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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
On 2019-01-21 17:16, Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-01-21 15:44, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote: [...] We actually pay extra to have fast, reliable, high-quality, printing which comes from single-function devices. [...] Of course, for specialised business and professional use that makes perfect sense. However, OP complained he could find only 3-in-1s, which suggests he wasn't looking in shops that cater to business/enterprise clients. He also referred to a "reasonable price", which I saw as a clue that he wanted a mass-market printer. His requirements weren't clear enough to be sure about that, of course, but I thought it would be useful to comment about why 3-in-1s are proliferating in what appeared to be his price range. It may be he wants a business quality printer for a mass-market price. Ain't gonna happen. Adding scan and print capability to a copier does _not_ add "cost and complexity." Yes, it does. For a small business or professional office that needs a copier and has modest printing needs, a good 3-in-1 could make a lot more sense than three separate machines. The printer section on most multifunctions gets a lot more work than the scan or fax sections. Having a separate scanner or a large copier would allow people to copy files while the printer is busy. The big floor-standing copiers we have will print from over the network, will scan from over the network, and will fax from over the network. Mostly they're used as copiers: print one copy on one of the single-function printers, verify that all is well, do a mass copy on one of the big copiers. It's trivial for one of the big copiers to scan things to email or to someone's fileshare even while a big copy job is ongoing. Cheap multifunction devices have problems doing more than one thing at a time. I personally have a Brother HL-2070N. It's 15 years old and still works nicely, printing text documents. Good for you. I have a Brother DCP-7040 3-in-1, bought 2nd-hand, and now at least 6 years old, a discontinued product. It's the best copier I've ever owned, an excellent b/w and pretty good gray-scale printer. Scans (in colour), too, but I hardly ever use it for that. It's still supported in that Brother uses the same drum and toner cartridges for other models. I also have an Epson ET-3600, which will more than pay for itself when the ink runs out (it came with one spare set of ink bottles). It's a pretty good colour copier, too. FWIW, I think some people's opposition to colour laser printers is misplaced. If you want to print nice pictures for family and friends, a colour inkjet is likely the best choice for you, but if you want to print brochures, flyers, and posters, a colour laser will do a more than adequate job and at much lower cost than an inkjet. A colour laser will be fine for business graphics. Not so fine for photos and artwork, unless you get a very serious colour laser. If I need good photo/artwork copy, I go to a specialised printer (not a multifunction, a dedicated _printer_) such as an inkjet, a crayonjet, or a dye-sub. Those things are expensive to purchase and expensive to use (have you seen what ink for high-end inkjets, or wax for crayonjets, or [shudder] dye strips for a dye-sub, _cost_?) but they give very good output. Colour lasers tend to have problems with colour reproduction. They're just not good enough, yet. Grayscale lasers handle text very well indeed. If someone prints mostly text, use a laser. Best, |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
On 2019-01-21 17:04, FredW wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:28:14 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Ken Blake wrote: Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced A4 Inkjet printer for Windows 10 that will not reject compatible cartridges? buy genuine cartridges. problem solved. expensive, expensive, expensive cheaper than buying a new printer. Off-brand cartridges often cause problems, often by design. I always recommend laser printers rather than inkjets. bad advice. Good advice (practice proven). Use lasers for text, something else for graphics. laser printers are not always ideal or even desirable, especially for photos, and there are many very good inkjet printers. Read the part about photos in the article! Did you read the article at all or did you just jump to an opinion. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
On 2019-01-21 17:30, nospam wrote:
In article , FredW wrote: Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced A4 Inkjet printer for Windows 10 that will not reject compatible cartridges? buy genuine cartridges. problem solved. expensive, expensive, expensive not as expensive as having a printer that fails because you used **** quality ink. go read about ink clogs due to third party inks. mostly they fail because the printer detects something Not Genuine Epson(tm) or HP or whatever (Canon are particularly bad) and has a hissy fit. the results also look better with genuine ink, especially with colour, because the default colour profiles will be wrong for different inks. Epson inks really do look better. I usually buy Epson inks for my Epson. That said, I have been known to use off-brand ink. The Epson usually has a fit until I hit it a few times. and genuine cartridges are not that expensive. they also go on sale a lot. Even on sale Epson cartridges cost two to three times what off-brand cartridges cost. I always recommend laser printers rather than inkjets. bad advice. Good advice (practice proven). it's bad advice. no printer is perfect for every situation. recommending laser printers without knowing someone's actual needs