What inkjet printer prints the best text?
B. Schneier
color printing for brochures and stuff I find on the Internet. Can
someone recommend a color ink jet that prints laser-like text and is
reasonably fast.
Thanks in advance,
BS
Jan Alter
printing should be good as well. If ink cost is not the critical factor and
the very best photo printing of that import then you may be very satisfied.
--
Jan Alter
bea...@verizon.net
or
jal...@phila.k12.pa.us
"B. Schneier" <m....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Y9O8j.533$7I.158@trndny09...
measekite
HP Deskjets for all around color printing
Some brand of color Laser - HP may not be the best here. Look at Okidata
willia...@verizon.net
text with its 2nd black pigment cartridge that is committed to that
task alone. It's also pretty fast. Cost is about $120, but additional
ink cartridges are expensive, indeed, and need changing frequently.
But if I did a LOT of text printing with some color illustrations, I
think I'd agree with Measekite and look at the Okidata printers,
especially the 6100n that is now discounted by some sellers to about
$600 (from almost $900). It's built like a tank, won't require
replacing the toner anywhere near as often as an inkjet printer, and
will last years longer than the Canon inkjet that will last 2-4 years,
tops.
Good luck with your choice.
kony
Define reasonably fast. It's fairly inherant in ink jet
tech that if printing decent quality (not quick draft mode)
color brochures or internet "stuff", it'll be slow.
Unless you have a need to print very high quality color
photos, I suggest a median volume / quality / price, color
laser printer. When printing something like a brochure, use
semi-glossy coated paper (for lasers, it need not be an
absorbent coating on the paper like with inkjet paper, and
very high gloss inkjet paper cannot be used but you wouldn't
want to use it as that would be the opposite problem of
uncoated paper, being too glossy in light areas.
Laser picture output quality varies, read a few reviews of
models you might consider.
DanG
"Fast" and "quality" do not always quarter in comfort.
Almost any inkjet is capable of excellent quality text with the right paper,
and almost any high-quality printer is capable of producing crappy text with
the wrong paper.
The latest Canon models, IP4500 being the cheapest, have a larger head and
are capable of speed and quality. They will use either dye or pigment black
depending your paper settings. (IP3500 has only pigment black and text
quality will suffer using high-res paper settings). The caveat being that
you need to select appropriate paper, and off-the-shelf 20# paper isn't it.
kony
wrote:
>
>"B. Schneier" <m....@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:Y9O8j.533$7I.158@trndny09...
>> Most of my printing involves documents and legal briefs. There is some
>> color printing for brochures and stuff I find on the Internet. Can someone
>> recommend a color ink jet that prints laser-like text and is reasonably
>> fast.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> BS
>
>"Fast" and "quality" do not always quarter in comfort.
>
>Almost any inkjet is capable of excellent quality text with the right paper,
>and almost any high-quality printer is capable of producing crappy text with
>the wrong paper.
Agreed, with an inkjet, but what do you consider a good
high-volume use paper for inkjet?
One of the benefits of a laser is that just about anything
you shove into it (besides very glossy paper the toner just
won't adhere to before it's fused to the paper, or certain
types of plastics that have a melting point too low... more
of a problem with older lasers that ran at higher fuser
temps than today's color lasers that use toner with more
waxy-whatever lower melting point), prints out sharp as a
tack. Basically it means you can buy bulk copy machine
paper which is far less expensive than many other types.
>
>The latest Canon models, IP4500 being the cheapest, have a larger head and
>are capable of speed and quality. They will use either dye or pigment black
>depending your paper settings. (IP3500 has only pigment black and text
>quality will suffer using high-res paper settings). The caveat being that
>you need to select appropriate paper, and off-the-shelf 20# paper isn't it.
>
The other option is what many people do, use a B&W laser for
text documents and (color) inkjet for pictures.
Martha Adams
"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6il8m3pjckva5u5cs...@4ax.com...
I think Schneier wants what he says he wants, and it could
be productive to review what he says. I noticed this thread
went over pretty quick to laser printers, without recognizing
a key difference from inkjets, that laser printers, even the
most modern ones, use a fuser step in copy printing and this
fuser has to boost power requirements sharply. The inkjet
has no fuser thus runs without that peak power need of the
laser printer's fuser. Until he says something else, as far
as I'm concerned he's asking about inkjets *for this reason*
and so laser printers are probably off his track. Maybe
someone could reply to him, asking, well, *could you use* a
laser printer in your application? And if he responds 'Yes,'
then the thread could go into laser printers. But for now I
see no reason at all to be talking about other than inkjets.
Cheers -- Martha Adams [comp.periphs.printers 2007 Dec 15]
measekite
When you unpack a printer of a certain brand it comes with ink carts. Thats when you have that particular brand. Many here put who knows what crap in their printer so they no longer have the printer they purchased.
Taliesyn
I find Canon printers give near laser results when used in conjunction
with good quality paper. Not coated paper, just good quality paper.
-Taliesyn
Nicolaas Hawkins
<news:fk252...@news3.newsguy.com>:
> measekite <inkys...@oem.com> posted the following
> nonsense in news:Ln09j.4340$Vq....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Be aware that many posters to this group will claim
> they
>> have Canon printer or an Epson printer and some will
>> claim they have an HP printer. But they do not. They do
>> not know what kind of printer they really have.
>
> Pinch me; no one can possibly say anything this stupid!
Measekite just did.
But then, that is what he does - to the exclusion of all else.
Stupid does as stupid is.
--
Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar,
Nicolaas.
... That which does not kill me, makes me stranger ... er, stronger.
Richard Steinfeld
> measekite <inkys...@oem.com> posted the following
> nonsense in news:Ln09j.4340$Vq....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> have Canon printer or an Epson printer and some will
>> claim they have an HP printer. But they do not. They do
>> not know what kind of printer they really have.
>
>
Oh yes. Measekite is really George W. Bush.
"Make the pie higher."
DanG
> high-volume use paper for inkjet?
>
Any decent 24# paper that's labeled as "inkjet paper" is a good choice for
everyday printing. Most of the office stores have their own brand. None of
the 20# "multipurpose" or "office paper" types are worth wasting ink on.
I've also had good results on 28# copy paper for duplexing and general
printing.
Tony
I'm not sure I know which inkjet prints the best text. Generally I am reluctant
to recommend printers in this forum but your needs seem to be well defined.
This is one of the fastest inkjets on the market today
http://tinyurl.com/ytylwp
It produces text that is of high quality, I suggest you see if you can get a
demo page at a local dealer. It is designed for small offices with a moderately
high printing workload.
It uses #88 cartriidges (4 of them) which are high capacity and the extra large
black cartridge is available, it is as fast as most entry level laser printers
and has a cost per page that is cheaper than many lasers. The colour output is
more than good enough for brochures and prints from the internet. It has two
user replacable printheads that have a warranted life based on manufacturing
dates and these usually have warranties that extend beyond the printer warranty.
I have many satisfied customers with this printer.
Several have recommended laser printers, if you need occasional colour prints a
laser is likely to be too expensive to buy and the cost per page for entry
level colour lasers is almost certainly going to be higher than for this
printer.
Good luck
Tony
MS MVP Printing/Imaging
kony
OP never listed low power as an important criteria. Quite
the opposite, the issue was speed and quality. I have to
wonder why power seems important to you, whether you have
dodgy site wiring or are especially green about power.
Eithe would be a valid concern if present, but there are a
lot of factors in a business. Getting printing done faster
on a laser can actually save power by ending the lights and
other site facility usage sooner.
