[Mizzou02RS]

Hi there...I am about to purchase an iMac G5 and I am going to need a new printer.

My needs are fairly simple...I just need a good inkjet/laserjet printer...color...and that is about it. Any networking/Bluetooth capabilities would be nice, but not necessary.

What are some good brands that have good quality and work with OS 10.4 well?

Thank you.

[tooki]

Most people here -- myself included -- are big fans of Canon inkjets.

Search this forum for threads with "printer" in the title: this has been discussed many times.


Moreover, what are your needs? (That is, what do you plan to be using it for.) That will help people figure out what is best for you.

tooki

[Timo]

Had great luck with Canon in inkjets.

Otherwise, my workhorse GCC laser printer is still going great.

[Dark Helmet]

You do not want to print with bluetooth. it is slow as hell.

And like everyone else says.... get a canon.

[mduell]

Canon for color inkjet, HP for color laserjet (they're surprisingly cheap).

[wuzup101]

Do you just need to print to standard paper and smaller? Or do you need to print to larger paper sizes? I personally have a canon i950 and I love it to death. It's been working great for 2.5 years now. Even OEM ink for the canon isn't that expensive, and there's plenty of online retailers selling ink that's just as good as OEM for $4 or less a cart. If you need to make larger prints, check out the canon i9900. That's probably the next printer I will be buying...

[itguy05]

Pick one:
Canon, Epson, or Brother. They're all about the same. If you don't print much, get a low end Canon. If you do photos, Epson, if you want a good MFC, Brother.

Yes, I said Brother - if you get it on sale, their MFC series printers are great - networkable, good Mac software, low cost per page. The only downisde is they are a little slow. But for $99, I can live with that, and the ADF scanner + Copy + FAX (with working Mac software that networks with all functions) combination can't be beat.

[tooki]

Do not get an Epson! There is no evidence that they've fixed the clogging problems that plague casual users.

And i'm not sure why one would go with a Brother -- Canon has some great offerings, too, and Canon's ink costs are very low. (Don't go toooo low end on a Canon, be sure to get one with separate ink tanks.)

tooki

[chefpastry]

I agree with tooki's statement about Epson. Clogging is a serious issue with their printers.

Personally, I've been using an HP PSC 2610 and am very happy with it.

[dindaex]

I just started using a Canon PIXMA MP800 multi-function. I really like it so far. It has a small paper tray in addition to a read "stand-up" feed location and allows for separate settings for the two paper locations. Although I haven't done it yet, it does automatic duplex printing. And it scans paper, negatives, or slides and has memory card readers. It is almost completely silent when printing.

I am having some trouble getting my photo colors just right. Can anyone out there offer any advice? How can I verify that I have colorSync configured properly?

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Pick one:
Canon, Epson, or Brother. They're all about the same.

Sorry but Epsons clog all the time and the ink costs 3x as much as Canon.

[itguy05]

Sorry but Epsons clog all the time and the ink costs 3x as much as Canon.

Not the newer models - they have clogging under control.

And the ink costs are not 3x Canon. They are about $0.01 more then Canon. The one that is 3x the cost of Canon is HP....

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

Do not get an Epson! There is no evidence that they've fixed the clogging problems that plague casual users.

Not going to beat this dead horse, but suffice it to say Canons also clog.

And i'm not sure why one would go with a Brother -- Canon has some great offerings, too, and Canon's ink costs are very low. (Don't go toooo low end on a Canon, be sure to get one with separate ink tanks.)

Because Brother has some great Mac software and their printers are 100% supported in network mode on the Mac. Scan, Print, and Fax all across the network. Plug in the Ethernet to your router, load the drivers, and let Bonjour configure it. Then all computers on the network can print to it. It is great to not to have to dedicate a computer to be a print server. The only negative is the speed is a little slow.

And I'm still not 100% sure separate ink tanks are a real money saver. I had an Epson 875DC - 6 color photo printer, the 2 cartridges cost ~ $41 ($19/ Black, $22, color). IIRC, I got about 25 8x10's out of it. I then bought a Canon i960 - 6 cartridges @ $11.50 ea ($69) I would get around 30 8x10's before the first color ran out. The rest were pretty much right on theie heels. So, where's this huge savings I was supposed to see?

Separate tanks are nice, but I think we wouldn't have seen them if there wasn't profit in it for the manufacturers...

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Because Brother has some great Mac software and their printers are 100% supported in network mode on the Mac. Scan, Print, and Fax all across the network. Plug in the Ethernet to your router, load the drivers, and let Bonjour configure it. Then all computers on the network can print to it. It is great to not to have to dedicate a computer to be a print server. The only negative is the speed is a little slow.

