[Back up 15 and punt]

How many of you believe what this article is saying about what printers are the most economical to use.

http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/...oto_printers1/

[OreoCookie]

Sounds like a commercial for HP to me.

Single Ink cartridges are more cost efficient (especially for logos, and so are third-party inks (especially when you print photos). Etc. etc.

HP has lost a huge market share in the ink jet printer market to (primarily) Canon. Their laser printers use pretty expensive toner, although the built quality is usually quite good (for their larger models, 2xxx series and above).

[analogika]

HP printers insist on using only original inks, not refilling ink cartridges, and HP has recently announced that they will be region-coding their ink cartridges.

I'm sure that, starting 2006 and 2007 respectively, they will require name & address, and a tissue sample for purchasing their ink. The licensing agreement for their printer software probably includes something about transferring ownership of your first-born to their Far-East call center should you attempt to switch to a different brand of printer.

HP printer drivers for OS X also include the "pipedaemon" process, which will freeze the computer with a black screen upon waking from sleep if multiple users are logged in.

The photo printing quality may be marginally better than that of Canon printers, but they sure as hell aren't getting my money, ever.

-s*

[Ω]

All I know is we use a LaserJet 4100tn at work. That thing is a tank, and just keeps on going. At a guess I would say it prints about 4-5 reams a week and has been doing so for years.

Though I do believe they have lost a lot of respect in recent years.....

[Captain Egotist]

I will never EVER EVER get an HP printer again in my life. I got an HP Photosmart 7550, incredible photo printer, little LCD screen, etc. It was HP's TOP OF THE LINE PRINTER at the time.

I switched to OSX a few months later. The card reader on the front of the printer no longer works, and the thing barely ever prints. About 20 calls to HP and a few hours later and I find out the truth:

"By saying it's OSX compatible we mean that the card reader isn't compatible, it only prints (which it does only some of the time). If you want all of those functions, please purchase a brand new HP printer!"

Fuck HP.

[jasonsRX7]

HP has absolutely horrible aftermarket support, and not only for their printers. If they even bother to write new drivers after a year, you're lucky if you can find them. When you do find them, they're usually buggy (at least on OS X) and cause more trouble than they're worth. I've been using an Epson photo printer and scanner, which have both been much less trouble than any HPs that I've owned.

[Back up 15 and punt]

Most people don't realize this but Canon builds all of HP's internal engines for their laser printers.

[mbryda]

Pure BS. HP is the 2nd most expensive to print. Canon and Epson are cheapest followed by HP and Lexmark on the high side.

But, I'd never buy an HP perinter, PC or Mac. There are far better choices out there.

[turtle777]

One of these days, I'm gonna buy a used and refurbed old HP LaserJet 4N. They are indestructable, much better quality than today's lasers.

As far as HP inkjets is concerned, I'm done with them. Bad OS X support and cartridge politics have done it for me.

-t

[im_noahselby]

-HP builds awesome and realiable Laserjets.

-Every HP inkjet I have used with Mac OS X in the past few years has been realiable and efficient. I would reccommend them to others, depending on the type of printing the end user wanted to do. None of my freinds have ever had problems with their HP printers either. So I can't comment on the driver issues some users have had. Although, this is mostly a thing of the past...

-All three printer makers (Epson, HP, Canon) have their associated strengths and weakness's. No printer is perfect, not even a Canon.

Noah

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by turtle777:
One of these days, I'm gonna buy a used and refurbed old HP LaserJet 4N. They are indestructable, much better quality than today's lasers.

As far as HP inkjets is concerned, I'm done with them. Bad OS X support and cartridge politics have done it for me.

-t

Save your money and invest in a Kyocera printer instead. They are not well-known in the consumer market but have a good reputation in the office market. Cheap toner, high built-quality, e. g. you can access the whole paperway.

[hedgehogfrenzy]

I'm an HP reseller and have been for 4 years now. HP does build good printers, just not good ink-jet printers. Their ink-jets didn't used to suck. Their old professional line were amazing. Extrelmley fast, great print quality. The consumer line was good too. But that was before the days of building the cheapest printer body possible, so that the manufacturer could rip you off with ink costs.

