Simplest and most reliable printer for an iMac?
John Brock
for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
for a new printer.
We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above
all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges
by herself! Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under
$200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
what would be the best choice?
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
TaliesinSoft
<hhmi2e$3tc$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
I have two Canon MP-470 printers and they have performed flawlessly for
several years. I believe Canon now markets what is essentially an
updated/improved version. The MP-470 is a combination printer, scanner, and
copier. It uses two easily replaced ink cartridges, one black and one color.
The printer can be purchased for around $100. I'm using Snow Leopard without
anyl printer problems.
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
nospam
<jbr...@panix.com> wrote:
pretty much any printer you'll find in a store is fine, however, the
ink will be expensive no matter what you get. that's how they make
money. you can sometimes buy a replacement printer with ink for *less*
than just buying ink for an existing printer. also, stay away from
cheap generic knock off inks since they tend to clog.
John McWilliams
....But that's Multi function, which I'd also avoid for my Mom were I
getting one for her.
Pretty much Epson or Canon in my experience, but printer models change
so rapidly I don't know what to suggest for a specific model, esp how
easy it is or isn't to change carts.
My Mac store stopped putting printers out for a while now, but Office
Max/Depot usually has a shelf or two of them. There you could see for
yourself the access process.
==
--
john mcwilliams
David
jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
cleaning heads.
With HP (I have had 4 of them over the past 15 years) they just sit
there until you want to print, then they print. No trouble no fuss.
Re cost of ink - generally the cheaper printers tend to be harder on ink
than the more expensive units, but that is not such a problem unless you
(or her) are going to do a lot of printing.
One big advantage of the HP and Canon is that cartridges are available
at most department stores and at post offices.
Cheers
David
nospam
<post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
> Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> cleaning heads.
they don't clog in normal use.
> With HP (I have had 4 of them over the past 15 years) they just sit
> there until you want to print, then they print. No trouble no fuss.
i know someone with an hp printer that is bit of fuss, especially the
curved paper path which doesn't work so well with thicker stock.
> One big advantage of the HP and Canon is that cartridges are available
> at most department stores and at post offices.
same for epson and even lexmark. what kind of post office sells printer
ink??
EricF
I gave up on inkjets 7 years ago and picked up a Samsung B&W laser printer for
$200. The ink is expensive but the toner lasts for a very long time, giving
you a low cost per page. If you don't need color, this is the way to go.
(Thogh the color laser printers may be good enough now).
Eric
isw
If you can avoid color, an inexpensive laser printer is a far better
choice than any inkjet.
Isaac
Salmon Egg
When I saw this post, I expected to se a large variety of answers. There
were fewer than I expected.
After fiddling around with ink jets, I decided never to buy one again. I
would get a black and white laser printer. I have a Brother DCP 1000
that is used primarily for copying. One full cartridge will probably
last through 10 reams of paper without the clogs from ink. A cartridge
costs about $30.
I am not pushing Brother. There probably are other brands that do just
as well.
What would your mother be able to do when a paper jam occurs? Can she
load paper and things like that?
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
Andy Hewitt
I think without doubt I'd go for the Canon Pixma range. They are 'photo'
printers, and maybe cost a little more than the average, but I've had
two now, and very happy with them (currently using an iP4500).
They also have some features you'll probably never use (Duplex and CD
printing for example, although Duplex can be handier than you think).
However, they are also quite robust in construction, and these use 5
cartridges (CMYK for photo, and larger capacity 'cheaper' one for black
text). I have found that the cartridges last pretty well, and probably
get somewhere near the quoted 400 pages yield, and they're not too
expensive either (when bought one at a time). I've not had to clean the
head in the last 18 months either.
The Canon software seems to be reliable too.
I have also used others in the past, but found the following:
Lexmark: poor print quality, and *very* expensive ink.
Epson: possibly the best photo quality, cheap inks, but as others say,
you do spend a lot of ink in cleaning the heads. If they're left unused
for a while they *will* clog.
HP: Used to be *the* printer to buy, but in recent years they have
become flimsy, and not so good with print quality. The software they use
absolutely sucks too. I've recently tried to install these onto Windows
machines, and it's a nightmare getting them to work properly (or at
all).
If you don't need colour at all, then I agree with others, a laser will
be the cheapest and most reliable printer to use. The best I have used
myself are Kyocera and HP.
If you can find an older HP on eBay, such as a Laserjet 4100, it will
last for decades as a home printer, and can manage over 10,000 pages on
a cartridge - which can be got very cheaply on eBay (I get them for
under �20 in the UK). It may be easiest to connect these via Ethernet
though, and they will then just work.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <010120102230106163%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
> In article <postings-A1200E...@news.bigpond.com>, David
> <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>
>> Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
>> avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
>> cleaning heads.
>
> they don't clog in normal use.
Wanna bet on that?
>
>> With HP (I have had 4 of them over the past 15 years) they just sit
>> there until you want to print, then they print. No trouble no fuss.
>
> i know someone with an hp printer that is bit of fuss, especially the
> curved paper path which doesn't work so well with thicker stock.
HP printer _hardware_ is usually quite good. HP printer _software_ has stunk
for years, and is getting worse.
>
>> One big advantage of the HP and Canon is that cartridges are available
>> at most department stores and at post offices.
>
> same for epson and even lexmark. what kind of post office sells printer
> ink??
Lots of them. Just down the road from my office there's a postal agency that
sells discount ink. And, for larger definitions of 'post office', pretty much
any UPS or FedEx establishment sells ink.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hhmi2e$3tc$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
> My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
> for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
> Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
> for a new printer.
>
> We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
> multi-function;
Good luck with that. The days of the stand-alone low-end inkjet printer are
rapidly coming to a close. Brother no longer sells stand-alone injets in the
US; Epson has three, four if you count the 17" wide carriage model; HP still
has several, but the low-end ones literally cost less than the ink carts for
them and are worth about that they cost. Frankly, it'd be a better idea to
get a MFD even if you never use the other functions, the pricing on a Brother
MFD is lower than the pricing on an actual worth-while HP stand-alone inkjet
and the build quality, life expectancy, and cost of consumables per page on
the Brother are all better. (There's a _reason_ why HP has been mounting a PR
campaign about its ink carts...)
> we're looking for robustness and simplicity above
> all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges
> by herself!
All modern inkjets make that easy. Brother has been using a door in the front
of the printer to load the carts for a _long_ time. Epson and HP usually make
you open up the top of the printer, but it's not a big deal either way.
> Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
> OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink).
It's the ink that's going to be the killer. Epson ink is the cheapest, but
lasts the shortest time. (Well, duh...) HP ink is the most expensive and,
frankly, doesn't give as good output as Epson ink. Epson and Canon ink are
about neck and neck for best print quality. Brother ink costs less than Canon
or HP ink, but while it's better than HP ink it's not as good as Epson/Canon
ink.