The HP PSC 2610 that I use can also be accessed by all the computers on the network. All computers can print, scan, and fax as well.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Not going to beat this dead horse, but suffice it to say Canons also clog.

You, and you alone, seem to say this. You've never been able to produce a single iota of proof of this claim, while there is an entire industry revolving around clogged Epsons.

So I declare -- and I think I have everyone but itguy05's support here -- that Canons DO NOT have the clogging problems that Epsons do.

Because Brother has some great Mac software and their printers are 100% supported in network mode on the Mac. Scan, Print, and Fax all across the network. Plug in the Ethernet to your router, load the drivers, and let Bonjour configure it. Then all computers on the network can print to it. It is great to not to have to dedicate a computer to be a print server. The only negative is the speed is a little slow.

And I'm still not 100% sure separate ink tanks are a real money saver. I had an Epson 875DC - 6 color photo printer, the 2 cartridges cost ~ $41 ($19/ Black, $22, color). IIRC, I got about 25 8x10's out of it. I then bought a Canon i960 - 6 cartridges @ $11.50 ea ($69) I would get around 30 8x10's before the first color ran out. The rest were pretty much right on theie heels. So, where's this huge savings I was supposed to see?

Separate tanks are nice, but I think we wouldn't have seen them if there wasn't profit in it for the manufacturers...

Separate tanks don't save much money except for users who have very skewed printing patterns (e.g. their company logo printed on every sheet in a specific color).

The reason I make this distinction is because with EVERY printer company, the ink costs for low-end printers are much higher than for high-end printers. Canon's low-end printers use small, expensive tanks. All of their individual tanks are very inexpensive, so the printers that use them are more economical to operate.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Not the newer models - they have clogging under control.

And the ink costs are not 3x Canon. They are about $0.01 more then Canon. The one that is 3x the cost of Canon is HP....

Real-world tests have shown Canon ink to be the cheapest, Epson to be about 40% more, and HP to be about 60% more. Brother and Lexmark inks were mad crazy expensive, about twice the cost of Canon.

As for clogging: it's going to take years before Epson's current printers have proven themselves to be as resilient to clogging as Canon and HP printers.

tooki

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Not the newer models - they have clogging under control.

Oh really, how so?

[X-Ray]

Originally Posted by Mizzou02RS

Hi there...I am about to purchase an iMac G5 and I am going to need a new printer.

My needs are fairly simple...I just need a good inkjet/laserjet printer...color...and that is about it. Any networking/Bluetooth capabilities would be nice, but not necessary.

What are some good brands that have good quality and work with OS 10.4 well?

Thank you.

You might want to check into the HP 8250 - prints faster than Canons, recycles the ink so you have no wastage and it uses individual ink tanks.

By the way the only printer that I ever had that clogged (and thus died by the way) was a Canon. Epson printers are such crap that all my professional photographer friends use them! My Epson R1800 doesn't clog - at least not if you use it properly. Another little tidbit - well confirmed rumor has it that Canon is working on producing a pigment based printer - just like the new Epsons ... Ray ex-Canon fanboy

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by X-Ray

My Epson R1800 doesn't clog - at least not if you use it properly.

What is the proper way to use it? Usually, I just open a document and click Print.

[Cadaver]

My printers:
Canon Pixma 5000 for photos/color - very happy.
Brother HL-2070N B&W laser - fast, small, cheap, networkable... and Mac compatible.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by X-Ray

You might want to check into the HP 8250 - prints faster than Canons, recycles the ink so you have no wastage and it uses individual ink tanks.

AFAIK, it doesn't "recycle" ink -- it just has the ability to suck ink back towards the tanks in order to clear clogs, rather than by forcing tons of ink forward in an attempt to wash away the clog, as inkjets have done so far. Since desktop inkjets are "on demand" printers, other than cleaning, no ink is ever used except to print.

tooki

[HazelGirl]

any recs for a mutifunction printer with built in faxing for less than $200? seperate ink would be a plus but not req'd.

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by HazelGirl

any recs for a mutifunction printer with built in faxing for less than $200? seperate ink would be a plus but not req'd.

I've been very happy with my HP PSC 2610.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by HazelGirl

any recs for a mutifunction printer with built in faxing for less than $200? seperate ink would be a plus but not req'd.

Brother MFC-5440CN. Separate ink, network or USB, and built in FAXing.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

You, and you alone, seem to say this. You've never been able to produce a single iota of proof of this claim, while there is an entire industry revolving around clogged Epsons.