I never recommend HP ink-jets to anyone. I currently like Epson, which I also resell. I've been using Epson printers since my original 386 CPU. The Epson Dot matrix printer that I bought then still hasn't died, I just stopped being able to find ribbons for it. It was great for printing up text document drafts.

My Epson ink-jets have been running stong and fast since I bought them. I have 2, ones 7 years old, and the other 1 year old. The ink costs are reasonable, and OS X support is there, including things like card readers.

It's easy to find out if the printer that you are looking at has affordable ink. Every manufacture's web site has tank yeilds. Divide the cost by the yeild, and boom, price per page.

But, on the other hand if you are looking for an laser, I believe HP is the way to go. They have added some more affordable lasers in the last year that are very well built, and that I have had no problems with.

- David

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by hedgehogfrenzy:
I'm an HP reseller and have been for 4 years now. HP does build good printers, just not good ink-jet printers. Their ink-jets didn't used to suck. Their old professional line were amazing. Extrelmley fast, great print quality. The consumer line was good too. But that was before the days of building the cheapest printer body possible, so that the manufacturer could rip you off with ink costs.

I never recommend HP ink-jets to anyone. I currently like Epson, which I also resell. I've been using Epson printers since my original 386 CPU. The Epson Dot matrix printer that I bought then still hasn't died, I just stopped being able to find ribbons for it. It was great for printing up text document drafts.

My Epson ink-jets have been running stong and fast since I bought them. I have 2, ones 7 years old, and the other 1 year old. The ink costs are reasonable, and OS X support is there, including things like card readers.

It's easy to find out if the printer that you are looking at has affordable ink. Every manufacture's web site has tank yeilds. Divide the cost by the yeild, and boom, price per page.

But, on the other hand if you are looking for an laser, I believe HP is the way to go. They have added some more affordable lasers in the last year that are very well built, and that I have had no problems with.

- David

I have owned several HP Inkjets and lasers (five ink jets and at least three lasers), and I do agree that their (more expensive) lasers are of good build quality. At school, we have a LJ 4000 with 350000+ pages on it, and it still works.

But later printers decreased in quality, especially the cheap ones. My biggest gripe with their lasers is that you cannot access the whole paper way (like with my current Kyocera FS-1020D, my old LaserJet III, and even my HP DeskJet 510). My parents had to throw away their old Laserjet 3100, because paper got stuck in the fuser and it was more expensive to replace the fuser than to get a new one.

[selowitch]

I've owned several of the HP LaserJet series and I've been very impressed with their reliability and print quality. They seem to be somewhat more durable than the competition. Currently, I have a LJ1160, which seemed to me to be the perfect balance of price and performance.

[tooki]

I agree that the LaserJets have always been very good.

HP's inkjets are, IMHO, #1 in one specific area: plain-paper text output. The text quality is unmatched.

As for the article... it's so full of BS:

Cost per print cannot be decreased by using third-party refill ink cartridges

Cost per print cannot be decreased by using single-ink cartridges

Perhaps they haven't noticed the $2 off-brand Canon cartridges on eBay. That's 1/7 the cost of the real ones. I'd like to see the math showing how that doesn't reduce cost.

As for single cartridges: the savings really depends on what you print. For my mixed-use printing, I always run out of yellow first, then magenta, then cyan. But only by a tiny bit -- a few pages at most. Photos basically consume all colors at about the same rate. But if you're printing graphics, like page layouts, it makes a huge difference (for example, if your publication puts a blue border along the top of every page). Same thing if you're using it to print your letterhead onto each page.

It also claims that only HP printers don't clean the heads on power-up. I know my two year old Canon doesn't.

So yeah, the article is trash.

tooki

[Link]

Ahh one of my fondest memories of my canon multipass was shoving $2 ink tanks into there.. and printing for a whole year off of $20.

[analogika]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Save your money and invest in a Kyocera printer instead. They are not well-known in the consumer market but have a good reputation in the office market. Cheap toner, high built-quality, e. g. you can access the whole paperway.

My former employer switched from inkjets to Kyocera lasers a few years ago (somewhere over a thousand printers). They were ALL replaced within a few years because the mechanics are complete sh�t.

The paper-tray feed mechanism will fail, and you will get regular paper jams. Eventually, the system techs stopped bothering with trying to repair the damn things.