> Under
> $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
> what would be the best choice?
>
If you don't need colour, get a low-end laser such as a Brother HL-2140 or
HL-2170W (same printer, just with Ethernet and wireless-G added to the USB
ports of the 2140) which have list prices of $120 and $150 respectively; you
can usually get the 2140 for under $100, sometimes for under $80, and you can
usually get the 2170W for under $135, sometimes for around $100. I have the
2170W's now-discontinued older cousin, the 2070N. No wireless, but then I got
it four-five years ago when wireless was less of a big thing. List price then
was $150, I got it for $135. I'm now on the third toner cart, at $42-45 per
cart, so I've spent about as much on toner over 4-5 years as I did on the
printer. However, I also have a Brother MFC-440cn colour inkjet MFD, which I
got for $80 (list price was $150) and for which I've spent over $100 on ink
_just last year_. The laser carts print over 3,000 pages/cart (I just put in
a new cart in the 2070N, and the total print jobs exceed 7500 over the 4-5
years I've had it) while inkjets printer under 400 pages/cart. Which is why I
don't print to the inkjet except when I must have colour.
When the drum in the 2070N finally dies I'll probably replace both it and the
440cn with a colour laser, possibly one of the Brother colour lasers.
Currently you can get a Brother colour laser for under $300, under $250 if
you look. Their output is not as good as an inkjet, but it's faster and a
_lot_ cheaper.
If you _must_ go with a stand-alone inkjet, check out Epson or Canon. Stay
far away from HP, and further away from Lexmark. If you can live with a MFD,
add Brother to Epson and Canon.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <elmop-3BC6C8....@nothing.attdns.com>):
> In article <SalmonEgg-46D50...@news60.forteinc.com>,
> Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> After fiddling around with ink jets, I decided never to buy one again. I
>> would get a black and white laser printer. I have a Brother DCP 1000
>> that is used primarily for copying. One full cartridge will probably
>> last through 10 reams of paper without the clogs from ink. A cartridge
>> costs about $30.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. A laser printer is the best bet here.
>
>>
>> I am not pushing Brother. There probably are other brands that do just
>> as well.
>
> Probably not--Brother's Mac support is incredibly good.
>
> Also, I would consider a wireless network printer that allows her to put
> it anywhere, and allows the friends/family to hook to it without effort
> when they come over.
That would be a Brother HL-2170W unless there's another laser printer with
wireless-G support that costs under $150...
Red
Get her a black and white laser printer--- forget the ink jet stuff.
Cost per page is a quarter of ink jet cost per page. Unless she's a
printaholic, the cart will last for years.
There ain't no bad printers out there today-- though I would stay away
from Lexmark. Hard to go wrong with an HP or a Canon.
Jonathan L. Parker
> My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
> for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
> Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
> for a new printer.
Are you sure about that non-support? I'm still using 10.4.11 so I can't
speak directly with regard to Snow Leopard, but I can tell you that
Gutenprint *does* have a driver for this printer, and my version
includes it. Unless Mom lives a long way off and all of you have
already gone home after the holidays, you might want to take a crack at
setting it up for her. If nothing else, it could serve as a backup
option in case the new printer you'll *still* probably end up buying for
her ever goes on the fritz.
And to save everyone else from chiming in, I'll say it for them:
Gutenprint drivers can be an absolute *bear* to set up properly,
especially with older printers, and even then you'll likely get better
quality output by going ahead and buying a printer with native,
manufacturer-supplied OS X support. If I hadn't paid $350 a decade ago
for the Canon portable I'm using with my MBP, I wouldn't have bothered
with Gutenprint, and as it is, I only use it with my Windows virtual
machine now anyway. I just did it mainly to prove to myself that I
could, and to give myself one more after-the-fact justification for
having spent all that money.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Jolly Roger
I've tried all the cheap makes, including HP, Epson, Lexmark, and they
have all clogged up or died within a couple years. My Canon, on the
other hand, is still printing just as good as the first day I purchased
it back in 2005! It's just wonderful. Canon PIXMA Pro i9900 has
outlasted every single other inkjet I have ever used!:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/c35uqf>
If I were in the market for a new photo printer today, I would
definitely get one of the current Canon PIXMA Pro models:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/nj5s6>
In my book, Canon is highly recommended.
Note: I use *only* new Canon brand ink cartridges with my printer - and
no after-market refills. While I could try using off-brand or refill
cartridges, I'm simply not willing to change damaging the printer when
it has treated me so much better than any other!
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Jolly Roger
wrote:
Only she won't get very good photo prints from a black and white (or
even a color) laser printer. ; )
Jolly Roger
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <hhmi2e$3tc$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
>
> > We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
> > multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above
> > all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges
> > by herself! Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
> > OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under
> > $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
> > what would be the best choice?
>
> Brother. Hands down.
You've got to be kidding me. Their software flat-out sucks!
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <postings-A1200E...@news.bigpond.com>, David
> <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>
> > Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> > avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> > cleaning heads.
>
> they don't clog in normal use.
Ahem. Excuse me, but bullshit. I and my family have had several of them
clog up and die within one or two years, rendering them completely
useless.
Lloyd Parsons
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <elmop-12502E....@nothing.attdns.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <hhmi2e$3tc$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
> >
> > > We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
> > > multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above
> > > all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges
> > > by herself! Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
> > > OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under
> > > $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
> > > what would be the best choice?
> >
> > Brother. Hands down.
>
> You've got to be kidding me. Their software flat-out sucks!
You must be kidding me! Their software is just fine, including the
little toolbar thingie.
But then, who uses the software that comes with the scanner much anyway?
I sure don't and many I talk to don't.
Give me a solid driver (check), a simple interface for quick scans
(check), and work with my very good Apple software (check)
Jolly Roger
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
Not the Bother software I've had to troubleshoot for a family member
(for a Brother MFC-4420C).
Howard Brazee
mother's in her 80s and has had several computers (with several
versions of Windows), and most every time I visit her, I have to get
it working again for her.
It's not the OS, it's not the printer, and she objects vigorously to
any implication that it's her.
My printer predates my Mac by a decade. My wife's is pretty new. I
can use them both with no problem from my Mac.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Jolly Roger
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
I'll add that Canon's Mac software drivers work well and are updated
regularly, in my experience.
Howard Brazee
<post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>Re cost of ink - generally the cheaper printers tend to be harder on ink
>than the more expensive units, but that is not such a problem unless you
>(or her) are going to do a lot of printing.
Not printing enough can dry out cartridges and be expensive as well.
