Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Janaka Cooray · Mar 30, 2005, 10:33 AM

Hi,

Really don't want to spend any more money than absouletly necessary as I do not need anything like presentation-quality documents - just hardcopy for those times I need details off a web page (e.g. company address) off the screen and onto paper. Beats copying using a Bic pen onto paper.

The PC scene is full of el-cheapo printers (Dell even gives them away - though the last one they gave away was XP/2000 compatible only - hence this query)

Any suggestions?

OreoCookie · Mar 30, 2005, 10:47 AM

The cheapest reasonable printer would probably be a Canon Pixma 3000. There are cheaper printers, but I strongly advise against it. Otherwise a set of ink cartridges will cost more than the printer itself.

Goldfinger · Mar 30, 2005, 11:04 AM

Canon IP1500 or Lexmarks, but the ink for those Lexmarks will indeed cost more than the printer. I wanted to buy an IP1500 but I gave up on it since nobody ever had it in stock here and I bought an IP3000, nice little printer. Very quiet.

tooki · Mar 30, 2005, 11:39 AM

If you will only be printing black and white, and you will only be printing occasionally, I'd suggest a cheap laser printer like a LaserJet 1000-series. Inkjet printers in general don't lend themselves to occasional printing, because after sitting for a while, it'll have to clean its heads, wasting a significant amount of ink in the process. Laser printers do not waste any toner no matter how long they've been inactive.

tooki

Mediaman_12 · Mar 30, 2005, 11:52 AM

First off, since 99% of printers these days are USB most are 'Mac Compatible'

I do agree though, 'Cheap Printers' don't really exist. There are loads of HP printers for example which offer high quality printing for very little outlay. But then you really get stung on the Ink Carts

OreoCookie · Mar 30, 2005, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
First off, since 99% of printers these days are USB most are 'Mac Compatible'

I do agree though, 'Cheap Printers' don't really exist. There are loads of HP printers for example which offer high quality printing for very little outlay. But then you really get stung on the Ink Carts

Ditto.
That's how Dell makes money with their `free' printers. The iP3000 by Canon is the cheapest model with four separate ink tanks.

SSharon · Mar 30, 2005, 02:06 PM

I vote for the laser option. I have a brother HL-1450 and I am very happy with it. They recently introduced a faster, and much smaller model that can be had for $100.

Janaka Cooray · Mar 30, 2005, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by SSharon:
I vote for the laser option. I have a brother HL-1450 and I am very happy with it. They recently introduced a faster, and much smaller model that can be had for $100.

I used to own a laser for the PC (some years back now.) I was always impressed by the speed and the quality - thinking about it now - the toner literally lasted for someting like 2000 pages!

Really hadn't thought about the laser option - but my experience with inkjets leads me to believe that the toner doesn't last 2000 pages.

The price of the Canon IP1500 is approx GBP 45. I'm wondering if a laser (whilst initially costing more I'm sure) would actually work out cheaper even in the medium term.

So anyone care to recommend cheap and good lasers for the Mac?

PS Anyone care to shed further light on whether any USB printer will work with the Mac. The review for the Dell 720:

http://www.epinions.com/content_176204189316

says that it only works on Windows 2000/XP. Isn't USB a cross-platform standard though?

OreoCookie · Mar 30, 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Janaka Cooray:
I used to own a laser for the PC (some years back now.) I was always impressed by the speed and the quality - thinking about it now - the toner literally lasted for someting like 2000 pages!

Really hadn't thought about the laser option - but my experience with inkjets leads me to believe that the toner doesn't last 2000 pages.

The price of the Canon IP1500 is approx GBP 45. I'm wondering if a laser (whilst initially costing more I'm sure) would actually work out cheaper even in the medium term.

So anyone care to recommend cheap and good lasers for the Mac?

PS Anyone care to shed further light on whether any USB printer will work with the Mac. The review for the Dell 720:

http://www.epinions.com/content_176204189316

says that it only works on Windows 2000/XP. Isn't USB a cross-platform standard though?

If you mention printing out that many pages, getting such a cheap printer will cost you a fortune! If you include the costs for ink/toner, you will be much better off investing money in a `real' printer.

If you are thinking of getting a really cheap laser, they are sometimes even more expensive than what ink costs for good inkjets. Obviously, if you basically print out bw, a laser is still the way to go. I happily traded my inkjet for my new laser printer (3300 pages in two months).

So how much do you print per month?

Janaka Cooray · Mar 30, 2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
So how much do you print per month? [/B]

I used my old laser for the entire time I was at Uni (4 years) without replacing the cartridge. It cost me GBP 280 - it was a Windows GDI printer - and so the total cost of ownership was GBP 280 over at least 4 years (the printer wasn't compatible with Windows XP, so I got shot of it.)

I actually printed far more when I was a student than I would now (I literally only need to transfer the odd address / map / on-line shop page to paper, when it is convenient to do so.)

Is it ever cheaper to print your own photos than to have them developed? If (as I suspect) it is always cheaper to get CDs developed at a print shop, then I can't really say I need colour. That is why a laser might be an option. If people disagree though - then colour is a must!