Our kyocera at my current employer is exhibiting the same problem.

[hedgehogfrenzy]

When it comes to laser printers, you get what you pay for.

- David

[Cadaver]

My opinion...

Inkjet: Canon
Laser: HP or Xerox

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by analogika:
My former employer switched from inkjets to Kyocera lasers a few years ago (somewhere over a thousand printers). They were ALL replaced within a few years because the mechanics are complete sh�t.

The paper-tray feed mechanism will fail, and you will get regular paper jams. Eventually, the system techs stopped bothering with trying to repair the damn things.

Our kyocera at my current employer is exhibiting the same problem.

Hmmm, haven't had problems with them ever.

The only time paper got stuck was when a piece of tape was on the paper which literally glued to sheets together.

They also offer replacement rolls and stuff like this as service parts even for their smallest printers. Hmmm, maybe it was a `bad quality model' with conceptual problems like my parents' LJ 3100 (which offered basically no service parts available for customers or our local computer shop, and HP's service just offered to exchange the guts of the printer as a whole, because it is supposed to be cheaper)?

[hedgehogfrenzy]

Originally Posted by cadaver:

Inkjet: Canon

My girlfriend bought a "high-end" consumer Canon inkjet against my wishes because she got a "deal" on it from Dell. Freakin' Dell. The thing is slower than molasas and it costs her like $65 to replace all the ink cartridges.


- David

[Back up 15 and punt]

Originally posted by hedgehogfrenzy:
My girlfriend bought a "high-end" consumer Canon inkjet against my wishes because she got a "deal" on it from Dell. Freakin' Dell. The thing is slower than molasas and it costs her like $65 to replace all the ink cartridges.


- David

Which Canon did she buy? Their current line of printers are among the fastest and cheapest to own.

[hedgehogfrenzy]

I don't know off the top of my head, I'd have to check and get back to ya.


- David

[Back up 15 and punt]

Originally posted by hedgehogfrenzy:
I don't know off the top of my head, I'd have to check and get back to ya.


- David

If you add up the cost of ink for either HP or Lexmark you will find that the cost are very similar. The major advantage to Canon and Epson is that they currently allow you to buy only those colors that are needed.

[tooki]

For most people, the separate ink tanks don't save money -- as I said above, they tend to run out at about the same time except under very specific circumstances.

But Canon's ink is a lot cheaper. For example, the 27ml ink tank for my Canon costs $14 at full price. A 14ml tank for an Epson SC740 is $25. Plus, the Canon never clogs, so I'm not wasting a huge part of each tank just on cleaning the heads.

Sure, a whole change of four Canon tanks is $45, but it lasts forever. I've had my printer for two years and I'm only on my third set of ink! (And I print a good deal.)

HP and Lexmark have similar costs, but Lexmark tends to be the worst. Both of these are the most expensive, but you get a new print head in each cartridge, so you are paying a bit extra for the fact that you get a fresh, unclogged head each time.



As for the girlfriend's slow Canon: either it's not a high-end model at all, or she bought one of the models designed specifically for photo use, which do photos at above-average speed, but print text at below-average speeds because those print mechanisms are highly specialized. That or she's using the totally wrong print modes for everyday stuff.

My two year old i850 was not their most expensive printer when I got it, and in draft text mode (which looks just as good as Epson's "normal" mode) it prints at over 15ppm real-world.

tooki

[nerd]

I used to use Epson but got sick of the head clogs. After that I tried a HP and it was okay but sucked for photos and the ink is expensive. I tried a Canon i860 and love it. I have since bought the i9960 for big photos. I'll go a month between printing photos on either printer and they print perfect right away. In Epson land I was cleaning the heads after letting it sit for a couple days.

Brad

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by hedgehogfrenzy:
My girlfriend bought a "high-end" consumer Canon inkjet against my wishes because she got a "deal" on it from Dell. Freakin' Dell. The thing is slower than molasas and it costs her like $65 to replace all the ink cartridges.

I've got a Canon Pixma 5000, and its an incredible machine. Photos are freaking amazing and b/w text is very sharp. Not the fastest printer on the market, but certainly above average.

And, more (maybe most) importantly - Canon's OS X drivers are fantastic.

[jasong]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Canon's OS X drivers are fantastic.