is not only bad advice, but does a disservice to them. there are a lot of very good inkjet printers out there, which for many people, is a *better* choice than laser. that depends. If they print a lot of text, lasers are better. My old Brother laser is 15 years old. It has printed in excess of 25,000 pages in that time, going through multiple toner cartridges and drums. Brother uses a system which uses separate drums and cartridges, typically three cartridges per drum. I am currently on the 2nd drum. I'll be getting a new drum soon. laser printers are not always ideal or even desirable, especially for photos, and there are many very good inkjet printers. Read the part about photos in the article! you mean the part where it says to use an outside service, thereby confirming that laser printers are not suitable for photos, exactly as i said? Did you read the article at all or did you just jump to an opinion. i read it and it's complete bull****. it ends with this nonsense: For the most part, your at-home printing will most likely consist of just black-and-white documents. And even then, you probably don¹t print that much, so a single toner cartridge can potentially last you several years, whereas ink cartridges will eventually expire and dry up on you. This makes laser printers a perfect option for a residential setting that's a whole lot of generalizations. if someone doesn't print that much, they don't need a printer at all. take it to a print shop, just as they suggest for the occasional photo. also, toner cartridges do not last several years. they expire, just like a lot of things. Hmm. My Brother cartridges have lasted several years. I'm on my eighth cartridge in 15 years. That's just under two years per cartridge. Toner cartridges are big plastic boxes full of small plastic particles. Plastic particles do not expire. Other vendors might include the drum with the cartridge. The _drum_ might have a rated life, but that will usually be measured in number of pages printed, not as an 'expires by' date. The drum in my Brother shows approximately 20% of rated life left. It is a 3rd-party drum, and I've been using 3rd-party toner; Brother charges $60 for new toner cartridges and $80 for a new drum; I got 3rd-party cartridges for under $30 and a 3rd-party drum for about the same. The printer cost $135 new, which meant that I really didn't want to spend $80 for a new drum. Even if I'd bought the official Brother toner, that would have been cheaper than ink for my Epson: $58 for three colour cartridges and $32 for two black cartridges. The Brother prints thousands of pages per cartridge, the Epson prints hundreds. There is simply no question but that the Brother is considerably more economical. If a users mostly prints text, then a laser is simply and obviously the better choice. At the office we have a service which replaces the toner without the users having to do anything. I have no idea what toner costs for the HP grayscale lasers or the Canon colour copiers, that doesn't get charged to my cost centre. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
"Panthera Tigris Altaica" wrote in message
... cheaper than buying a new printer. Off-brand cartridges often cause problems, often by design. I've been struggling with my printer all afternoon after replacing the cartridges. It refuses to recognise one of the cartridges, no matter whether I use the old (almost empty) one or the new one. I've checked all the obvious things like dirty contacts, contact pins that have got stuck in and so aren't pressing on the cartridge. It's a weird symptom, because if I remove all the cartridges and then add them one by one, it reports "cannot recognise" for just the ones that are missing. But once I add the last one, it says "Cannot recognise cyan", even though it was not moaning about that one until I put the last one of another colour in place. That's for clone cartridges and an Epson printer, which are the most fussy, but the previous set of cartridges of the same brand worked perfectly - and lasted a *lot* longer than the Epson ones, in terms of not drying up or running out. Looks as if I'll need a new printer, so I've just wasted £14 on a set of cartridges :-( The annoying thing is that many printers will not even print in black if one of the colours is empty or malfunctioning. My old HP was good for that - it would print in black only, no matter what problem there was with the colour cartridge, but most nowadays are very fussy and don't have any limp-home black-only capability. A laser printer may be more complicated mechanically, but they rarely seem to have problems when you change the toner - you never get "cannot recognise toner" or streaking printing if you haven't used it for a while. Inkjets IMHO give better quality colour photographs than lasers (the latter tend to be rather garish and not as subtle colours) but they are very fussy, and don't like being left idle. Before I switched from Epson to clone cartridges in my inkjet, I had to set a reminder to print a test page every few days to make sure the ink didn't dry up. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
"Wolf K" wrote in message