>The inkjet
>has no fuser thus runs without that peak power need of the
>laser printer's fuser. Until he says something else, as far
>as I'm concerned he's asking about inkjets *for this reason*
>and so laser printers are probably off his track.
Why in the world would you assume this, until it had been
expressly stated that some low power utilization was a
factor? Thus far, that issue has been conspicously missing
from the text.
>Maybe
>someone could reply to him, asking, well, *could you use* a
>laser printer in your application? And if he responds 'Yes,'
>then the thread could go into laser printers. But for now I
>see no reason at all to be talking about other than inkjets.
You have a reasonable point in that the OP did make a
distinction here, but on the other hand, the world does
indeed function doing the tasks described with laser
printers. Nobody is forced to follow any advice given, but
I can tell you from regular use, that a decent quality color
laser printer can meet the expressed goals.
The primary area where a decent color laser falls short, is
short range viewing of photorealistic output. It is not as
good as a very high quality magazine would be, but for
brochure photos or other things less demanding, any business
would be crazy to use inkjet printers instead. Today an
inkjet is really only best for very low volume photo
printing. It isn't even a low cost issue anymore unless one
is trying to be extremely stingy about it over a short term,
as printing color over time costs more with an inkjet unless
you have a rare specimen of inkjet where you can get bulk
ink reserviours with connected tubingi so the ink supply is
vastly larger than the manufacturer intended it to be.
Sometimes, people get conceptions and just need to hear
alternative points of view from others who have had similar
needs and did not need to do the same as the ideal proposed.
I don't just print personal things with a color laser, I
have mass volume printing and have put about half a million
pages on every laser I've had before they were retired.
Inkjet? It's a small niche really, someone who regularly
prints only a small volume. That could indeed describe many
home users, but IMO, may not describe the OP's needs.
kony
wrote:
Perhaps, but if printing on sub-optimal paper using an
inkjet printer, then the difference in quality starts to
diminish between it and a laser.
With a modern color laser, the toner is semi-glossy, even
black text, unlike old B&W lasers which had matte black
output. Therefore, coated paper is best for photos on a
color laser, so it is also true for inkjets, just a differnt
type of (more costly) coating.
I find that with generic copy machine paper on an inkjet,
the text output is nowhere near as sharp as using same paper
on a laser. Basically I'm suggesting that if the volume of
text is high, there might be a justification for more than
one printer if the color output also needs to have the very
highest photo realistic output.
On the other handn when viewed at a distance, a color laser
does have fairly good output, certainly higher than what one
would find in the typical magazine.
kjjh...@yahoo.com
> HP printers have a good reputation for giving high quality text. Color
> printing should be good as well. If ink cost is not the critical factor and
> the very best photo printing of that import then you may be very satisfied.
>
I bought a HP OJ L7580 few weeks ago,
Why it always printed 35 pages then stop even I had send more than 35
pages to the printer.
Jim Ford
> When you unpack a printer of a certain brand it comes with ink carts. Thats
> when you have that particular brand. Many here put who knows what crap in their
> printer so they no longer have the printer they purchased.
I thought mouseshite had hit rock bottom with his inane drivel in recent
postings, but I see he's starting to mine!
Wipe the drool off his chin and put his straight jacket back on, someone!
Jim Ford
measekite
Totally False. I own and like my Canon but it is far from Laser quality
results. As for text quality is does not quite match my HP. That said
it still is very good.
DanG
>>
>>
>>Any decent 24# paper that's labeled as "inkjet paper" is a good choice for
>>everyday printing. Most of the office stores have their own brand. None of
>>the 20# "multipurpose" or "office paper" types are worth wasting ink on.
>>I've also had good results on 28# copy paper for duplexing and general
>>printing.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but if printing on sub-optimal paper using an
> inkjet printer, then the difference in quality starts to
> diminish between it and a laser.
>
> With a modern color laser, the toner is semi-glossy, even
> black text, unlike old B&W lasers which had matte black
> output. Therefore, coated paper is best for photos on a
> color laser, so it is also true for inkjets, just a differnt
> type of (more costly) coating.
>
> I find that with generic copy machine paper on an inkjet,
> the text output is nowhere near as sharp as using same paper
> on a laser. Basically I'm suggesting that if the volume of
> text is high, there might be a justification for more than
> one printer if the color output also needs to have the very
> highest photo realistic output.
>
> On the other handn when viewed at a distance, a color laser
> does have fairly good output, certainly higher than what one
> would find in the typical magazine.
>
Apparently, you are not concerned that this thread is about inkjet, not
laser.
CBFalconer
>> high-volume use paper for inkjet?
>
> Any decent 24# paper that's labeled as "inkjet paper" is a good
> choice for everyday printing. Most of the office stores have their
> own brand. None of the 20# "multipurpose" or "office paper" types
> are worth wasting ink on. I've also had good results on 28# copy
> paper for duplexing and general printing.
However, for speed they lose out to any Laser printer. An inkjet,
printing text, can probably be driven at full speed with a 1200
baud line (in text). Yet printing speed of 4 to 6 pages per minute
are common, for text or graphics, with a Laser printer.
I don't want to print any 100 page manuals on any inkjet.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
kony
<cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>DanG wrote:
>> "kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Agreed, with an inkjet, but what do you consider a good
>>> high-volume use paper for inkjet?
>>
>> Any decent 24# paper that's labeled as "inkjet paper" is a good
>> choice for everyday printing. Most of the office stores have their
>> own brand. None of the 20# "multipurpose" or "office paper" types
>> are worth wasting ink on. I've also had good results on 28# copy
>> paper for duplexing and general printing.
>
>However, for speed they lose out to any Laser printer. An inkjet,
>printing text, can probably be driven at full speed with a 1200
>baud line (in text). Yet printing speed of 4 to 6 pages per minute
>are common, for text or graphics, with a Laser printer.
>
>I don't want to print any 100 page manuals on any inkjet.
Today even the cheap lasers can manage around 20 pages a
minute. Sometimes the more elaborate color lasers have an
annoying tendency to "calibrate" themselves before printing
a series of high quality color documents, which I suspect
really means stabilizing a uniform temp among all transfer
rollers.
kony
wrote:
>
True, since many people do use lasers for the described
tasks and their goals were similar to the OP's, for greater
speed. We could reply to a thread about the best brick to
use to pound a nail into a 2x4, but when hammers exist...
Burt
quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality photos and
color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in time. Fast text
printing for multi-page reports, documentation booklets, checks, and
business correspondance. Photo prints that look, to the naked eye, as good
as lab prints.
Richard Steinfeld
...
> This is one of the fastest inkjets on the market today
> http://tinyurl.com/ytylwp
Tony, thanks, but there's a couple of problems here.
1. The link that you posted goes into a black hole.
2. You didn't mention the model number once in your post, so I have no
idea what machine you're talking about. And I really want to know!
So, since I really appreciate your contributions to this NG, I'd also
appreciate your simply mentioning the model so that, even if HP won't
sell me one, I know what to buy from someone else.
Thanks, Tony.
Richard
Tony
Oops, yes the link is bad Richard
Try
http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Officejet/1/storefronts/C8184A%2523A2L
It's the Officejet Pro K5400 which is part of a series that use the same
engine, some are multifunction devices, the 5400 is a stand alone printer.
Tony
Frank
...proly the most stupid remark in at least the last 5 mins.
Frank
Plato
>
> HP printers have a good reputation for giving high quality text. Color
> printing should be good as well. If ink cost is not the critical factor and
> the very best photo printing of that import then you may be very satisfied.
I really like the HP Photosmart C3X series
CBFalconer
>
>> True, since many people do use lasers for the described
>> tasks and their goals were similar to the OP's, for greater
>> speed. We could reply to a thread about the best brick to
>> use to pound a nail into a 2x4, but when hammers exist...