Howard Brazee
>I gave up on inkjets 7 years ago and picked up a Samsung B&W laser printer for
>$200. The ink is expensive but the toner lasts for a very long time, giving
>you a low cost per page. If you don't need color, this is the way to go.
>(Thogh the color laser printers may be good enough now).
And it removes the temptation to use the printer to print photos.
Walgreen (and on-line photo stores) are cheaper and better for that.
Jolly Roger
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:23:11 GMT, David
> <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>
> >Re cost of ink - generally the cheaper printers tend to be harder on ink
> >than the more expensive units, but that is not such a problem unless you
> >(or her) are going to do a lot of printing.
>
> Not printing enough can dry out cartridges and be expensive as well.
On cheaper, lower-quality printers, definitely.
I sometimes don't print anything for a couple months on my Canon PIXMA
printer, and it prints just as well today as the day I bought it back in
2005.
Howard Brazee
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>Brother. Hands down.
A decade or two ago I went to a user group, and someone demonstrated
his Brother printer. As he carried the big thing in, he said it was
heavy, to which two different wags in the audience gave the obvious
reply.
Jolly Roger
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> I thought most all computers work simply and automatically. But my
> mother's in her 80s and has had several computers (with several
> versions of Windows), and most every time I visit her, I have to get
> it working again for her.
>
> It's not the OS, it's not the printer, and she objects vigorously to
> any implication that it's her.
I have to question your assertion that it's not Windows. : )
Chris Ridd
> John Brock wrote:
>> My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
>> for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
>> Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
>> for a new printer.
>
> Are you sure about that non-support? I'm still using 10.4.11 so I
> can't speak directly with regard to Snow Leopard, but I can tell you
> that Gutenprint *does* have a driver for this printer, and my version
> includes it.
According to <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3669#epson> Snow Leopard
uses the Gutenprint 5.2.3 driver for printing to that model printer.
> And to save everyone else from chiming in, I'll say it for them:
> Gutenprint drivers can be an absolute *bear* to set up properly,
> especially with older printers, and even then you'll likely get better
> quality output by going ahead and buying a printer with native,
> manufacturer-supplied OS X support. If I
That's a good point.
--
Chris
Chris Ridd
> In article <m6uuj5pm7au63l5n0...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:23:11 GMT, David
>> <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Re cost of ink - generally the cheaper printers tend to be harder on ink
>>> than the more expensive units, but that is not such a problem unless you
>>> (or her) are going to do a lot of printing.
>>
>> Not printing enough can dry out cartridges and be expensive as well.
>
> On cheaper, lower-quality printers, definitely.
And with certain printer brands, ie Epson.
--
Chris
erilar
jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
> My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
> for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
> Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
> for a new printer.
>
That was a lovely printer. Mine lasted over a decade of sometimes
fairly heavy use until the day it died between two print jobs. I went
out and bought a new Epson, but this one is the Artisan 710. I wanted
foto quality prints and this one delivers. I was startled to discover
how cheap these things have become, since it's a scanner, too. It's
nice being able to print from my laptop instead of sending print jobs
over to the OS 9 G4 for printing now, too. I also like the flat top,
which the digital picture frame I got for Christmas can sit on when I'm
not scanning 8-) It has 5 color and a black ink cartridge, but they're
as easy or easier to change than the ones in the 740. It may be more
than you want for your mother, but I love it!
Oh, and I'm a great-grandmother 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
"Jonathan L. Parker" <jlpar...@GOAWAYSPAMMERsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> John Brock wrote:
> > My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
> > for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
> > Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
> > for a new printer.
>
> Are you sure about that non-support? I'm still using 10.4.11 so I can't
> speak directly with regard to Snow Leopard, but I can tell you that
> Gutenprint *does* have a driver for this printer, and my version
> includes it. Unless Mom lives a long way off and all of you have
> already gone home after the holidays, you might want to take a crack at
> setting it up for her. If nothing else, it could serve as a backup
> option in case the new printer you'll *still* probably end up buying for
> her ever goes on the fritz.
I don't know what Gutenprint is, but I do know Epson didn't update the
drivers for that printer when they updated everything else. My scanner
was just as old and didn't even have a USB connection, so it had to stay
connected to the old computer anyway. The G4 can read ANYthing 8-) My
lovely new laptop only has USB and Firewire ports.
erilar
J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> If you _must_ go with a stand-alone inkjet, check out Epson or Canon. Stay
> far away from HP, and further away from Lexmark. If you can live with a MFD,
> add Brother to Epson and Canon.
My Epson Artisan 710 even gives me good color images on ordinary paper,
is easy to load, and the cartridges that came with it, though low now,
have done a LOT of printing, including quite a few for my foto album,
since I got it. It came with an extra black ink. It's also a scanner,
but it's not REQUIRED that you scan things if you don't want to 8-) I'm
certainly not going to try to fax anything, since it's not connected to
a phone 8-) For foto printing, you can stick a memory card into it
directly. It does other stuff, too. AND it's under $200, even if over
$100.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <jollyroger-83E52...@news.individual.net>):
I have a MFC-440cn, and the software is as the previous poster stated: a
driver for the printer section and a driver for the scanner section, both of
which worked over the network, and both of which worked without a fuss. The
printer driver did everything I wanted to and did it quickly and without
getting in my way. The scanner driver works with, among others, Image
Capture, Graphic Converter, Photoshop, and Acrobat Pro. I can also scan
directly from either System Preferences/Print & Fax or from the printer
application.
There's also the Brother Control Center software, which _is_ crap, but as I
don't even have it installed anymore is not a problem.
erilar
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> Probably not--Brother's Mac support is incredibly good.
That's all very well, but why force her to use something entirely new
when she's used to an Epson? My twin to hers lasted me over a decade,
printing excellent fotos.
>
> Also, I would consider a wireless network printer that allows her to put
> it anywhere, and allows the friends/family to hook to it without effort
> when they come over.
My Epson Artisan 710 is only plugged into the power strip. It has wi-fi
or Ethernet capability as well as direct connection. I use the wireless
connection.
And, to repeat once more, I'm a long way from young myself.
erilar
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> And it removes the temptation to use the printer to print photos.
> Walgreen (and on-line photo stores) are cheaper and better for that.
YUCK! Then you have to physically cut, paste, and label them to get
them into a foto album, all of which I do on my laptop, combining fotos
and comments on a page before printing it.
erilar
David <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
> Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> cleaning heads.
Big deal. Cleaning the print heads is a simple "chick here" operation
she must already know from owning the Epson 740.
Jolly Roger
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-76EF6...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > Brother. Hands down.
> >
> > You've got to be kidding me. Their software flat-out sucks!
>
> Their Mac software is superb.