... Look, all the points you've made are good ones. However, OP wants a printer for home use, the occasional photo and document. He can't get what he wants "at a reasonable price", and he's from North Yorkshire, a region of the UK known for caring about "money management." Oi! I'm from North Yorkshire! I could easily take offence - except that I agree that we *do* have a well-deserved reputation for "caring about money-management" - a brilliant euphemism for "being tight-fisted" - and I'll grant you that we Yorkshire folk vie with the Scots for being "careful" with money. There's even a Yorkshire dialect word "thoil" which is hard to define, but if you said "I'll not thoil spending £100 on a set of cartridges" it implies "I can afford £100 - but I think spending it on cartridges, which should be much cheaper, is a waste of money". It embodies the spirit that it is not only the loss of the money to you, but much more importantly, the fact that someone else gains by receiving the money. My grandfather had a motto: "only a fool pays for *anything* in life if he can get it *legally* for free". That's why I tend to park a little way out of the town centre, for free, rather than paying exorbitant parking charges to save me a walk of a few hundred yards. I wouldn't go as far as he did: he was once heard to utter the words "I'd rather burn this five pound note than give it to the council for parking". That's verging on being stingy, which is very different from "caring about money-management" ;-) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote: Every inkjet clogs by just leaving it unused for some time. The time varies. A week, a month, a year. false. No--true. It is one of the most often posted problems with inkjets. nope. *some* inkjets clog. not all of them, usually due to improper use. older epsons did have a problem with clogging but they fixed that long ago. modern epsons rarely, if ever, clog, unless someone uses noname ink, which isn't epson's fault. Printers try to mitigate the problem by running automatic "clean" cycles that can blow through your ink when not printing pages. Power off the printer for extended times where these "clean" cycles cannot occur and you will discover how imperfect the seal is on the rubber booted capping station. not true. a printer that's off with its heads properly parked is not likely to clog, and clean cycles don't 'blow through ink' unless it's *really* clogged and requires more than one cycle. If you print basically documents a monochrome laser is very cost effective. Especially if you print very infrequently, a cheap laser will be much cheaper. it can be. not always. Color lasers are less so, but produce great quality graphics. Affordability depends on your usage. graphics are not photos. nobody cares what shade the colours in a bar graph is, but they *do* care about the colours in a photo. If you need photos a dedicated photo inkjet is questionable depending on your circumstances. If you print them occasionally getting a WalMart or Kinkos do it makes far more sense, unless like me where it is a long trek to the store. (I suffer with an OfficeJet as a result) sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. walmart and many other places won't print photos if they're "too good" because they think they're stolen. https://petapixel.com/2011/11/08/wal...n-release-for- photos-that-look-too-professional/ If you need to print some photos taken by someone else using print services at places like Walmart, be careful: if the photographs look ³too professional² some places will require a written copyright release before allowing you to pick up the prints ‹ even after you¹ve paid for them. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c..._wont_print_my _photos_because_they_look/ UPDATE I went back to wally world with my wife and spoke to someone at the photo desk. She explained that it was Walmart policy that any "professional-looking" photos are required to be accompanied by a release form, as well as the "original media" that the photos were recorded on. I asked for a copy of that policy in writing, which she couldn't produce. I asked at whom's discretion it was determined whether a photo was professional or not, to which she replied "Mine." She also explained that I would have to have unedited original images from the camera to prove that I took them. That seems ridiculous to me, so we had them shred the photos in front of us, and we are taking our business elsewhere. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
In article , Ken Blake
wrote: When it comes to photos, how good they are depends on the particular brand and model. Some are much better than others. laser printers do not print photos very well, no matter what brand or model. their colour gamut is not that big and they can't be calibrated properly. Since I almost never print photos, I don't care. clearly. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
In article , Wolf K
wrote: Adding scan and print capability to a copier does_not_ add "cost and complexity." of course it does. adding a scanner mechanism and usually also a sheet feeder costs more than it not being there. Er, I haven't seen a copier without a scanning mechanisms and a sheet feeder in donkey's years. the topic is printers, and there are a *lot* of printers without scanner mechanisms. So what? OP isn't buying for a business. nobody said he was. The topic is "a printer for home use at a reasonable price that isn't a 3-in-1?", as OP has clarified. He's already found that in the price range he wants its' 3-in-1 or nothing where he lives. His thrifty soul resent having to what he doesn't want in order to get what he does want. I empathise, which is why I thought it would be useful to explain why that's so. If you think that's OT, that's OK. why don't you explain why you insist that he get a multifunction when all he wants is a printer? Where do you shop? online I suspected as much. You probably also toss all the flyers you get in your snail-mail box, too. I don't. I like to know what vendors think is trending, and what they want to unload before it become unsaleable. what's being advertised is not the same as what's available. there's a *lot* of stuff that *isn't* in the flyers and searching online can find all of it. no wonder you have no clue about what's available. you've never looked. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
