ago. For the very few times I need a
printer it's easier - and much more cost-effective - to go to one of the
local print shops where they have the best and most recent printers and
the expertise to advise me which printer is best for my job. For a few
dollars it removes all the problems with blocked ink-jets, expensive
toners and stuck paper which I used to have to deal with ...


Most people have many uses for a printer and need it done now, not the next day.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.