BS and you know it. Where is this "entire industry"? Some refillers sell cleaning solutions and there are some documents on how to unclog Epsons, but a "whole industry"? Come on now, you can stop with the BS.

So I declare -- and I think I have everyone but itguy05's support here -- that Canons DO NOT have the clogging problems that Epsons do.

No, the Canons just burn out the heads which looks like a clog. Head over to dpreview.com and search the printer forum and do a few searches and you will see Canons "clog" as well. Difference is Canon's clogs typically are a burnt out printhead rather than a clog. There are a few people there that have burned through multiple Canon heads over time, so they are not immune to clogging too.

If you choose to believe that all the people with Canon "clogs" are lying, that's fine, but you should stop spewing FUD. I've been around these things for a while now and have found both can clog.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

Real-world tests have shown Canon ink to be the cheapest, Epson to be about 40% more, and HP to be about 60% more. Brother and Lexmark inks were mad crazy expensive, about twice the cost of Canon.

I suggest you open your eyes and set aside your bias - even I was enlightened:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/...et/page15.html

For Black, Canon and HP are neck and neck. For a color print, HP was 11% more expensive.

Then we have:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/04/...rs/page16.html

4x6 - Canon $0.32 Epson $0.37 or 13% more expensive (Even the most expensife Epson is 48% more expensive)

Text and graphics were about $0.02 more expensive for the Epson.

Let's look at the costs over 3 years:
Canon - $580
Epson 1 - $625
Epson 2 - $654
Brother - $641

So, the Epson 1 is 7.2% more expensive than the Canon, Epson 2 is 11.3% more expensive than the Canon.

Even the Brother is only 10% more expensive than the Canon.

So, where do you get this 40% figure from? Or is it something else you made up?

[jasong]

I've got a relatively recent Canon MP500 and I love it. Text, photos, and scans all are excellent. I've used the autoduplexer and it's great also. I seriously can't rave enough about this printer.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by itguy05

BS and you know it. Where is this "entire industry"? Some refillers sell cleaning solutions and there are some documents on how to unclog Epsons, but a "whole industry"? Come on now, you can stop with the BS.

No, it's not BS. There IS a whole cottage industry of companies selling cleaning solutions and services. I didn't say it's a multibillion-dollar industry, but it IS an industry nonetheless, and it's an industry that doesn't exist for other inkjet brands.

Leave out the nasty snitty comments, BTW, or you may be forced to leave the peripherals forum.

No, the Canons just burn out the heads which looks like a clog. Head over to dpreview.com and search the printer forum and do a few searches and you will see Canons "clog" as well. Difference is Canon's clogs typically are a burnt out printhead rather than a clog. There are a few people there that have burned through multiple Canon heads over time, so they are not immune to clogging too.

If you choose to believe that all the people with Canon "clogs" are lying, that's fine, but you should stop spewing FUD. I've been around these things for a while now and have found both can clog.

It's not FUD, it's years of experience working in professional tech support. NO brand is perfect, and NO brand will fail 100% of the time. My point is, most users stand a far, far greater chance of having clogging (or other printhead problems, though problems other than clogging are rare) with an Epson than with a Canon.

(And I took your bait and searched their forums for "canon clog" and "canon clogs" and wasn't able to find these reports, other than from people using cheap third-party ink (which is of course not the discussion here). On the contrary, I managed to just find reports of people saying how their Canons never clog and their Epsons do.)

Originally Posted by itguy05

I suggest you open your eyes and set aside your bias - even I was enlightened:<snip>
So, where do you get this 40% figure from? Or is it something else you made up?

I didn't make anything up. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's from the German Mac magazine, MacUP, that I read, and whose tests I trust, and I think my numbers are in the ballpark.

By the way, note that I said ink costs, NOT total print costs. Canon's photo papers are FAR more expensive than Epson's, and so on tests where the cost calculation is original mfr ink + original mfr paper, Canon doesn't look that different from Epson. If you count just the ink, as is useful when you plan to use third-party paper, or if you plan to print mainly on plain paper, Canon ink is a lot cheaper. Tom's hardware didn't separate out ink cost; MacUP did.

Note also that in the one Tom's hardware article (the one on all-in-ones), the plain-paper color tests (which really showcase ink cost, since plain paper cost is trivial and equal across all printers) show one Epson model being about 15% more expensive, and the other Epson being about 110% more expensive (and the Lexmark being over 200% more!). In the plain-paper black tests, the Epsons were both twice the cost of Canon, and the HPs and Lexmarks several times as expensive (indeed, the Brother they tested was merely 1¢ more than the Canon, not as cheap, but eminently affordable). So yeah, I mean, thanks for providing more evidence supporting my side of it!

tooki

[Dark Helmet]

I've worked in the graphic design industry for 9 years. Yes, Epson at one point was the standard because WHEN THEY WORKED they gave the best results. The problem is they always clogged and cleaning them used up a ton of ink.