>
> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem.
> A good quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good
> quality photos and color graphics. The best of both worlds at
> this point in time. Fast text printing for multi-page reports,
> documentation booklets, checks, and business correspondance.
> Photo prints that look, to the naked eye, as good as lab prints.
True. And many can simply dispose with the color printer. At any
rate it allows you to chose the optimum method. Although color
lasers are getting better and cheaper, and this optimum may soon
change.
--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
TJ
> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem. A good
> quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality photos and
> color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in time. Fast text
> printing for multi-page reports, documentation booklets, checks, and
> business correspondance. Photo prints that look, to the naked eye, as good
> as lab prints.
>
>
Probably the best solution, as long as the O.P. has the space and the
cash to buy, use, and support two printers.
TJ
measekite
TJ wrote:
> Burt wrote:
>
>> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem. A
>> good quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality
>> photos and color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in
>> time. Fast text printing for multi-page reports, documentation
>> booklets, checks, and business correspondance. Photo prints that
>> look, to the naked eye, as good as lab prints.
>>
> Probably the best solution, as long as the O.P. has the space and the
> cash to buy, use, and support two printers.
>
> TJ
If you really think about it you may buy two printers but in essence you
are really supporting one in a giving time period. You see if you use
the printers equally then in theory each will last twice as long in a
given period so each will require 1/2 the maintenance. So the average
is the same for one printer.
Frank
---more bullshit lies----
Get lost asshole!
Frank
kony
If the 2nd printer is a B&W laser the average is much lower,
because the cost per page is much lower. If it were an
older model B&W laser which took higher capacity cartridges
and/or could be refilled with bulk toner, the cost drops
even further. That it prints quite a bit faster and
razor-sharp text with cheap copy machine paper is icing on
the cake.
CBFalconer
PLONK
--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Frank
> Frank wrote:
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>---more bullshit lies----
>>Get lost asshole!
>>Frank
>
>
> PLONK
>
DOUBLE PLONK!!!
Frank
TJ
It's a moot point. If you really think about it, a well-designed,
well-built printer will probably be considered outdated and/or obsolete
by the manufacturer long before it quits printing, even if it's the only
printer you use. How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
develop a driver? It doesn't matter if you use a printer every day or
once a month - when the support is gone, it's gone.
Your argument doesn't address the problem of needing enough space, either.
Miles Bader
> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
> that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
> develop a driver?
Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
design in the first place...
-Miles
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Burt
"Miles Bader" <miles...@necel.com> wrote in message
news:buotzmc...@dhapc248.dev.necel.com...
> TJ <T...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
>> that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>> develop a driver?
>
> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
> design in the first place...
>
> -Miles
>
> --
peripheral devices and software versions that worked great but didn't have
new drivers or were incompatable when we updated our OS. Had to replace
them with new devices for which the new version of the OS had a driver or
software versions that were compatable with the new OS version. Common
problems that I've encountered while migrating through the various versions
of Windows. The devices were not crap - the manufacturers of these
devices/software versions decided to not support them with the new windows
version. That is why I've purchased my last two computers in Oct and Nov
and specified WinXP instead of Vista.
Miles Bader
>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
>> design in the first place...
>
> peripheral devices and software versions that worked great but didn't have
> new drivers or were incompatable when we updated our OS. Had to replace
> them with new devices for which the new version of the OS had a driver or
> software versions that were compatable with the new OS version.
I'm not claiming the printer _hardware_ is crap[1], but if the hardware
_requires_ certain software, then one cannot judge that hardware in
isolation, because it's more or less useless without the software. In
such cases one must judge the "total package."
If part of that total package is a non-portable and quickly obsoleted[2]
software driver, then I think it's fair to say that the package is
indeed crap, no matter how nice its hardware component.
-Miles
[1] Though this sort of "driver required" design seems rather more
common with very low-end devices, where often the hardware also is
particularly great.
[2] ... and often buggy and badly designed -- most peripheral companies
are a lot less skillful at writing software than they are at
building hardware.
--
Any man who is a triangle, has thee right, when in Cartesian Space, to
have angles, which when summed, come to know more, nor no less, than
nine score degrees, should he so wish. [TEMPLE OV THEE LEMUR]
TJ
Linux, through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except
for one oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and
they keep working that way.
IMNSHO, any OS that radically changes its device driver requirements
with every new version is crap, too.
Cal Bubba
> I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using
> Linux, through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except
> for one oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and
> they keep working that way.
>
> IMNSHO, any OS that radically changes its device driver requirements
> with every new version is crap, too.
I concur. But since when has Microsoft been considerate?
And now that I'm sour, let me add Visioneer to the list of "we've got
your money, go to hell" companies. They're so arrogant and stingy that
they simply told their customers with scanners for Windows 9x that they
were obsolete and wouldn't work under XP. After wasting long distance
phone calls attempting to contact them without being hung up on, I
discovered that my scanner works fine under XP after all. SP2, too. Pass
these jokers by, folks.
Bubba
Richard Steinfeld
with all three of you.
When I _really_ retire, it'll be time for me to switch OSs. I want
Microsoft out of my life, but can't dump them yet because I need to
maintain compatibility.
Richard
CBFalconer
> TJ <T...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup that
>> don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>> develop a driver?
>
> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is
> a crap design in the first place...
Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
place. For some of the reasons, see below.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
Burt
"TJ" <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:476bb897$0$26015$8826...@free.teranews.com...
(snip)>>
> I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using Linux,
> through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except for one
> oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and they keep
> working that way.
TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk. In fairness, technology and
associated software for scanners had advanced to the point where it was
actually a blessing after the fact.
Tony
All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release cycle of a
new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few months and when SP1
comes out in the new year I suspect we will see better performance as well as
other improvements. Your comment about Vista reminds me of similar comments
about XP and previous versions of Windows during the early stages of release.
In many cases the end result was a pretty reliable OS (Windows98SE and Windows
XP with SP2 for eaxmple). Modern OS' are immensely complex and anybody who
thinks they can be released in their final totally stable version is dreaming.
All of the negatives in the above links have been refuted by people just as
expert as the authors. It seems to me that the links have been "cherry picked",
in other words chosen because they are all negative. There are many positive
links about Vista. I have been using Vista for many months with absolutely no
issues as of yet and am looking forward to SP1. I also lived with the Windows
98 XP iterations which resulted in a stable computing experience for me.
On a more specific note the first link is well worth a read, clearly the author
has an agenda. He says that "This document looks purely at the cost of the
technical portions of Vista's content protection" and immediately follows this
with comments that are critical of the OS with little or no relevance to the
subject matter.
Tony
Cal Bubba
> TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
> version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
> old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.
That's my point. You scanner may, in fact, have worked fine! The
bastards were too sucky to even see if their existing drivers would work
under the new OS (which, in my own case, the driver works just fine).
By the way, Visioneer scanners were/are sold under other brand names
(such as Memorex,Colorado, and private label brands). So when you buy a
scanner sold under one of these brand names, guess whose "support"
you're going to get?
Bubba
Burt
"Cal Bubba" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:476c7321$0$84192$742e...@news.sonic.net...
You are right - the Visioneer scanner worked just fine. I was forced to
move on to Epson and Canon scanners and ended up with much better, faster,
more versatile units.
kony
wrote:
>measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>> TJ wrote:
>>> Burt wrote:
>>>
>>>> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem. A
>>>> good quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality
>>>> photos and color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in
>>>> time. Fast text printing for multi-page reports, documentation
>>>> booklets, checks, and business correspondance. Photo prints that
>>>> look, to the naked eye, as good as lab prints.