Not in my experience, it isn't.
erilar
John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> My Mac store stopped putting printers out for a while now, but Office
> Max/Depot usually has a shelf or two of them. There you could see for
> yourself the access process.
I went to the local Office Max and browsed their offerings before buying
my new Epson.
Jolly Roger
J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
Come on, J.J. You admit that some of the Brother software works as you
would expect, but some of it causes problems. But just because you don't
have the crappy software installed anymore doesn't magically make it
better!
Jolly Roger
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <postings-A1200E...@news.bigpond.com>,
> David <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>
> > Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> > avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> > cleaning heads.
>
> Big deal. Cleaning the print heads is a simple "chick here" operation
> she must already know from owning the Epson 740.
Most cheap, low-quality printers require you to clean the heads
regularly just to keep them operating correctly.
In contrast, I have a five-year-old Canon PIXMA printer on which I have
*never* had to clean the heads; it prints just as good today as the day
I purchased it!
Jamie Kahn Genet
> My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
> for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
> Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
> for a new printer.
>
> We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
> multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above
> all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges
> by herself! Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
> OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under
> $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
> what would be the best choice?
I'm still very happy with Epson. I remember the Stylus Color 740 fondly
- it was the first printer I bought to work with my brand new CRT iMac
back in 1999.
Nowadays I use an Epson R210 for colour prints and a Brother black and
white laser printer for everything else. Lasers are _MUCH_ cheaper for
B&W printing - I save a lot of money not using an inkjet for everything.
In fact I'd go so far as to say you'd be _mad_ to print B&W with an
inkjet - it's just flushing good money down the toilet. The HL-2140
<http://www.brother-usa.com/Printer/ModelDetail.aspx?ProductID=hl2140>
is a good littlw low end model that's very easy to use. HP also do
decent low end lasers.
So yeah - my advice is get a cheap Epson inkjet for colour and a Brother
laser for B&W.
HTH,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
TaliesinSoft
<hhmk3o$jfs$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>> I have two Canon MP-470 printers and they have performed flawlessly for
>> several years. I believe Canon now markets what is essentially an
>> updated/improved version. The MP-470 is a combination printer, scanner,
>> and copier. It uses two easily replaced ink cartridges, one black and one
>> color. The printer can be purchased for around $100. I'm using Snow
>> Leopard without anyl printer problems.
>
>
> ....But that's Multi function, which I'd also avoid for my Mom were I
> getting one for her.
Agreed it is a multi-function. I got one for my older brother (also 80+) and
the thing he ended up using the most was the copying capability.
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
TaliesinSoft
<jollyroger-6E5BB...@news.individual.net>):
[commenting on Canon printers having ink clogging and becoming useless]
> Ahem. Excuse me, but bullshit. I and my family have had several of them
> clog up and die within one or two years, rendering them completely useless.
I've been using two Canon MP-470s for a few years now and have never
experienced a serious clogging problem. On a few occasions I did run the head
cleaning option when there was some skipping in the printout. The head
cleaning cured the problem.
nospam
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> Not printing enough can dry out cartridges and be expensive as well.
true, and can cause clogs.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> > > avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> > > cleaning heads.
> >
> > they don't clog in normal use.
>
> Ahem. Excuse me, but bullshit. I and my family have had several of them
> clog up and die within one or two years, rendering them completely
> useless.
most likely from improper use.
nospam
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> >> avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> >> cleaning heads.
> >
> > they don't clog in normal use.
>
> Wanna bet on that?
yes. if you turn off the printer when not in use, the heads park on a
sponge so they don't dry out. of course, if you buy cheap ink or leave
the printer on all the time, then it might clog, but that's not how
it's supposed to be used.
> > what kind of post office sells printer
> > ink??
>
> Lots of them. Just down the road from my office there's a postal agency that
> sells discount ink. And, for larger definitions of 'post office', pretty much
> any UPS or FedEx establishment sells ink.
where? in the usa, i've never seen printer ink sold in a post office,
fed ex, ups or even mailbox etc. type place. lots of shipping supplies,
but not printer ink.
nospam
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >I gave up on inkjets 7 years ago and picked up a Samsung B&W laser printer
> >for
> >$200. The ink is expensive but the toner lasts for a very long time, giving
> >you a low cost per page. If you don't need color, this is the way to go.
> >(Thogh the color laser printers may be good enough now).
>
> And it removes the temptation to use the printer to print photos.
> Walgreen (and on-line photo stores) are cheaper and better for that.
cheaper maybe, but not necessarily better. the person running the
machine is not highly paid and really doesn't care if the colours in
your photo are a little off or the brightness is too high or too low.
give them a photo with a custom profile because you adjusted the image
exactly the way you want on your system and they probably won't know
what to do. they'll probably override it with the defaults (i.e., use
'auto' like every other photo) and you won't get what you wanted. if
your photos are 'too good' they will refuse to print them because
professional photographers don't use walmart, walgreens, etc. so
obviously you aren't the photographer and the photos are not yours to
be printed.
printing at home avoids all that nonsense. you get *exactly* what you
want, whenever you want, with whatever content you want, and without
the need to leave the house, which in the winter months is another
plus.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Most cheap, low-quality printers require you to clean the heads
> regularly just to keep them operating correctly.
nonsense. epsons do a clean cycle automatically, and the longer the
printer is off, the more thorough the cycle is. if you have a major
clog problem, it's not the printer's fault.
heiko recktenwald
> Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
> OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under
> $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
> what would be the best choice?
Try to get a used office Laser printer with network printing capability,
for example an old HP Laserjet 5 combined with HPs Jetdirect, very
cheap, very powerfull, good for all sort of computer and you can even
print photos (in b/w),
H.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <020120101051289128%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
> In article <hhnej...@news6.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>>>> Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
>>>> avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
>>>> cleaning heads.
>>>
>>> they don't clog in normal use.
>>
>> Wanna bet on that?
>
> yes. if you turn off the printer when not in use, the heads park on a
> sponge so they don't dry out.
Except that sometimes the sponge gets hard as a rock and then it doesn't do
squat. I'm talking actual real-world experience, here, not theory based on
vendor PR.
> of course, if you buy cheap ink or leave
> the printer on all the time, then it might clog, but that's not how
> it's supposed to be used.
And... once again, wanna bet? I had an Epson printer for years and I used
non-Epson ink in it and it didn't clog. At the office there were several
examples of the exact same model all of which were supplied with Ye Official
Epson Ink(r) and which _did_ clog.
>
>>> what kind of post office sells printer
>>> ink??
>>
>> Lots of them. Just down the road from my office there's a postal agency
>> that
>> sells discount ink. And, for larger definitions of 'post office', pretty
>> much
>> any UPS or FedEx establishment sells ink.