I don't know if I would say fantastic, the Windows XP drivers for my i560 have software duplexing while the Mac version doesn't. Print quality is beautiful, and I bought mine used for $40.00.

I also just bought wicked cheap generic inks from 4inkjets.com. They work great.

-- Jason

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by jasong:
I don't know if I would say fantastic, the Windows XP drivers for my i560 have software duplexing while the Mac version doesn't.

Hmm... must be for the newer printers, then, as the Pixma Mac drivers match the PC drivers feature for feature AFAICT.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Hmm... must be for the newer printers, then, as the Pixma Mac drivers match the PC drivers feature for feature AFAICT.

I have the 5000 as well, and I think there are a couple of features supported on the PC that aren't supported on the Mac, such as watermarking (although I hope someone tells me I'm mistaken). I love the printer nonetheless.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by jasong:
I don't know if I would say fantastic, the Windows XP drivers for my i560 have software duplexing while the Mac version doesn't. Print quality is beautiful, and I bought mine used for $40.00.

Don't need it. IIRC there is an option there for duplexing. Or you can change the options in the print settings to print odd pages then even pages. I do it a lot with my i560.

[mishakim]

Originally posted by tooki:
But Canon's ink is a lot cheaper. For example, the 27ml ink tank for my Canon costs $14 at full price. A 14ml tank for an Epson SC740 is $25. Plus, the Canon never clogs, so I'm not wasting a huge part of each tank just on cleaning the heads.

That's because the Cannon ink tanks don't include the print head, they're just ink. The print head is a separate replaceable part, which supposedly goes through many ink tank refils before needing replaced (I haven't had to replace mine yet, don't know what it costs). In contrast, HP (and I assume Epson, but don't know for sure) make you buy a new print head (part of the ink cartridge) every time you run out of ink (and they still clog).

[Skip Breakfast]

My LJ 1012 is the best printer I have ever purchased.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by mishakim:
That's because the Cannon ink tanks don't include the print head, they're just ink. The print head is a separate replaceable part, which supposedly goes through many ink tank refils before needing replaced (I haven't had to replace mine yet, don't know what it costs). In contrast, HP (and I assume Epson, but don't know for sure) make you buy a new print head (part of the ink cartridge) every time you run out of ink (and they still clog).

I've never replaced mine and I went through many thousand pages (literally), then my parents used it (heavy-duty SoHo), 500-1500 pages per month for three years until the mechanics died.

[Back up 15 and punt]

Canon heads are not cheap but are reasonable. For instance the Canon replacement head for the i9900 is about $125.

[tooki]

Originally posted by mishakim:
That's because the Cannon ink tanks don't include the print head, they're just ink. The print head is a separate replaceable part, which supposedly goes through many ink tank refils before needing replaced (I haven't had to replace mine yet, don't know what it costs). In contrast, HP (and I assume Epson, but don't know for sure) make you buy a new print head (part of the ink cartridge) every time you run out of ink (and they still clog).

HP and Lexmark would like you to think that's why their ink is so expensive, but it's not true. The printer companies aren't marking the cartridges up a lot, they're marking them up an insanely obscenely hugetastically gigantic amount.

I read somewhere many years back that HP's cost to make an inkjet cartridge (with print head) is 50�. Yes, half a dollar. The same cartridge they were selling for $30. This is how HP's printer division keeps bailing out the rest of HP whenever the PC division starts losing money again.

No doubt Canon's and Epson's tanks cost half as much to make as HP's and Lexmark's, since only the latter put the print head in the cartridge..

Epson's cartridges are just ink tanks, just like Canon's. Unlike a Canon, an Epson printer has its print head permanently built into the printer. When it clogs (it's really "when", not "if") beyond what cleanings can do, it's time for a new printer.

Canon's heads are replaceable, but are supposed to last the life of the printer*. And note that the heads are covered under warranty, and supposedly Canon will replace it for free with the purchase of a set of ink. That said, it's kind of a moot point: I've never seen a recent Canon printer's head clog!

tooki

* This was not always the case: the first Canons to have the print heads separate from the ink rated the head at 6000 pages. But in all the current models, the head is considered to have "unlimited" life.

[Krusty]

Used to swear by HP.