>>>>
>>> Probably the best solution, as long as the O.P. has the space and the
>>> cash to buy, use, and support two printers.
>>>
>>> TJ
>>
>> If you really think about it you may buy two printers but in essence you
>> are really supporting one in a giving time period. You see if you use
>> the printers equally then in theory each will last twice as long in a
>> given period so each will require 1/2 the maintenance. So the average
>> is the same for one printer.
>
>It's a moot point. If you really think about it, a well-designed,
>well-built printer will probably be considered outdated and/or obsolete
>by the manufacturer long before it quits printing, even if it's the only
>printer you use.
Irrelevant. Even if it is outdated before it breaks it can
still have far better cost per page, far better printing
quality, far faster.
> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
>that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>develop a driver?
Who buys an OS without checking if it supports their needs
first? Why buys a printer without checking whether it
supports the OS they want to use?
IMO, Vista is not as worthwhile as a nice printer. YMMV.
>It doesn't matter if you use a printer every day or
>once a month - when the support is gone, it's gone.
Not really, many of the nicer printers out there aren't
WinPrinters, don't need elaborate software. Some can be set
up generically over a parallel port, especially for text
printing. Others may eventually have Vista drivers unless
very old already, and if very old already, the reasonable
value was already gotten out of the purchase.
You also have not demonstrated we have a reasonable
assumption "it's gone".
>
>Your argument doesn't address the problem of needing enough space, either.
Might be a valid argument in a small office cubical, but the
with several cubicals there would be a shared network
printer. If you're not stuffed in a cubical there is no
real "needing enough space" argument, a printer is not a
large appliance (in most cases, we're not talking about a
high volume business class machine for the purposes of this
thread), it can be put almost anywhere.
kony
<nos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>"Miles Bader" <miles...@necel.com> wrote in message
>news:buotzmc...@dhapc248.dev.necel.com...
>> TJ <T...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
>>> that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>>> develop a driver?
>>
>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
>> design in the first place...
>Excuse me for contradicting your generalization, Miles. I've had several
>peripheral devices and software versions that worked great but didn't have
>new drivers or were incompatable when we updated our OS. Had to replace
>them with new devices for which the new version of the OS had a driver or
>software versions that were compatable with the new OS version. Common
>problems that I've encountered while migrating through the various versions
>of Windows. The devices were not crap - the manufacturers of these
>devices/software versions decided to not support them with the new windows
>version. That is why I've purchased my last two computers in Oct and Nov
>and specified WinXP instead of Vista.
>
I think what was meant was "cheap crap". Given enough money
the printer manufacturer would write a driver, but years
later they don't see any money in it.
Cheap isn't necessarily bad though, cheap stuff can do fine
- till you realize what the limitations were in it being
cheap. Needing a host processing based driver is one of
those limitations.
kony
Which model? I have 5, maybe 7-8 year old lower-end
Visioneers that still worked on XP. I'd have replaced them
long ago but they keep running so... one of them will be
replaced if I ever need to use it to scan more than text as
it's CCFL is starting to dim some so it is mostly suited for
text scanning now.
kony
Any of the above? Mostly Visioneer since their 'site does
provide the legacy drivers. (see links below).
My Visioneer 4400, Memorex 6142, PrimaScan 2600U (all same
printer/driver, just sold under all these names) has XP
drivers. For the price I paid way back when (under $20
after a rebate) and that it works still today, I can hardly
complain if it wasn't supported by Vista.
http://support.visioneer.com/products/home/EOL/Memorex/default.asp
Now the funny part, the 2600U claims not designed for XP but
is the same printer, with same driver they claim works for
the Memorex:
http://support.visioneer.com/products/home/EOL/Primascan/2600/downloads.asp
kony
<tonythebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Miles Bader wrote:
>>> TJ <T...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup that
>>>> don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>>>> develop a driver?
>>>
>>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is
>>> a crap design in the first place...
>>
>>Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
>>place. For some of the reasons, see below.
>>
>>--
>> <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
>> <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
>> <http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8>
>> <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
>>
>
>All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release cycle of a
>new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few months
Nonsense. Marketing drivel.
>and when SP1
>comes out in the new year I suspect we will see better performance as well as
>other improvements.
Of course, but that doesn't mean it should be used NOW, nor
does it mean the improvement will be enough, nor does it
negate any of the other valid concerns in the above links.
>Your comment about Vista reminds me of similar comments
>about XP and previous versions of Windows during the early stages of release.
Then you didn't read the links but read too much into a two
word description like "crap design", which isn't elaborated
upon enough in his post to attribute anything similar to the
state of early release of 9x, 2k or XP, but THEN the
content of what was linked makes it even more uniquely
different.
It really isn't at all similar to the concerns about
previous versions of windows, except in the generic way that
any immature code will be refined over time but even then we
still see what the goal is with the refinement. Vista will
still have many of the concerns people express no matter how
much it is polished, because the design did not have many
consumer's interests in mind.
Tony
experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
Perhaps you would rather believe what people with thinly disguised agendas
write! There are many people publishing good reports of Vista, what a pity that
people don't read the positive and concentrate only on the negative; part of
the human condition I guess!
What's' wrong with using Vista now, it work,s and works very well, for me and I
have pushed it pretty hard; all of my hardware migrated to Vista once the
drivers became available which didn't take very long, all of my software (some
of it quite specialised) is working well with Vista. All of my customers that
use Vista are satisfied with it and there are lots of them. Have you actually
used Vista or do you rely on biased reports?
Of course it isn't perfect, it may never be perfect but it is so much better
than its predecessors at the same point in the development cycle that there is
no comparison. MS have done a pretty good job this time, of course for some
people they can't do anything well.
As I said, experience with previous Windows versions leads me to believe that
there will be significant improvement soon and my experience with the OS is
that there already have been some major improvements......no different to
previous developments.
I read the links very carefully indeed, they are dated and in some cases they
contain barely disguised agendas. The only agenda I have is the pursuit of
truth with no bias!
Chuck
See what happens if you turn off spooling, by selecting print directly to
the printer (in the printer driver options)
Occasionally, printer drivers have some bad code that causes this symptom,
although the pages usually numbered about 20 or so before the driver quit.
Another method to possibly get around the problem depends on a lot of
things, but basically, it starts with printing to a file, and then sending
the printer ready file to the printer. A copy comand with the binary option
is usually used. There is still some dependence on the printer driver, and
the method may not work on various USB printers.
<kjjh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:47652b8b$1...@news.tm.net.my...
> Jan Alter wrote:
> > HP printers have a good reputation for giving high quality text. Color
> > printing should be good as well. If ink cost is not the critical factor
and
> > the very best photo printing of that import then you may be very
satisfied.
> >
>
> I bought a HP OJ L7580 few weeks ago,
> Why it always printed 35 pages then stop even I had send more than 35
> pages to the printer.
>
kony
<tonythebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am not into "Marketing drivel" I am an engineer and am into first hand
>experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
Yes, that's why your comment was inaccurate, because it is
based on a subjective experience of whether Vista was
suiting YOUR needs.
That is fair for your use, but also consider that any
software, any OS, any hardware, is also considered not only
by subjective needs but fitness for it's purpose. Vista
isn't fit to take over the world, and with MS monopoly that
is exactly what will happen.
>Perhaps you would rather believe what people with thinly disguised agendas
>write! There are many people publishing good reports of Vista, what a pity that
>people don't read the positive and concentrate only on the negative; part of
>the human condition I guess!
Agenda is easy... Use what works, and for many Vista
offers nothing but trouble.