To put a number on pages - maybe I would go through a 200 sheets every 6 months? (generous in fact.)

So is a laser overkill? Can I get away with the cheapest printer ever (even with expensive cartridges) if 200 pages / 6 months is the sort of load even the cheapest printers were designed with in mind?

Everyone's opinions welcome

OreoCookie · Mar 30, 2005, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Janaka Cooray:
I used my old laser for the entire time I was at Uni (4 years) without replacing the cartridge. It cost me GBP 280 - it was a Windows GDI printer - and so the total cost of ownership was GBP 280 over at least 4 years (the printer wasn't compatible with Windows XP, so I got shot of it.)

I actually printed far more when I was a student than I would now (I literally only need to transfer the odd address / map / on-line shop page to paper, when it is convenient to do so.)

Is it ever cheaper to print your own photos than to have them developed? If (as I suspect) it is always cheaper to get CDs developed at a print shop, then I can't really say I need colour. That is why a laser might be an option. If people disagree though - then colour is a must!

To put a number on pages - maybe I would go through a 200 sheets every 6 months? (generous in fact.)

So is a laser overkill? Can I get away with the cheapest printer ever (even with expensive cartridges) if 200 pages / 6 months is the sort of load even the cheapest printers were designed with in mind?

Everyone's opinions welcome

A laser would be overkill, I guess.

It is still cheaper to have photos printed than to print them yourself, granted that you order many photos. But you can print photos out right away

I would recommend an ink jet, take a look at the Canon Pixma iP3000. Canons are usually a bit more expensive than the competition, but overall, they are worth it. Do a search on recommended printers and most people (my impression) switched to Canon (from both, HP and Epson).

If you know you will just print bw, you can take a look at some cheap lasers, too. You won't be able to print photos, though.

CIA · Mar 31, 2005, 10:36 AM

When it comes to general paper printing, I'm in nearly the same situation as you. Maybe 100 total pages over 6 months. Printing the hard copy of my taxes out last week (GOD I HATE TAX SEASON) was probably the most my printer has spit out at one time ever. Regardless I still have 2 printers.
I picked up a Epson Stylus photo that can print directly onto CD/DVD's, which I find myself labeling far more often then generic paper printing. It was pricey when I got it, but I love that I can print nice labels on my DVD's.
I also have a lexmark z615 that I only use to print out B&W on paper. This printer I rarely use, and only for taxes/web receipts/mapquest etc.... I think the z615 was about $30 after rebate, and the name brand ink is way more expensive then the printer. But, I buy 3rd party ink off ebay for much much less. The stuff I put on paper is not important, so if the ink sucks or runs out quick no biggie. If I need to go fancy, I print on the stylus photo, or, go to staples/kinkos whatever and do it there. Only needed to do that once in 2 years tho....

Also remember that if you have a modem and 10.3 installed, you can always "print" to your office fax using that nifty fax button in the print dialog 8-)

Mojo · Mar 31, 2005, 01:09 PM

I did not know about the printing-to-fax option; that is a good option for people who don't do much printing and already own a fax machine.

My Two Cents: get a decent laser printer. The price difference is substantial when you calculate ink costs vs. toner cartridges. And inkjet clogging is a real problem, particularly with Epson printers if you don't print regularly (like every day!)

(There are web sites that compare inkjet vs. laser printer costs. Google "inkjet vs. laser printer costs" and you will turn up plenty of information.)

I currently have two Epson printers and a ten year old Apple LaserWriter 360. I haven't used the LaserWriter much (I only recently discovered that I could share it on my wireless network with the addition of an inexpensive AsanteTalk) but it still works fine. Try letting a typical inkjet sit around for months (or even days) between print jobs and see how clogged it gets.

I have owned three different Epson inkjets. The original Stylus Photo (I still have it) was the best, probably because the print heads aren't as small as in later models, so it isn't prone to clogging. An Epson 785EPX developed clogs on a regular basis and I returned it to Costco after seven months (YEA COSTCO!) The Epson Color 880 a friend gave me works o.k., but it refuses to properly print envelopes. (I have given up trying to make it work...) And the ink carts cost around $40...OUCH!

I have come to believe that color inkjets used for printing photos may be the consumer scam of the computer age. The ink is expensive, printers tend to clog, the inkjet paper can be pricey and good results can require a lot of effort to achieve. Unless a person needs to print on a daily basis (updating portfolios, creating color mailings, etc.) I think using a good photo lab is less expensive and takes less time too.

Most of the people I know who use inkjet printers a lot are pro photographers and hobbyists who have replaced a wet darkroom with a digital one. These folks have decided to dedicate a significant amount of time and money to inkjet printing in order to get good results.

A cheap inkjet printer is an excellent example of a false economy. For a little more money you can get a more reliable laser printer and save time, frustration and a ton of pounds...I mean dollars.

anthonyvthc · Mar 31, 2005, 01:39 PM

I was gonna start a new topic, but I figured I'd just hyjack this one. I'm in a similar situation. I would like to get a cheap (B&W only) laser printer that can print 11"x17". Any suggestions? I've checked out the ones mentioned above, but none of them seem to do 11x17.
Thanks.