>
> where? in the usa,
West Palm Beach.
> i've never seen printer ink sold in a post office,
the office on Haverhill, for one.
> fed ex,
The FedEx I use most often is the one at Palm Beach Lakes and Ochechobee. It
has lots and lots of HP and Epson and Canon ink.
> ups
The UPS I use most often is the one at Forest Hill and Jog. Again, lots of
different inks.
> or even mailbox etc. type place.
The mail drop in the plaza at Summit and Military has lots of ink. All of it
discount ink, not original vendor ink. In addition, the Walgreen's across the
road from it, like every other Walgreen's in the county, not only sells ink
carts, it has a big sign out front indicating that it refills carts, too.
(HP, Epson, and Canon carts, that is. Brother, Lexmark and other vendors need
not apply.)
Where you been, man?
> lots of shipping supplies,
> but not printer ink.
--
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <020120101051329338%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
This has not been my experience.
erilar
heiko recktenwald <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
So do they sell for $20? My printer/scanner prints beautiful fotos and
cost something like $120.
erilar
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Most cheap, low-quality printers require you to clean the heads
> regularly just to keep them operating correctly.
>
I got great photographic quality from my Epson Stylus 740 for over a
decade and very seldom had occasion to clean the heads. It printed as
well 10 years after I purchased it as the day I bought it. I hope the
new one lasts as well. It prints even better.
> In contrast, I have a five-year-old Canon PIXMA printer on which I have
> *never* had to clean the heads; it prints just as good today as the day
> I purchased it!
Wow! Half as old as my old Epson! Somehow I'm not terribly impressed.
So how much did IT cost? How expensive is ITS ink? How's ITS print
quality?
heiko recktenwald
My HP Laserjet did cost 10, well, Euros, and the Jetdirect was a
present. Ok, they dont sell like that, but as a direction, where to keep
eyes open, what to look for. The Laserjet is incredible good for me,
MUCH more reliable than the old Laserwriter and also smaller allthough
not very much.
Jonathan L. Parker
>
> I don't know what Gutenprint is, but I do know Epson didn't update the
> drivers for that printer when they updated everything else.
Gutenprint is the open-source printing system that's been incorporated
into the Mac OS since I don't know when. (I've only been a Mac OS user
since 10.4.8.) It includes dozens, perhaps hundreds, of drivers for
legacy printers such as the one that sparked this thread. If you try to
add a printer through System Preferences without installing any
additional software from the manufacturer, the driver (if you find one)
listed there will be a Gutenprint driver.
I just mentioned this to advise the original poster that even though
Epson didn't update *its* driver for his mother's printer past OS 9,
it's likely still possible that she can keep using it with Snow Leopard,
if she or her loving offspring are willing to work a little bit.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
nospam
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > yes. if you turn off the printer when not in use, the heads park on a
> > sponge so they don't dry out.
>
> Except that sometimes the sponge gets hard as a rock and then it doesn't do
> squat. I'm talking actual real-world experience, here, not theory based on
> vendor PR.
so am i.
> > i've never seen printer ink sold in a post office,
>
> the office on Haverhill, for one.
the post offices i've been in at best, have envelopes, boxes, tape,
etc. i did see a post office with a snack bar in montana once though.
even the fed ex depot that are part of a kinkos don't sell ink but they
do sell fancy paper. maybe it's a regional thing.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <elmop-4FE93F....@nothing.attdns.com>):
> In article <jollyroger-1798E...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> There's also the Brother Control Center software, which _is_ crap, but as
>>> I
>>> don't even have it installed anymore is not a problem.
>>
>> Come on, J.J. You admit that some of the Brother software works as you
>> would expect, but some of it causes problems.
>
> No, he didn't say it causes problems. He simply said it's crap.
>
> That's far, FAR from saying that it actually causes problems.
>
> So it doesn't work well for him. No big deal. Works fine for me,
> actually...
The BCC version I have is clearly a clunky Windows port, down to the main
window and the dialog boxes. It's clunky, obnoxious, and inefficient. It
does, however, actually work. (except for the remote scan, which works under
USB but not when connected by the network. The BCC version installed on my
main WinBox has that same problem, so it looks as though it's something
buried deep in the code and which was ported over when the Windows code was
ported to OS X.) I never use it so I've deleted it on all but one machine,
and the only reason it's still on that machine is that I haven't got around
to killing it there, too.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Nope. Wrong. It's happened to me personally, and I used the fucking
printer correctly. You're just going to have to accept the fact that
various Epson printers have, can, and do clog up with _normal use_.
Otherwise, you're only going to make yourself look rather silly.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hhnej...@news6.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > >> Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> > >> avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> > >> cleaning heads.
> > >
> > > they don't clog in normal use.
> >
> > Wanna bet on that?
>
> yes. if you turn off the printer when not in use, the heads park on a
> sponge so they don't dry out. of course, if you buy cheap ink or leave
> the printer on all the time, then it might clog, but that's not how
> it's supposed to be used.
LOL... Except that's not the real-world experience of tons of Epson
users.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>In contrast, I have a five-year-old Canon PIXMA printer on which I have
>*never* had to clean the heads; it prints just as good today as the day
>I purchased it!
Useful information to remember. Can I just remember Canon, or is
there something different about PIXMA printers?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> And it removes the temptation to use the printer to print photos.
>> Walgreen (and on-line photo stores) are cheaper and better for that.
>
>cheaper maybe, but not necessarily better. the person running the
>machine is not highly paid and really doesn't care if the colours in
>your photo are a little off or the brightness is too high or too low.
Of course, we need to know the person who is doing the printing. The
OP seemed to have similar needs as I have with my mother.
erilar
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <020120101051329338%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-6E5BB...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> > > > > avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> > > > > cleaning heads.
> > > >
> > > > they don't clog in normal use.
> > >
> > > Ahem. Excuse me, but bullshit. I and my family have had several of them
> > > clog up and die within one or two years, rendering them completely
> > > useless.
> >
> > most likely from improper use.
>
> Nope. Wrong. It's happened to me personally, and I used the fucking
> printer correctly. You're just going to have to accept the fact that
> various Epson printers have, can, and do clog up with _normal use_.
> Otherwise, you're only going to make yourself look rather silly.
And you never used anything but Epson ink? Cheap ink will clog even
the best printer.
Jolly Roger
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:30:11 -0600, Jolly Roger wrote (in article
> <jollyroger-6E5BB...@news.individual.net>):
>
> [commenting on Canon printers having ink clogging and becoming useless]
Actually, I was referring to Epson, due to this statement:
---
In article <010120102230106163%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <postings-A1200E...@news.bigpond.com>, David
> <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>
> > certainly avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she
> > will be forever cleaning heads.