>
>What's' wrong with using Vista now, it work,s and works very well, for me and I
... yes, you speak of one installation doing only the things
one person does with one set of hardware and software.
Darn near any OS can meet this criteria of having a few
fans.
>have pushed it pretty hard; all of my hardware migrated to Vista once the
>drivers became available which didn't take very long, all of my software (some
>of it quite specialised) is working well with Vista. All of my customers that
>use Vista are satisfied with it and there are lots of them. Have you actually
>used Vista or do you rely on biased reports?
How can anyone avoid coming in contact with it? It's not
like we're talking about some obscure OS from a company
nobody's heard of.
You are making up nonsense when you write that all customers
are satisfied. The truth is, a startling # of people would
rather have XP. Some are trying to adjust but would rather
not have it thrust upon them until much further work is
done, and much further hardware performance advances have
been made onto the point where one doesn't feel they've
spend another few hundred just to run a GUI as fast as they
did back in 2004.
>
>Of course it isn't perfect, it may never be perfect but it is so much better
>than its predecessors at the same point in the development cycle that there is
>no comparison. MS have done a pretty good job this time, of course for some
>people they can't do anything well.
Doesn't matter at all if it's better or worse at "same point
in the development cycle".
What matters is there is another alternative, XP that is
much further in it's development cycle.
You try to a void the obvious, that what matters is what we
have to choose between today. HOwever, for what it's worth,
Vista would've been a terrible choice if available back in
the beginng of the XP era too, even moreso due to it's lofty
hardware requirements just to run itself, let alone the
applications.
>
>As I said, experience with previous Windows versions leads me to believe that
>there will be significant improvement soon and my experience with the OS is
>that there already have been some major improvements......no different to
>previous developments.
Sorry but I don't trust crystal balls. Better to wait until
not only a real performance boost is seen, but also many of
the issues outlined in CBFalconer's post are retracted
"features".
>
>I read the links very carefully indeed, they are dated and in some cases they
>contain barely disguised agendas. The only agenda I have is the pursuit of
>truth with no bias!
Nope, the only thing dated about most of the info is when
people stop using Vista.
You most certainly have no pursuit of truth. It's all
self-surving because you are making a buck. The truth is,
Vista wins the worst product of 2007 in votes at multiple
websites. WinXP nor any predecessor OS can't take that
"prize", only Vista can.
Similarly with OEMs conceeding to customer demand and still
offering XP, no preceeding OS commanded this much customer
revolt. Vista may someday be patched enough and have
hardware performance increase enough to make it's crippled
performance seem acceptibe, but until then there is little
going for it except that it's the latest toy.
Toys are nice, so long as you recognize them as such. No
sane professional puts all their clients on Vista before it
even has a service pack out and they've seen the results of
that pack.
Funny thing is your use of the term bias. What could be
more biased than what you've written? That we should
actually hold our breath and wait because fixed for things
everyone knows are a problem will "probably", or "maybe"
come in a service pack?
How about cutting out the nonsense and waiting till these
problems are entirely resolved before commenting? Waiting
for a magical fix through a service pack is a very bad
strategy. Time is money, even now buying an XP license is a
mere $100 while we wait for the problems to be fixed,
problems that don't exist on XP.
TJ
it from Office Max something like 7 years ago for $20 after rebate. The
oddball chipset it uses(What WAS that chipset called? E3? Something like
that.) was also used by at least two other scanner brand names, though I
expect they were probably all made by the same manufacturer. I've never
used Windows XP, so I don't know if they issued a driver for it or not.
I used it with Windows 98SE. It worked great then and still works now,
those infrequent times when I fire up Windows and use it. There was an
attempt to write a Linux driver for that chipset four or five years ago,
but the effort was dropped before it amounted to anything. Had I been
using Linux when the scanner went on sale, I probably would have passed
on it. Still, for $20 it doesn't owe me a dime.
The scanner on my HP PSC 2110 works just great with Linux, so I'm not
missing out on anything I want.
Burt
"TJ" <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
connected a printer. All pre-USB stuff.
Burt
"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:muhpm3tjfbdelfm1c...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:13:39 -0600, Tony
> <tonythebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am not into "Marketing drivel" I am an engineer and am into first hand
>>experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
>
> Yes, that's why your comment was inaccurate, because it is
> based on a subjective experience of whether Vista was
> suiting YOUR needs.
>
to this NG)
C'mon, Kony - If you've been on this NG for more than ten minutes you'd
recognize Tony as a very straightforward guy who was very clear that this
was his experience. It was not a MS promotion. No need to attack - why
not contribute positively from YOUR own experience instead of tearing down a
participant's honest post. The world has enough misanthropes. Lighten up.
TJ
could well be a regular of one other than comp.periphs.printers.
<SIGH.> I should learn not to post anything about Linux anywhere but a
Linux group if I don't want to start a flame war. Wasn't my intention.
TJ
Tony
what I said.
The original post to which I replied said that Vista was crap and provided some
links as evidence. These links are outdated and now largely irrelevant.
I said that I have many customers who are happy with Vista so it is NOT just my
personal experience, I expressed an opinion based on real world experience
(both mine and my customers). My opinions are absolutely NOT subjective, they
are based on objective observations (there is nothing more objective than
actually running a business, which my customers all do).
For many, Vista works. I speak of many installations, well over 100, none have
had to consider going back to their previous OS. I have many customers who have
no plans to migrate to Vista and that is exactly what I would expect, why
migrate until there is a reason to do so.
I don't make a buck out of Vista so none of this is self serving (a pity you
made that assumption); in fact I do not and never have marketed or sold any
Microsoft product or service. My company is highly specialised and we stick to
our core business, any and all questions regarding which OS or applications or
internal hardware to use are referred to the customer's IT service provider (we
never operate as an IT business). The only involvement we have with OS' is
providing advice as to whether a particular printer or imaging device will work
with a particular OS and this can be Windows, Linux, MAC and in rare
circumstances some specialised industrial OS'.
I answered the original comment because it was clearly biased, accusing me of
bias because I attempted to provide some balance is laughable.
Have a safe and happy Christmas.
Tony
Tony
Burt
Thank you, we can only try!
Tony
kony
I'm sorry but even if you're a member of his fan club, my
opinion is not subject to your loyalty.
kony
<tonythebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Not sure I want to continue this thread but here is a last attempt to clarify
>what I said.
>The original post to which I replied said that Vista was crap and provided some
>links as evidence. These links are outdated and now largely irrelevant.
No, they aren't largely irrelevant. You can say it 100
times and it won't be more true than the first. Did you
actually read the links? Quite a lot of the information was
not just about some minor bug that's been patched.
>I said that I have many customers who are happy with Vista so it is NOT just my
>personal experience, I expressed an opinion based on real world experience
>(both mine and my customers). My opinions are absolutely NOT subjective, they
>are based on objective observations (there is nothing more objective than
>actually running a business, which my customers all do).
The number of people discontent with Vista is staggering.
Online polls bear this out. Perhaps you live in an
alternate reality where your customers aren't normal, or
perhaps you simply don't hear about their problems. Lots of
people don't take up problems with the seller of the system,
and the truth is all the bugs you are claiming are ok and
being fixed, are indeed bugs they are subject to.
By claiming it's getting better and will be better still
after the service pack, you are simultaneously conceding it
needs work - which is not the state an OS should be in for
serious use.
>For many, Vista works. I speak of many installations, well over 100, none have
>had to consider going back to their previous OS.