In the past 2-3 years I have seen many places moving over to Canon because of the clog problems on Epsons. They get the same print results if not better in the end.

My co-worker went through TWENTY Epson printers in one year. It was in use all day so when it got permanently clogged they used an extended warranty to get a new one. The canon never clogged once in 2 years.

At home I had 3-4 Epsons. Out of 10 high quality 8x10 prints 3-4 of them would have streaking or misaligned heads. I wasted a ton of Photo Paper and ink with the Epsons.

Got my Canon i950 almost 3 years ago, it clogged once after 6 months, cleaned the head once, back to normal.
1 month ago it clogged again, took out the print head and saw it had dust, cat hair and paper fibers all over it, wiped it off with alcohol and it was totally back to normal. In other words 3 years, about 1000 8x10 prints and only 2 prints that were messed up. Those are amazing results.

[davecom]

Canon for cheap cartridges - HP for reliability and multifunction devices.

[tooki]

Well, I think that Canon and HP both have high reliability. Epson does, too, aside from the print head clogging. Almost all HP models (and a few Canon models, plus all the Lexmarks, and Brother, I think) have the double-edged sword of using print cartridges with built-in print heads, which means you always get a nice fresh printhead, but they tend to sell those cartridges for more money. But in the case of Canon, the quasi-permanent printhead has not proven to be a major liability.

tooki

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by tooki

No, it's not BS. There IS a whole cottage industry of companies selling cleaning solutions and services. I didn't say it's a multibillion-dollar industry, but it IS an industry nonetheless, and it's an industry that doesn't exist for other inkjet brands.

Please send some links as I have yet to see them.

It's not FUD, it's years of experience working in professional tech support. NO brand is perfect, and NO brand will fail 100% of the time. My point is, most users stand a far, far greater chance of having clogging (or other printhead problems, though problems other than clogging are rare) with an Epson than with a Canon.

Me too and I can tell you no brand is much better or worse than the other from the major manufacturers today.

(And I took your bait and searched their forums for "canon clog" and "canon clogs" and wasn't able to find these reports, other than from people using cheap third-party ink (which is of course not the discussion here).

I found you have to search on the particular model. In particular it seems as if the PCyan or the PMagenta seem to cause the most problems. It's true there is a correlation to 3rd party inks and clogs, but there have been some reports of the Canon ink clogging too.

I will say that there is much less "blind Canon love" on DPreview than here.

As I've said before, you can't really go wrong with any printer WRT reliability from the top 3 - Canon, Epson, or HP. HP will cost you the most by a large margin, Epson will be in the middle, and Canon will be on the bottom.

By the way, note that I said ink costs, NOT total print costs. Canon's photo papers are FAR more expensive than Epson's, and so on tests where the cost calculation is original mfr ink + original mfr paper, Canon doesn't look that different from Epson. If you count just the ink, as is useful when you plan to use third-party paper, or if you plan to print mainly on plain paper, Canon ink is a lot cheaper. Tom's hardware didn't separate out ink cost; MacUP did.

I'm sure Tom's wasn't printing black text on photo paper or the color/text on photo paper. The 3 year extrapolations are also a good indicator of TCO in a mixed photo/text environment. If you're doing lots of text, inkjets should not be in the running - you want a laser.

I'm done arguing this - my point stands - you can safely pick among the top 3 - Canon, HP, and Epson. Your printer will be fine.

My last link is here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,58533,00.asp

If Epsons were as unreliable as people here like to crow on and on about, they would not be #2 in this survey. Make sure you also click on the link to view the results of the survey.

[tooki]

Again, I have said ink costs. The Tom's photo tests INCLUDED the cost of the printer maker's paper, and I have said already that Canon paper is very costly. But their ink is substantially cheaper, and that is clearly visible in the plain-paper tests (which also include paper, but plain paper costs are negligible, and uniform across brands, unlike photo paper costs, which vary wildly across brands). You completely missed the point of what I said above. The plain-paper tests are good for isolating the cost of ink, and in this respect, Canon fares VERY well.

Again, also, there is no evidence of any kind that Epson has solved its clogging problems. Why run the risk that they have not when there's an alternative brand, with no history of widespread clogging problems, that uses cheaper ink and gives you duplex printing out of the box?

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Please send some links as I have yet to see them.