>
> they don't clog in normal use.
---
> > Ahem. Excuse me, but bullshit. I and my family have had several of them
> > clog up and die within one or two years, rendering them completely useless.
>
> I've been using two Canon MP-470s for a few years now and have never
> experienced a serious clogging problem. On a few occasions I did run the head
> cleaning option when there was some skipping in the printout. The head
> cleaning cured the problem.
I have never owned a Canon that has clogged. I consider Canon's prosumer
printers to be better than the others by a wide margin.
Jolly Roger
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> John Brock <jbr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
> > for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
> > Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
> > for a new printer.
> >
> > We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
> > multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above
> > all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges
> > by herself! Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
> > OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under
> > $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
> > what would be the best choice?
>
> I'm still very happy with Epson. I remember the Stylus Color 740 fondly
> - it was the first printer I bought to work with my brand new CRT iMac
> back in 1999.
Any reason you aren't still using it today?
> Nowadays I use an Epson R210 for colour prints
How old is it?
Jolly Roger
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-C67B0...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Most cheap, low-quality printers require you to clean the heads
> > regularly just to keep them operating correctly.
> >
> I got great photographic quality from my Epson Stylus 740 for over a
> decade and very seldom had occasion to clean the heads. It printed as
> well 10 years after I purchased it as the day I bought it. I hope the
> new one lasts as well. It prints even better.
Your is certainly not the experience of most people I know who had the
misfortune of buying Epson printers. I've seen several end up in the
junk pile from malfunctioning print heads.
> > In contrast, I have a five-year-old Canon PIXMA printer on which I have
> > *never* had to clean the heads; it prints just as good today as the day
> > I purchased it!
>
> Wow! Half as old as my old Epson! Somehow I'm not terribly impressed.
I'm quite sure it will outlast your cheap-o Epson. ; )
> So how much did IT cost?
The cost was quite competitive for similar printers when I purchased it.
> How expensive is ITS ink?
Comparing the cost of an ink cartridge isn't going to tell you much,
because it doesn't factor in how much ink is contained in the cartridge
or how fast the ink is consumed by the printer.
I read some reviews online before getting it that Canon i9900 owners pay
anywhere from $1.80 to $2.40 per print, depending on the paper I use.
How about yours?
> How's ITS print quality?
Far, far better than your Epson Stylus 740, buddy. And much faster as
well. Also it prints 13" x 19" borderless photos. : )
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nope. Wrong. It's happened to me personally, and I used the fucking
> printer correctly. You're just going to have to accept the fact that
> various Epson printers have, can, and do clog up with _normal use_.
> Otherwise, you're only going to make yourself look rather silly.
just because it happened to you doesn't mean it happens to everyone. if
so many people really did have clog problems, epson printers would not
sell very well, yet they do.
you are going to have to accept the fact that your experience is not
universal, and that a *lot* of people have don't have any problems with
epson printers.
nospam
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> And it removes the temptation to use the printer to print photos.
> >> Walgreen (and on-line photo stores) are cheaper and better for that.
> >
> >cheaper maybe, but not necessarily better. the person running the
> >machine is not highly paid and really doesn't care if the colours in
> >your photo are a little off or the brightness is too high or too low.
>
> Of course, we need to know the person who is doing the printing.
true, and at a walgreens or similar, you likely won't.
if you send them to a real camera store or a pro photo lab, they'll
gladly work with your custom workflow, making any adjustments that may
be needed (or none at all). but that won't be as cheap as walgreens.
you get what you pay for. and if you print at home, you can do whatever
you want.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
How's that? Please do explain how it's my fault!
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-88B60...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope. Wrong. It's happened to me personally, and I used the fucking
> > printer correctly. You're just going to have to accept the fact that
> > various Epson printers have, can, and do clog up with _normal use_.
> > Otherwise, you're only going to make yourself look rather silly.
>
> just because it happened to you doesn't mean it happens to everyone. if
> so many people really did have clog problems, epson printers would not
> sell very well, yet they do.
I never said anything close to "it happens to everyone". It was *you*
who said Epson printers never clog in normal use. That's simply not the
case.
They sell well because they are cheap. Quality has little to do with it.
Of course both your and my statements are subjective and meaningless
without real-life data.
> you are going to have to accept the fact that your experience is not
> universal, and that a *lot* of people have don't have any problems with
> epson printers.
Tell you what: I'll agree that a lot of people may not have problems
with Epson inkjet printers if you agree that a lot of people *do* have
problems with Epson inkjet printers. Otherwise, we can just agree to
disagree. : )
Jolly Roger
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
Correct.
Ronnie Lee
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:29:02 -0600, John Brock wrote (in article
> <hhmi2e$3tc$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
>
> > My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac for
> > Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by Snow Leopard
> > -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations for a new printer.
> >
> > We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
> > multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above all.
> > We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges by herself!
> > Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good OS X support, and
> > not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under $200 certainly, and
> > under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria, what would be the best
> > choice?
If you should decide on a laser printer Newegg has recertified Brother
models HL-2140 (USB connection) & Hl-2170w (USB, wired ethernet &
wireless) for $89.99 and $99.99 respectively, both with $30 rebates if
purchased before 3/31/09.
Ronnie Lee
Ronnie Lee <rgl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Should of course be 3/31/10
John McWilliams
'10?
Do you have said machine? how many pages before you have to buy a new
toner cart.?
--
john mcwilliams
Ronnie Lee
John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
I just received the HL-2170W on 12/29/09. Time from out of box to
working on a wired ethernet network was about 20 minutes for two
computers. The manual says the starter toner cart prints 1000 pages. New
carts are 1500 page standard or 2600 page high yield.
From what I have seen they are not overly expensive. So far I am happy
with my choice.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I never said anything close to "it happens to everyone". It was *you*
> who said Epson printers never clog in normal use. That's simply not the
> case.
it is the case.
> They sell well because they are cheap. Quality has little to do with it.
quality has everything to do with it. epson printers produce
outstanding photo quality and are typically the preferred printer for
photographers. their pigment inks last much longer than dye based inks.
and as for cheap, here's one for $2000-$2500, depending on
configuration:
<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/SeriesStylusPro4880/Overview.
do>
or get one for $8-10k, depending on paper width:
<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/SeriesStylusPro79009900efi/O
verview.do>
there's a lot more to epson than the dinky $49 model that's on sale.
> Of course both your and my statements are subjective and meaningless
> without real-life data.
there's plenty of real life data. go attend a photo trade show and see
which printers are being used. talk to people who actually use the
printers daily, not soccer moms who prints a letter once a month,
forgets to turn off the printer and wonders why it's clogged.
> > you are going to have to accept the fact that your experience is not
> > universal, and that a *lot* of people have don't have any problems with
> > epson printers.