"Had to consider" is a very vague concept. The factors
effecting viability of the OS are numerous. It may not be
the worst OS ever written, but claiming they didn't "have"
to use something else is beside the point that they may have
been better off using something else, and may actually have
problems or did have them, and we do know that these service
packs and patches aren't on a whim - they are indeed to
correct problems.
So basically you are ignoring your customers have problems
with the OS and saying it's ok if it's problematic because
another OS was problematic - but that other OS ISN'T so
problematic now.
It is arbitrary to make an excuse that in some point in the
past of computer history, something wasn't any worse, when
the relevant comparison is what the alternatives are right
now.
>I have many customers who have
>no plans to migrate to Vista and that is exactly what I would expect, why
>migrate until there is a reason to do so.
>I don't make a buck out of Vista so none of this is self serving (a pity you
>made that assumption);
Self-serving doesn't have to mean making a buck, it can be
about ego and it certainly seems it is - because you so
easily dismiss that things are supposed to get better after
a service pack. How about waiting until things are hinging
on packs to fix things you thought were significant enough
to mention a service pack? Obviously you concede there are
problems but decide that's ok for others to deal with
because the service pack will *probably* fix something or
other - but historically, certainly not all problems and
probably new problems will arise from the service pack.
>in fact I do not and never have marketed or sold any
>Microsoft product or service. My company is highly specialised and we stick to
>our core business, any and all questions regarding which OS or applications or
>internal hardware to use are referred to the customer's IT service provider (we
>never operate as an IT business). The only involvement we have with OS' is
>providing advice as to whether a particular printer or imaging device will work
>with a particular OS and this can be Windows, Linux, MAC and in rare
>circumstances some specialised industrial OS'.
>I answered the original comment because it was clearly biased, accusing me of
>bias because I attempted to provide some balance is laughable.
>Have a safe and happy Christmas.
>Tony
It's not balance to brush aside concerns and then backstep
to say upcoming patches somehow justify using a product that
doesn't yet have these patches applied. Can't have it both
ways, your own argument fouled you up.
CBFalconer
>
> Not sure I want to continue this thread but here is a last attempt
> to clarify what I said.
>
> The original post to which I replied said that Vista was crap and
> provided some links as evidence. These links are outdated and now
> largely irrelevant. I said that I have many customers who are happy
> with Vista so it is NOT just my personal experience, I expressed an
> opinion based on real world experience (both mine and my customers).
> My opinions are absolutely NOT subjective, they are based on
> objective observations (there is nothing more objective than
> actually running a business, which my customers all do).
>
> For many, Vista works. I speak of many installations, well over
> 100, none have had to consider going back to their previous OS. I
> have many customers who have no plans to migrate to Vista and that
> is exactly what I would expect, why migrate until there is a reason
> to do so.
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. See the following links:
--
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/> (newusers)
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Burt, take note - This thread is cross-posted to 3 newsgroups. Kony
> could well be a regular of one other than comp.periphs.printers.
>
> <SIGH.> I should learn not to post anything about Linux anywhere but a
> Linux group if I don't want to start a flame war. Wasn't my intention.
Why? If a Linux installation will solve a problem, it is a
suitable answer. It is certainly cheaper and more maintainable
than anything from Microsoft.
--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Tony
same.
I have no difficulty understanding posts that follow any of the conventions
used in Usenet, including top posting, even if they are mixed!
I agree that irrelevant material should be snipped and I have done that for
this reply.
Tony
Tony
buck out of Vista and when I explain that your assumption was wrong I
apparently have another agenda (duh).
It's a fairly good trick to keep changing the ground rules in Usenet but not at
all hard for anybody with an iota of intelligence to see through.
Your posts are full of obfuscation and no longer worth reading. Hang on to one
word - Balance - something that is lacking in your "contribution" to this
thread.
End of thread as far as I'm concerned.
Tony (not posted anonymously)
Burt
Ahhhh...the attack dog strikes again. Pay attention, Measekite - you can
learn from this guy. Better sentence structure and vocabulary, but a
similar snarl.
Burt
the Excel NG. Can't win with some people!
"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:476DB935...@yahoo.com...
Cal Bubba
>>>> TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new
>>>> Windows version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner
>>>> wasn't very old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk. In fairness,
>>>> technology and associated software for scanners had advanced to the
>>>> point where it was actually a blessing after the fact.
>>>
>>> Which model? I have 5, maybe 7-8 year old lower-end
>>> Visioneers that still worked on XP. I'd have replaced them
>>> long ago but they keep running so... one of them will be
>>> replaced if I ever need to use it to scan more than text as
>>> it's CCFL is starting to dim some so it is mostly suited for
>>> text scanning now.
>> In my case, the Visioneer in question is the OneTouch 7600 USB. I bought
>> it from Office Max something like 7 years ago for $20 after rebate. The
>> oddball chipset it uses(What WAS that chipset called? E3? Something like
>> that.) was also used by at least two other scanner brand names, though I
>> expect they were probably all made by the same manufacturer. I've never
>> used Windows XP, so I don't know if they issued a driver for it or not. I
>> used it with Windows 98SE. It worked great then and still works now, those
>> infrequent times when I fire up Windows and use it.
>>
> Mine was the first "one-touch" model. It used a parallel cable that also
> connected a printer. All pre-USB stuff.
Ohmygod! I've been ripped off! I paid $39.95 at McFrugals.
My Visioneer scanner is a "Colorado Primascan 2400P." It's got a regular
Visioneer name, too, and probably other "brands." I put "brands" in
quotes because it's been a great long time since Memorex was a real
company. They buy stuff and sell stuff. Sometimes, like AT&T, GE
(Thomson), Timex, IBM, etc., they license other companies to use their
name. IBM chewing gum? You heard about it here, first, folks.
When you see products from these companies in unexpected places, read
the fine print on the box. Aha!
My scanner connects to the computer via a printer cable. At the same
time, virtually identical models were being sold with USB interfaces,
which I should have bought -- but didn't know.
No matter, Visioneer simply claims that the thing is, OS-specific,
therefore obsolete, and so they no longer have to support it with
updated drivers: which is arrogant Visioneer bullshit.
Visioneer is one of those maddening companies who put a telephone moat
around their business to ensure that customers don't disturb them.
You can imagine my surprise when I just connected the scanner to my new
PC, running XP-Pro SP2, and it worked just fine. My only problem is that
something inside has been outgassing, and there's a resulting coating on
the inside of the glass. This has reduced the contrast. When I get
brave, it'll go onto my workbench and perhaps I'll be able to clean the
glass. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire thing
were held together with glue. A landfill princess.
Bubba
If you're in the West and you need a Bubba, here I am.
Richard Steinfeld
I have many customers who have
> no plans to migrate to Vista and that is exactly what I would expect, why
> migrate until there is a reason to do so.
> I don't make a buck out of Vista so none of this is self serving (a pity you
> made that assumption); in fact I do not and never have marketed or sold any
> Microsoft product or service.
I think that Kony is a victim of his own tunnel vision. Well, I've had
my moments, too. No way, though, will I buy Vista right now. I'm a home
user, which is an important fact to bear in mind. I don't think that
Vista is ready for me. Yet.
Damned if I have any interest in bailing from XP; after all, it's not
been so long since MS worked out the significant bugs. Why jump into
buggy frying pan now?
My work demands that I maintain OS and software compatibility with my
clients. As they move to Vista, which they certainly will, I will have
to move with them. Regardless of whether I hate Microsoft or not (I do),
this will be my reality as it has been a few times earlier. Taking an
ostrich stance is not wise, in my case.
A friend does computer support for a major California city government.
Are they using Vista? No way. Are they studying Vista? You bet!