Now its Canon all the way for me. I'm a HUGE fan of their printers and cameras. The only thing I dislike about my i560 is that I wish I didn't have it so I'd have a reason to buy an iP4000. Canon has definitely come on strong across the board in consumer electronics over the last few years ... deservingly so, IMHO.

[driven]

Old HP printers = EXCELLENT

Current models = Crap.


I'm still using an ancient 932C which continues to work flawlessly. I won't buy a new HP printer though. I do know that they purposly designed them to be less "rugged". Part of that is because they don't want folks (such as myself) using printers for 7+ years. :-) <-- Not profitable long term, and it's harder to get folks to migrate to their new "region encoded/date limited" ink cartridges.

(BTW: HP is currently getting sued for having their cartridges "expire" if the ink isn't used for so-many days after initial use, thus requiring a new cartridge purchase.)

My current favorites are Epson & Cannon. I have no problem with Lexmark other than their ink is kinda pricey.

[analogika]

Originally posted by driven:
My current favorites are Epson & Cannon.

My Epson 740i clogged up ALL THE ****ING TIME.

I think it's a ploy to get me wasting ink to clean the heads and, eventually, just buy a new printer.

Which I did: a Canon.

[tooki]

Mine, too -- my 740i clogged after the first six months or so that I had it and never really worked quite right after that. (It needed tremendously frequent cleanings.)

When I'd finally had enough, I got a Canon i850 and couldn't be happier. Well, I could: with a Canon iP4000. But I can't justify replacing it just to get the built-in duplexer.

tooki

[finboy]

Originally posted by driven:
Old HP printers = EXCELLENT

Current models = Crap.

Don't buy a printer until you check and see what shrevesystems.com has in stock. Some of the old Laserwriters are still great and viable printers. Cheap, too, with the same innards as the old HP printers.

[Macpilot]

Just got a HP Laserjet 1320 and it rocks. Still trying to figure out how to do "duplex" printing with it though....anybody know?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Macpilot:
Just got a HP Laserjet 1320 and it rocks. Still trying to figure out how to do "duplex" printing with it though....anybody know?

You should find it in the Layout section of the printing dialog.

[MrForgetable]

i still use a HP 895 pro

time for an upgrade!

so i think i will go for a canon.

[Macpilot]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
You should find it in the Layout section of the printing dialog.

Thanks! Got it now.

[kjbetz]

I'm in the market for a new printer for my new Mac mini setup. I have an old HP DJ722C and it's worked great for years. But it's only have a parallel port connection and is slow.

Seems like Canon is the favorite for both quality and driver support. Any specific models and why? I'm looking at NewEgg and the 4000 and 5000 look good.

[mindwaves]

My HP PSC 1210 and my Canon iPixma 5000 both work fine. The ink for the HP is kind of pricey, but it lasts a long time.

If anthing, I am more happy with my HP because of its very small footprint and I absolutely love the printing, scanning, and copying functions. My next printer will be another PSC.

[driven]

Originally posted by mindwaves:
My HP PSC 1210 and my Canon iPixma 5000 both work fine. The ink for the HP is kind of pricey, but it lasts a long time.

If anthing, I am more happy with my HP because of its very small footprint and I absolutely love the printing, scanning, and copying functions. My next printer will be another PSC.

BTW: Be careful with the refurb cartridges that they sell at Target, Stapes, et al. They cost about 30% less, but in my experience last only about 1/3 as long. NOT a good deal.

I'm sticking with the genuine HP cartridges for my 932C. (Ancient workhorse!)

[ginoledesma]

I still have my trusty HP Deskjet 895Cxi. The ink cartridges are pricey, but they do last a long time and print quality is very good. What I don't like about HP's new ink cartridges is that they expire after a certain time.

I'm in the market for a new multi-function device, preferrably something small and economical. So far, the Brother MCF-420CN and later models look interesting, though Mac reviews for multi-function devices seem to be rather low.

[driven]

Originally posted by ginoledesma:
I still have my trusty HP Deskjet 895Cxi. The ink cartridges are pricey, but they do last a long time and print quality is very good. What I don't like about HP's new ink cartridges is that they expire after a certain time.

Even if HP quality was the same now as it was in years past (it isn't), the expiration period alone is enough of a reason to avoid HP printers.