You mentioned them yourself: vendors selling cleaning solution, kits, and services. They are widely available on the Internet. But since you actually mentioned the specifics before I did, I assume you already knew that!

tooki

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by davecom

Canon for cheap cartridges - HP for reliability and multifunction devices.

HP is not the least bit reliable when it comes to software.

[tooki]

They haven't improved? I thought people had reported that the drivers for their recent models was OK.

took

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

HP is not the least bit reliable when it comes to software.

I can only speak for the model that I own and use, the PSC 2610. The software is fine. I have not had any issues with it and it's insstalled on 3 Macs in OS 9 and OS X.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by tooki

They haven't improved? I thought people had reported that the drivers for their recent models was OK.

took

Ya wait for 10.4.4 and see all hell break loose again.

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Ya wait for 10.4.4 and see all hell break loose again.

What makes you believe this? I went from 10.4.2 to 10.4.3 with no issues. Is there something in 10.4.4 specifically that makes you think it will cause problems? Does it affect other makes?

[hldan]

Ditto with Canon, I have never been happier. I have the i70. My Epsons in the past just keep crapping out. I bought a new Epson 2 years ago with LCD screen and supposedly one of th best in it's class, price was $200.00. I only used it to print a couple of photos and word documents and in 2 months it was dead. Wouldn't print anymore and it was too much trouble to pack it up and deal with Epson anymore. Since I bought my Canon i70 last year it's been exceptional. It prints very well with my Airport Express for wireless printing. Never gave me a hitch of trouble and it's done tons more printing than any of my Epsons put together.
Never once required a driver to get it going. Worked right out of the box.

[c2poon]

I'm a happy owner of a 2-month old Canon MP760 all-in-one printer. The scan quality is great, no complaints. It can scan old photo film as well, although I haven't tried this feature yet. Prints fast, and the quality of my prints are great. Text, graphics, photos... it's all very nice. I also use Bluetooth for the printing, and I don't notice any slowness. However, I do need to plug the USB 2.0 cable into my iMac for scanning. I unplug it when I don't scan though, just to keep the nice asthetics of my Mac!

If anyone's interested, there are good reviews over at Zdnet.com

Cheers ya'll...

[webraider]

Gee.. I guess I'm one of the few who use HP Inkjet which I love.. I've used Cannon too but I like the way that HP feed paper the best. Good consistent results with HP from my perspective!

[tooki]

Most current Canon models have two paper feeds, one top-loading (like Epson uses) and one front-loading (like HP uses). You can use either, or both.

tooki

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by webraider

Gee.. I guess I'm one of the few who use HP Inkjet which I love.. I've used Cannon too but I like the way that HP feed paper the best. Good consistent results with HP from my perspective!

Actually many people have pointed out in reviews the way HP's feed paper is poor. With thicker papers it is not easy having it make a 90 degree turn.

[tooki]

No, but for most users (using standard paper, and HP's properly-textured-on-the-back photo papers), it's proven to work well enough, and I certainly can appreciate not needing tons of rear and top clearance.

Of course, I love how Canon gives you the best of both worlds, letting you eat your cake and have it, too!

tooki

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by tooki

No, but for most users (using standard paper, and HP's properly-textured-on-the-back photo papers), it's proven to work well enough, and I certainly can appreciate not needing tons of rear and top clearance.

Of course, I love how Canon gives you the best of both worlds, letting you eat your cake and have it, too!

tooki

I dunno, I don't want to use HP paper just so it feeds properly.

[eddiecatflap]

i had to bin a canon i865 after 18 months due to head clogging , altho' i DO agree epsons are pretty hopeless at head clogging too

my epson cx6400 wipes the floor with it , plus it has a pretty good scanner and media card reader built in

i heard that h-p printers were the best as they have heads built into the ink carts and don't clog

[mindwaves]

I bought a HP PSC 1510 and am very happy with it. It "replaces" my HP PSC 1210. I also have a Canon iPIXMA 5000 for other stuff.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

i heard that h-p printers were the best as they have heads built into the ink carts and don't clog

how? With magic?

At any rate when you change the cart on an HP it also changes the head. That is why it costs so much. HP was looking into taking Canons route though.

[Brownjer]

I too have had poor experiences with older HP multi-functions, particularly the PSC series. I can't speak for the modern ones, but I can say that the more my OS has advanced, the less willing my PSC 950 was to talk to my computer. This is with numerous driver updates and attempted low-level fixes. It's at the point with OS X 10.3.9 that the computer can't even recognize the scanner. I may be overgeneralizing here, but I also don't trust HP's Mac support to be competent. So, I recently replaced it with a Canon MP 500, and I'm very happy with it thus far. Just my $0.02.