Quite intensely, in fact. It's simple: sooner or later, they're going to
change to Vista; they'll be forced to as their software providers
abandon XP into the back room of its "legacy" status. We've been there,
haven't we. Nobody in their data processing wants to have to face the
situation when, suddenly, all the firefighters' paychecks won't print!
Do I like the way Microsoft does business? What do you think? The only
way that they can maintain profitability is to force all their customers
to "upgrade." Killing competition helps them, too, and paying off
politicians to turn a blind eye toward restraint-of-trade and monopoly
behavior -- well, that's a reality, too.
We don't have much choice in this: it is. Will our hardware be
compatible? Don't count on it. That's life, too.
Me? As soon as I can do it without pain in my life, I'm going to convert
to an open-source, no bullshit OS. But that's not in my cards for the
present.
Meanwhile, Kony, please get off your granite plinth and get a life:
Tony's been a fine, selfless contributor to this NG; one of the few who
have considerable experience wherein of what he speaks. I'm glad to have
his input and guidance.
Tony
I couldn't agree with you more. If there is no reason to upgrade to Vista then
why do so? That however doesn't mean that Vista is bad, merely a fledgling.
I wasn't suggesting that people upgrade without good reason, only trying to
bring a bit of balance to a completely unbalanced thread. Not sure I should
have bothered however, it seems to me that once some people have established a
view they are completely immovable; hardly a path to enlightenment!
Tony
kony
<rgsteinBUT...@sonicANDTHISTOO.net> wrote:
>Tony wrote:
> I have many customers who have
>> no plans to migrate to Vista and that is exactly what I would expect, why
>> migrate until there is a reason to do so.
>
>> I don't make a buck out of Vista so none of this is self serving (a pity you
>> made that assumption); in fact I do not and never have marketed or sold any
>> Microsoft product or service.
>
>I think that Kony is a victim of his own tunnel vision.
Am I?
There wasn't such a bachlash from consumers that OEMs
continued to offer Win9x when XP was released.
There weren't multiple websites claiming (the OS du jour)
had won worst product of the year when XP, ME, 98, 95, 3.1,
DOS, (take your pick), came out.
The truth is , never in the history of mankind have so many
people (revolted, I suppose a MS zealot would use this
term?) chose to avoid the next version of the software/OS
they were running.
>Well, I've had
>my moments, too. No way, though, will I buy Vista right now. I'm a home
>user, which is an important fact to bear in mind. I don't think that
>Vista is ready for me. Yet.
I don't think home user is relevant, at least not as you
imply, in a context. Businesses are rather bullish about OS
upgrade, it is startling how many still run Win98 or 2K. It
would not surprise me at all if more businesses still run
Win2k and '98, than Vista.
>
>Damned if I have any interest in bailing from XP; after all, it's not
>been so long since MS worked out the significant bugs. Why jump into
>buggy frying pan now?
There is a good logic in this, let others be the beta
testers, but even moreso, the EULA and potential to lose
useability of the system keeps escalating.
>
>My work demands that I maintain OS and software compatibility with my
>clients. As they move to Vista, which they certainly will, I will have
>to move with them. Regardless of whether I hate Microsoft or not (I do),
>this will be my reality as it has been a few times earlier. Taking an
>ostrich stance is not wise, in my case.
Agreed, an ostrich stance is not of benefit. At the same
time, benefit vs detriment must be weighed. If someone
expresses a clear need for Vista features, that being more
important to them subjectively, it is the better OS for
their use. That is unfortunately not what we're discussing
here, rather blanket statements about needs not mattering,
we should instead just wait for our needs to be met because
someday the sky will be rosey and all will be OK. That idea
is counter to productivity, using what already works without
making concessions.
kony
<tonythebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Richard
>I couldn't agree with you more. If there is no reason to upgrade to Vista then
>why do so? That however doesn't mean that Vista is bad, merely a fledgling.
>I wasn't suggesting that people upgrade without good reason, only trying to
>bring a bit of balance to a completely unbalanced thread. Not sure I should
>have bothered however, it seems to me that once some people have established a
>view they are completely immovable; hardly a path to enlightenment!
>Tony
>
First of all, if you can't respecty usenet conventions of
not top-posting, you shouldn't be allowed on usenet at all.
Seriously, your ISP TOS have been violated most likely, you
seem like the type of person who has no regard for anything
except what benefits himself.
Yes, Vista is fledgling. It may someday be an acceptible
alternative, but promoting it before that day has come is
deceiving at best, and senseless at worse.
Yes balance is a good idea, but balance does not include
promotion including an idea that we should "wait and see"
what might be better from the next generation of patches.
It is ridiculous that you pretend to claim a concept of
enlightenment. You hide behind bullshit deception.
TJ
> Richard
> I couldn't agree with you more. If there is no reason to upgrade to Vista then
> why do so? That however doesn't mean that Vista is bad, merely a fledgling.
> I wasn't suggesting that people upgrade without good reason, only trying to
> bring a bit of balance to a completely unbalanced thread. Not sure I should
> have bothered however, it seems to me that once some people have established a
> view they are completely immovable; hardly a path to enlightenment!
> Tony
>
they withdraw support from XP. Consider for a moment that Microsoft
recently has not just withdrawn their support for Windows versions
earlier than 2000, they've forced other companies (like HP) to do so,
too. Now, remember that XP and other Microsoft products of the same and
later vintages have to phone home to Redmond for permission to be used
by the consumer. Is it too much to imagine that Microsoft has embedded
some code that will render those products inoperable after Microsoft
withdraws support?
Not to me, it isn't. One of the big reasons I will continue to use
Linux. *I'm* in charge of my computer, not Microsoft. (And if that
starts another flame war, so be it.)
TJ
Jim Ford
> Not to me, it isn't. One of the big reasons I will continue to use
> Linux. *I'm* in charge of my computer, not Microsoft. (And if that
> starts another flame war, so be it.)
I've used Linux for years - since the Slackware 1.2 kernel version. It
would be the only OS I use, except that I need Photoshop. The Gimp's
pretty good, but still not up to PS - beside it doesn't do colour
management AFAIK.
Jim Ford
measekite
If the other idiots do not like what is said thats TFB
measekite
Oh Yeah Who Cares
I do not think there are enough idiots out there who are in love with
Microsoft Windows even though they need to use it for various reasons.
measekite
Now I understand. He sez colour when it is really color. He probably
also sez favourites too. Constipation know no boundary.
Duff
>
>I do not think there are enough idiots out there who are in love with
>Microsoft Windows even though they need to use it for various reasons.
Yeah, like only 92 percent of the market is totally sold with
Microsoft. And the number is growing daily.
TJ
Fine, go ahead. But don't do it because everybody else is doing it. That
argument didn't work when you were a kid, did it?
If 92% of all lemmings follow others over a cliff, it is the 8% that
don't that survive to continue the species.
"Market share" is a function of marketing prowess, and not necessarily
the quality of the product.
Sometimes, breaking away from the masses is the best thing to do.
Tony
TJ
I have no in depth experience of Linux but have a few small customers and one
acquaintance who use it and who are very content. The only complaint I have
heard from them is the limited availability of some applications. If Linux
suits your needs then that is better than good since you are saving money and
as you say you are in charge.
I am not a MS bigot, the nature of my business demands that I deal mainly with
MS OS' and there is nothing I can do about that. Enjoy the holidays.
Bottom posted because it's a weekend ;-)
Tony
Frank
---his usual stupid lying brain dead crap---
Frank
Richard Steinfeld
> I think Microsoft will settle the whole question in a few years, when
> they withdraw support from XP. Consider for a moment that Microsoft
> recently has not just withdrawn their support for Windows versions
> earlier than 2000, they've forced other companies (like HP) to do so,
> too. Now, remember that XP and other Microsoft products of the same and
> later vintages have to phone home to Redmond for permission to be used
> by the consumer. Is it too much to imagine that Microsoft has embedded
> some code that will render those products inoperable after Microsoft
> withdraws support?