>
> Tell you what: I'll agree that a lot of people may not have problems
> with Epson inkjet printers if you agree that a lot of people *do* have
> problems with Epson inkjet printers. Otherwise, we can just agree to
> disagree. : )
some might have problems, but where we disagree is the cause.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I got great photographic quality from my Epson Stylus 740 for over a
> > decade and very seldom had occasion to clean the heads. It printed as
> > well 10 years after I purchased it as the day I bought it. I hope the
> > new one lasts as well. It prints even better.
>
> Your is certainly not the experience of most people I know who had the
> misfortune of buying Epson printers. I've seen several end up in the
> junk pile from malfunctioning print heads.
straw man. nobody said epson printers are perfect and never fail.
did you inquire *why* the print heads malfunctioned? maybe the user did
something stupid, like run the ink cartridge dry, which *will* damage
the heads.
epson is the preferred printer for most photographers, with canon a
close second. there is a *tremendous* amount of aftermarket support for
epson, including continuous ink systems.
and the 740 did produce decent photos, although it was not actually a
photo printer.
> > > In contrast, I have a five-year-old Canon PIXMA printer on which I have
> > > *never* had to clean the heads; it prints just as good today as the day
> > > I purchased it!
> >
> > Wow! Half as old as my old Epson! Somehow I'm not terribly impressed.
>
> I'm quite sure it will outlast your cheap-o Epson. ; )
who cares. new printers often cost less than buying ink for an older
printer. technology changes too. today's printers are much better than
ones even a couple of years ago. and if you have to resort to comments
such as 'cheap-o' your argument holds little water (or is it ink?).
> > How expensive is ITS ink?
>
> Comparing the cost of an ink cartridge isn't going to tell you much,
> because it doesn't factor in how much ink is contained in the cartridge
> or how fast the ink is consumed by the printer.
so add in the pages per cartridge. the calculation is still simple.
> > How's ITS print quality?
>
> Far, far better than your Epson Stylus 740, buddy. And much faster as
> well. Also it prints 13" x 19" borderless photos. : )
evidence? let's see some colour gamut graphs or other tests. or is it
better because you say so? and epson has supported borderless for a
very, very long time.
David
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <postings-A1200E...@news.bigpond.com>, David
> <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>
> > Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> > avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> > cleaning heads.
>
> they don't clog in normal use
True, while they are in use - but leave them sitting for a week and you
have to clean the heads. I have only ever bought one Epson, and it
drove me mad as I only printed once a week or so. But every time I
wanted to print had to go through the whole cleaning the heads routine.
And that was after I had had it in for service as at that time I didn't
relaise it was an inherent fault
I put up with for a month then gave it away - couldn't in all decency
sell it to some poor bugger.
But it did print beautifully when it worked
>
> > With HP (I have had 4 of them over the past 15 years) they just sit
> > there until you want to print, then they print. No trouble no fuss.
>
> i know someone with an hp printer that is bit of fuss, especially the
> curved paper path which doesn't work so well with thicker stock.
Oh, that is not good. Guess I must have been lucky with the 4 I have
owned as none of them ever gave me trouble
>
> > One big advantage of the HP and Canon is that cartridges are available
> > at most department stores and at post offices.
>
> same for epson and even lexmark. what kind of post office sells printer
> ink??
Well every post office I have been in - dont you look at what they have
for sale when you go to the PO?
David
David
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> Also, I would consider a wireless network printer that allows her to put
> it anywhere, and allows the friends/family to hook to it without effort
> when they come over.
One advantage my Wireless HP printer/scanner has apart from the absence
of cables is that I can print directly from my iPhone. Very handy.
David
David
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
With the epson I gave away due to continuous clogging it was using the
original cartridges supplied with the printer.
David
erilar
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> just because it happened to you doesn't mean it happens to everyone. if
> so many people really did have clog problems, epson printers would not
> sell very well, yet they do.
The only time I had a bad clog problem with my Epson was the one time I
bought non-Epson ink.
erilar
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I'm quite sure it will outlast your cheap-o Epson. ; )
Let me know when it passes 11 years.
erilar
> Of course, we need to know the person who is doing the printing. The
> OP seemed to have similar needs as I have with my mother.
This is always an important factor. As a great-grandmother(yes, I'm
female, for the information of the Epson-hater) myself, I thought my
experience might be of interest to the OP.
nospam
<post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
> > they don't clog in normal use
>
> True, while they are in use - but leave them sitting for a week and you
> have to clean the heads.
did you turn the printer off after using it, or was it on the entire
week? when off, the heads park on a waste pad, effectively sealing
them. if you left it on, then you probably will get a clog.
nospam
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > just because it happened to you doesn't mean it happens to everyone. if
> > so many people really did have clog problems, epson printers would not
> > sell very well, yet they do.
>
> The only time I had a bad clog problem with my Epson was the one time I
> bought non-Epson ink.
*some* non-epson ink can clog, not all. there are a number of specialty
inks that work very well, but they're not dirt cheap, which is usually
why people buy off brand ink. also, recent printers have smaller
nozzles which means crappy ink is more likely to clog.
erilar
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> if you send them to a real camera store or a pro photo lab, they'll
> gladly work with your custom workflow, making any adjustments that may
> be needed (or none at all). but that won't be as cheap as walgreens.
> you get what you pay for. and if you print at home, you can do whatever
> you want.
It's much more effective and more fun doing it sitting here at my own
computer, but I'm picky about my fotos.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1jbqe72.ihajuu7yrz89N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > John Brock <jbr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac
> > > for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by
> > > Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations
> > > for a new printer.
> > >
> > > We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or
> > > multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above
> > > all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges
> > > by herself! Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good
> > > OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under
> > > $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria,
> > > what would be the best choice?
> >
> > I'm still very happy with Epson. I remember the Stylus Color 740 fondly
> > - it was the first printer I bought to work with my brand new CRT iMac
> > back in 1999.
>
> Any reason you aren't still using it today?
Gave it to my grandparents about five years ago, they used it for a
couple, then it stopped working. Maybe it could have been fixed, but I
was looking for an excuse to convert my grandparents to a laser printer
to save money. They hardly ever needed to print in colour, and the 740
wasted a lot of expensive ink with it not having seperate colour ink
carts. That's one reason I replaced it with the R210 which does. Of
course I also use a laser for B&W print jobs. The OP really would be mad
IMO to not get a laser for B&W.
> > Nowadays I use an Epson R210 for colour prints
>
> How old is it?
About five years. But I've come across enough Epson inkjets since to
think them pretty reliable. I've not such a good opinion of HP (lots of
paper jams IME, with them bending the paper at a sharp angle due to
input and output trays being on the same side), and especially Lexmark
injets which are utter crap - avoid, avoid, avoid Lexmark.