In article , Panthera Tigris Altaica
wrote: Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced A4 Inkjet printer for Windows 10 that will not reject compatible cartridges? buy genuine cartridges. problem solved. expensive, expensive, expensive not as expensive as having a printer that fails because you used **** quality ink. go read about ink clogs due to third party inks. mostly they fail because the printer detects something Not Genuine Epson(tm) or HP or whatever (Canon are particularly bad) and has a hissy fit. that can be bypassed. they mostly fail because the ink quality isn't very good. with pigment inks, if the particle size is bigger than in the genuine ink, it can (and probably will) clog. the results also look better with genuine ink, especially with colour, because the default colour profiles will be wrong for different inks. Epson inks really do look better. I usually buy Epson inks for my Epson. That said, I have been known to use off-brand ink. The Epson usually has a fit until I hit it a few times. partly because of the default colour profile. if you switch to a third party ink *and* profile it, the colours should be accurate, but not necessarily as wide of a gamut. there's also less consistency with third party inks, so even if you do profile it, you'll probably have to do that again with the next set. and genuine cartridges are not that expensive. they also go on sale a lot. Even on sale Epson cartridges cost two to three times what off-brand cartridges cost. not always. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
In article , NY
wrote: I've been struggling with my printer all afternoon after replacing the cartridges. It refuses to recognise one of the cartridges, no matter whether I use the old (almost empty) one or the new one. I've checked all the obvious things like dirty contacts, contact pins that have got stuck in and so aren't pressing on the cartridge. It's a weird symptom, because if I remove all the cartridges and then add them one by one, it reports "cannot recognise" for just the ones that are missing. But once I add the last one, it says "Cannot recognise cyan", even though it was not moaning about that one until I put the last one of another colour in place. That's for clone cartridges and an Epson printer, that's why The annoying thing is that many printers will not even print in black if one of the colours is empty or malfunctioning. My old HP was good for that - it would print in black only, no matter what problem there was with the colour cartridge, but most nowadays are very fussy and don't have any limp-home black-only capability. true black requires colour ink. it's a cmyk printer. in some printers, the colour inks can be disabled or replaced with black. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
On 22/01/2019 13.29, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: Every inkjet clogs by just leaving it unused for some time. The time varies. A week, a month, a year. false. True. I have seen it in many places. Many people do not use their printers every week. Perhaps once a month. Then the machine fails. With brand name original inks and cartridges, yes. Just leave your printer totally unused for a month and see. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
"nospam" wrote in message
... In article , NY wrote: I've been struggling with my printer all afternoon after replacing the cartridges. It refuses to recognise one of the cartridges, no matter whether I use the old (almost empty) one or the new one. I've checked all the obvious things like dirty contacts, contact pins that have got stuck in and so aren't pressing on the cartridge. It's a weird symptom, because if I remove all the cartridges and then add them one by one, it reports "cannot recognise" for just the ones that are missing. But once I add the last one, it says "Cannot recognise cyan", even though it was not moaning about that one until I put the last one of another colour in place. That's for clone cartridges and an Epson printer, that's why I can accept that clone inks will be more likely to clog the nozzles, or that they may produce more garish, less subtle colours. But why should a clone cartridge (which may be a genuine one that has been refilled with non-genuine ink) fail to be recognised by the printer? And why should it happen intermittently? I've used two sets of clone cartridges without any problem, and then encounter the problem with another set of the same make/model of cartridge? Incidentally, the clone ink that I've used has had *dramatically* less problem with nozzle-clogging than the genuine ink. Since I don't print photos, and just need spot colour and for coloured backgrounds etc, I'm not too bothered that colour rendition isn't perfect, as long as it is reasonable - and the cartridges last a long time. The only thing I *did* have problems with was refilling existing cartridges from bottles of ink. Tried that with my HP printer and the ink leaked all over the place: I used most of a kitchen roll mopping it up from the inside of the printer :-( The annoying thing is that many printers will not even print in black if one of the colours is empty or malfunctioning. My old HP was good for that - it would print in black only, no matter what problem there was with the colour cartridge, but most nowadays are very fussy and don't have any limp-home black-only capability. true black requires colour ink. it's a cmyk printer. in some printers, the colour inks can be disabled or replaced with black. The ability to print in black, even if it is not true black but a shade of grey, should be available as a limp-home capability on all printers. Things should be designed so they work as *well* as possible when something fails, rather than totally locking up and refusing to work at all. And how many printers *do* print black text in all four colours? Looking at a page of black text under a high-power magnifying glass, I can't see any evidence of coloured ink around the edges of the black text, so it looks as if my printer just uses black ink for black text - but still requires all the cartridges to be working even to do that. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:48:36 -0000, "NY" wrote:
Inkjets IMHO give better quality colour photographs than lasers (the latter tend to be rather garish and not as subtle colours) but they are very fussy, and don't like being left idle. Before I switched from Epson to clone cartridges in my inkjet, I had to set a reminder to print a test page every few days to make sure the ink didn't dry up. I created a task in Task Scheduler that prints a page every Monday at 10:00AM. Maybe that's too often, or not often enough, but so far it's been a fine compromise. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
On 01/22/2019 1:05 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-01-22 13:33, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 22/01/2019 13.29, nospam wrote: In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: Every inkjet clogs by just leaving it unused for some time. The time varies. A week, a month, a year. false. True. I have seen it in many places. Many people do not use their printers every week. Perhaps once a month. Then the machine fails. With brand name original inks and cartridges, yes. Just leave your printer totally unused for a month and see. nospam lives a very sheltered life. I really feel sorry for his poor dear wife. Rene |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Inkjets UK.
nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little wrote: Every inkjet clogs by just leaving it unused for some time. The time varies. A week, a month, a year. false. No--true. It is one of the most often posted problems with inkjets. nope. *some* inkjets clog. not all of them, usually due to improper use. Of course you say that... Well funny thing that both my experience and numerous complaints on support forums appear refute your blanket pronouncement. older epsons did have a problem with clogging but they fixed that long ago. modern epsons rarely, if ever, clog, unless someone uses noname ink, which isn't epson's fault. Both piezo like Epson and thermal inkjet most of the others have issues. Pieszo are less likely to clog, but when they do it's a bitch. Thermals do but that mitigate the issue where most replace the heads with the ink reservoir. Printers try to mitigate the problem by running automatic "clean" cycles that can blow through your ink when not printing pages. Power off the printer for extended times where these "clean" cycles cannot occur and you will discover how imperfect the seal is on the rubber booted capping station. not true. a printer that's off with its heads properly parked is not likely to clog, and clean cycles don't 'blow through ink' unless it's *really* clogged and requires more than one cycle. Again, as I said all depends on how well the capping station seals. Pull a printer out of storage for a year, any brand, odds are it will not print properly and may be fix with the ol' window clearner trick. If you print basically documents a monochrome laser is very cost effective. Especially if you print very infrequently, a cheap laser will be much cheaper. it can be. not always. No it will be. Ink ain't cheap and monochrome toner cartridges are cheap ~#30 and print more pages than $20-30 ink cartridge. And you can turn off the printer for years and fire it up and it will print. Color lasers are less so, but produce great quality graphics. Affordability depends on your usage. graphics are not photos. I didn't say they were, it is why I specified *graphics* nobody cares what shade the colours in a bar graph is, but they *do* care about the colours in a photo. No so much colors so much as rasterization of a photo and subtle tints are hard for lasers. If you need photos a dedicated photo inkjet is questionable depending on your circumstances. If you print them occasionally getting a WalMart or Kinkos do it makes far more sense, unless like me where it is a long trek to the store. (I suffer with an OfficeJet as a result) sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. walmart and many other places won't print photos if they're "too good" because they think they're stolen. https://petapixel.com/2011/11/08/wal...n-release-for- photos-that-look-too-professional/ If you need to print some photos taken by someone else using print services at places like Walmart, be careful: if the photographs look ³too professional² some places will require a written copyright release before allowing you to pick up the prints ‹ even after you¹ve paid for them. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c..._wont_print_my _photos_because_they_look/ UPDATE I went back to wally world with my wife and spoke to someone at the photo desk. She explained that it was Walmart policy that any "professional-looking" photos are required to be accompanied by a release form, as well as the "original media" that the photos were recorded on. I asked for a copy of that policy in writing, which she couldn't produce. I asked at whom's discretion it was determined whether a photo was professional or not, to which she replied "Mine." She also explained that I would have to have unedited original images from the camera to prove that I took them. That seems ridiculous to me, so we had them shred the photos in front of us, and we are taking our business elsewhere. Never had an issues with my studio shots... -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|