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,

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.

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.

"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.

"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" ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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