I'm heard many good things about Cannon inkjets, but have little
personal experience.
But getting back to the Epson Stylus 740 - I was a bit sad when it broke
down. It was one hell of a workhorse! So reliable I could hardly believe
it. I wish I could say the same for the rest of my hardware.
Anyone here had one last longer than I did (nine years)?
Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Jolly Roger
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-C4E8D...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm quite sure it will outlast your cheap-o Epson. ; )
>
> Let me know when it passes 11 years.
I'll try to remember to do that.
Jolly Roger
David <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
> In article <010120102230106163%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <postings-A1200E...@news.bigpond.com>, David
> > <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly
> > > avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever
> > > cleaning heads.
> >
> > they don't clog in normal use
>
> True, while they are in use - but leave them sitting for a week and you
> have to clean the heads. I have only ever bought one Epson, and it
> drove me mad as I only printed once a week or so. But every time I
> wanted to print had to go through the whole cleaning the heads routine.
> And that was after I had had it in for service as at that time I didn't
> relaise it was an inherent fault
>
> I put up with for a month then gave it away - couldn't in all decency
> sell it to some poor bugger.
>
> But it did print beautifully when it worked
That's about the same experience I had with mine. I've had similar
experiences with Lexmark printers, too.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-3A773...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I never said anything close to "it happens to everyone". It was *you*
> > who said Epson printers never clog in normal use. That's simply not the
> > case.
>
> it is the case.
It is definitely not the case in my real-world experience. It's as if
you think it's physically impossible for Epson printers to clog under
normal use. The truth is it happens.
> > They sell well because they are cheap. Quality has little to do with it.
>
> quality has everything to do with it. epson printers produce
> outstanding photo quality and are typically the preferred printer for
> photographers. their pigment inks last much longer than dye based inks.
Other printers are also preferred by photographers. And the same things
can be said for them. Epson isn't the be-all and end-all photo printer
on the planet.
> > Of course both your and my statements are subjective and meaningless
> > without real-life data.
>
> there's plenty of real life data. go attend a photo trade show and see
> which printers are being used. talk to people who actually use the
> printers daily, not soccer moms who prints a letter once a month,
> forgets to turn off the printer and wonders why it's clogged.
You just can't stop harping on the clog problem. Fine - I'll come out
and say it: A printer that dries up if you don't pint to it once a week
is a CRAPPY PRINTER.
> > > you are going to have to accept the fact that your experience is not
> > > universal, and that a *lot* of people have don't have any problems with
> > > epson printers.
> >
> > Tell you what: I'll agree that a lot of people may not have problems
> > with Epson inkjet printers if you agree that a lot of people *do* have
> > problems with Epson inkjet printers. Otherwise, we can just agree to
> > disagree. : )
>
> some might have problems, but where we disagree is the cause.
Whatever. I know for a fact that I used my Epson properly, with Epson
brand inks, and Epson brand paper. Within the first year, it was already
exhibiting banding due to clogs. The printer was a piece of shit to me.
I'm sure you would love to believe that my Epson clogged up permanently
because I used it incorrectly. Saying it over and over isn't going to
magically change reality, though.
nospam
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > if you send them to a real camera store or a pro photo lab, they'll
> > gladly work with your custom workflow, making any adjustments that may
> > be needed (or none at all). but that won't be as cheap as walgreens.
> > you get what you pay for. and if you print at home, you can do whatever
> > you want.
>
> It's much more effective and more fun doing it sitting here at my own
> computer, but I'm picky about my fotos.
i am too. one of the attractions to me for digital is that i have total
control on how it looks and that i don't have to go anywhere to pick up
photos, nor do i need to send them out to be processed and wait for
them to arrive.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> It is definitely not the case in my real-world experience. It's as if
> you think it's physically impossible for Epson printers to clog under
> normal use. The truth is it happens.
i never said it was physically impossible. don't try to twist things.
normally, they don't clog. sometimes they do, and it typically happens
when people do things like forget to turn off the printer, use it in
very humid weather, use cheap ink, etc.
> You just can't stop harping on the clog problem. Fine - I'll come out
> and say it: A printer that dries up if you don't pint to it once a week
> is a CRAPPY PRINTER.
no, that would simply be a printer that's not designed for occasional
use.
furthermore, the heads park when off, so this is only really an issue
if you *leave it on* for a week or turn it off from a power strip,
which won't properly park the heads.
> Whatever. I know for a fact that I used my Epson properly, with Epson
> brand inks, and Epson brand paper. Within the first year, it was already
> exhibiting banding due to clogs. The printer was a piece of shit to me.
a sample size of one? are you serious?
> I'm sure you would love to believe that my Epson clogged up permanently
> because I used it incorrectly. Saying it over and over isn't going to
> magically change reality, though.
maybe it was defective. one clogged printer does not mean the entire
product line is junk.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-F46EF...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > It is definitely not the case in my real-world experience. It's as if
> > you think it's physically impossible for Epson printers to clog under
> > normal use. The truth is it happens.
>
> i never said it was physically impossible. don't try to twist things.
>
> normally, they don't clog. sometimes they do, and it typically happens
> when people do things like forget to turn off the printer, use it in
> very humid weather, use cheap ink, etc.
And it very well can happen even when people don't do things like that,
and follow all the best practices.
> > You just can't stop harping on the clog problem. Fine - I'll come out
> > and say it: A printer that dries up if you don't pint to it once a week
> > is a CRAPPY PRINTER.
>
> no, that would simply be a printer that's not designed for occasional
> use.
No, IMO, it's a crappy printer. From what i can tell, most people who
buy the cheap Epson inkjet printers are very likely occasional users.
> furthermore, the heads park when off, so this is only really an issue
> if you *leave it on* for a week or turn it off from a power strip,
> which won't properly park the heads.
A good printer would detect that it has not been used and automatically
shut itself down etc. My Canon does just this.
> > Whatever. I know for a fact that I used my Epson properly, with Epson
> > brand inks, and Epson brand paper. Within the first year, it was already
> > exhibiting banding due to clogs. The printer was a piece of shit to me.
>
> a sample size of one? are you serious?
Google shows 202,000 hits for the search term "epson clogged nozzles".
So realistically, we're talking about a sample size of a much greater
number. ; )
> > I'm sure you would love to believe that my Epson clogged up permanently
> > because I used it incorrectly. Saying it over and over isn't going to
> > magically change reality, though.
>
> maybe it was defective. one clogged printer does not mean the entire
> product line is junk.
I never said the entire product line is junk. "Don't try to twist
things." Seriously, is this not getting old by now? ; )