Thanks for the memory jog, TJ. Your point has been nagging in the back
of my mind ever since I switched to XP -- the knowledge that at any
point, Microsoft can destroy my operating system. They have the ability
to hold all their customers for ransome: let's say, take us up on our
special upgrade deal by November 27th, or you're dead in the water.
MS appears to play an arrogant, but delicate game; how much can they
abuse their customers before they'll walk? So, let's say that they go to
far (they have a habit of doing this) -- well, they'll kiss and make up
by extending support for a couple more years. Big deal. We know the MO.
But what's notable is that at no time before XP has the company embedded
a poison pill in their own software. What comes buried in those patches
that we don't know about?
Am I paranoid? Yes. Do I have reason to be paranoid? Yes.
Back in the days of DOS, I controlled my own computer. I could write
batchfiles for myself. I could change settings. That was then: yore.
Linux offers hope. Microsoft does not. But for the time being, I've got
to continue to play the game.
Richard
CBFalconer
> question on the Excel NG. Can't win with some people!
I have deliberately left the URL references. Please read them for
background. In addition below are some references to areas with
various rfcs on line. These are the things that set standards for
email and Usenet. The 'Excel' ng is obviously something set up by
Microsoft, who attempt to corrupt all standards.
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/>
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/>
--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
CBFalconer
> Tony wrote:
>
... snip ...
>> Not sure I should have bothered however, it seems to me that once
>> some people have established a view they are completely immovable;
>
> First of all, if you can't respecty usenet conventions of
> not top-posting, you shouldn't be allowed on usenet at all.
Tony appears to be a reasonable person, and doesn't deserve this
sort of treatment. I suspect he will respond quite nicely to
convincing arguments.
measekite
measekite
TJ wrote:
> Duff wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I do not think there are enough idiots out there who are in love
>>> with Microsoft Windows even though they need to use it for various
>>> reasons.
>>
>> Yeah, like only 92 percent of the market is totally sold with
>> Microsoft. And the number is growing daily.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You want to use Microsoft products because they're the best for you?
> Fine, go ahead. But don't do it because everybody else is doing it.
> That argument didn't work when you were a kid, did it?
>
> If 92% of all lemmings follow others over a cliff, it is the 8% that
> don't that survive to continue the species.
ha ha ha
>
> "Market share" is a function of marketing prowess, and not necessarily
> the quality of the product.
Oh Yeah the MS babies just like to sit on their Duff. ah ha ha ha
>
> Sometimes, breaking away from the masses is the best thing to do.
It was for me. For business I have to use Windows but for personal use
I did have to put up with some driver difficulties and find replacements
form some lousy Windows software that did do the job but I do not get
the crash of the day and have to worry about a deluge of viruses.
>
> TJ
>
measekite
measekite
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed >> with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all >>
irrelevant material. See the following links: I think top posting is appropriate in certain circumstances. People who follow a post will not have to scroll down. Now is you interlace your replies to different paragraphs then that is another story
Burt
to be on usenet, I'd say that trolls, spammers, and flamers rate a 10+,
infantile, profane responses rate a 9.9, etc., and somewhere between 0 and
0.5 would be top posters. I dislike responses that are interspersed
throughout a long message, as it is much easier to see EITHER a bottom or
top post. Top or bottom posts? This should be much less a concern than the
people who hide behind their internet anonymity and respond in a way that
would get their facial features rearranged if they tried it in person. Now
there's a convention that I'd like to see enforced!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please go
after those folks and I'll support your concern about the top posting
convention.
TJ
> It just might be possible for Microsoft to go to Linux. Since Windows
> is crap they just may put a Windows GUI (instead of KDE or Gnome) on a
> modified Linux kernal for a spanking brand new version of Windows that
> may work better.
>
TJ
Oh...My...Gawd. You've become a Linux advocate! Excuse me while I check
the news...Hell freezing over like that must be creating quite a stir!
kony
<cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>> Tony wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>> Not sure I should have bothered however, it seems to me that once
>>> some people have established a view they are completely immovable;
>?? hardly a path to enlightenment!
>>
>> First of all, if you can't respecty usenet conventions of
>> not top-posting, you shouldn't be allowed on usenet at all.
>
>Tony appears to be a reasonable person, and doesn't deserve this
>sort of treatment. I suspect he will respond quite nicely to
>convincing arguments.
>
You may be right, but at some point you have to look at both
sides of the coin. Anyone can start doing the right thing
after having done wrong... and be given some patience for
that, but the flipside is anyone can also start doing the
wrong thing after having done right.
In the end, it's just text. If someone doesn't have thick
skin then I apologize for offense, but I'd have to also feel
that handling people with kid-gloves only works to a certain
point, and thick skin doesn't grow all by itself.
measekite
Not really. I recommend Windows for 95% of my customers and friends
because of the market penetration and Windows as lousey as it is is good
enough for what they want to do and the ease of them purchasing hardware
has a lot to do with that. However, I do recommend firefox,
thunderbird, open office, picasa and a few other basic applications that
are the same in Windows as Linux. Then from an application point of
view it will be easier to go to Linux should the need and timing arise.
But for printers I still recommend Canon unless they just want business
documents and them I offer them a choice between HP or Canon.
Personally I like Canon, Epson and HP in that order. For Linux if they
just need business documents and will most likely never or rarely do
photos then HP is the one to get.
For me,however it is Canon. However for a wide format printer for
photos in Linux I still do not know except I do favor the Canon Pro 9000.
>
> TJ
>
Burt
Kony - My responses to you have less to do with Tony than they have with
you. I have respect for those who "handle" (relate to) others in a kind,
non-abusive, civil manner. I certainly understand escalating your response
if the person with whom you are discussing an issue lacks civility or
becomes abusive. Your tone, from the start, was combative and accusative.
No need for someone to be "thick skinned" and experience offensive
responses.
All of us who participate in usenet and other internet-based forums realize
that some respondants are less civil than others. In part, this is a
product of the anonymity of the medium. Face-to-face, less of the dialogue
would be abrasive. Why not imagine that when you enter into a usenet
dialogue you are actually speaking directly to an individual or group of
people. That is not "handling" people with kid gloves - it is just common
courtesy.
Richard Steinfeld
> "kony" <sp...@spam.com>
If someone doesn't have thick
>> skin then I apologize for offense, but I'd have to also feel
>> that handling people with kid-gloves only works to a certain
>> point, and thick skin doesn't grow all by itself.
>
> Kony -
...
Your tone, from the start, was combative and accusative.
> No need for someone to be "thick skinned" and experience offensive
> responses.
>
> All of us who participate in usenet and other internet-based forums realize
> that some respondants are less civil than others. In part, this is a
> product of the anonymity of the medium. Face-to-face, less of the dialogue
> would be abrasive. Why not imagine that when you enter into a usenet
> dialogue you are actually speaking directly to an individual or group of
> people. That is not "handling" people with kid gloves - it is just common
> courtesy.
>
Burt,
You're correct, of course. However, I think that we've wasted enough
"ink" reasoning with this combative troll. He has to fight; he has to
win. Period. Disengage.
I've killfiled him, and submit that the rest of us do likewise.
Richard
Frank
> Please do not top-post.
Please stop posting your incessant lies you idiot!
Frank
Frank
>>
>
> there are enough idiots out there
>
>------------------------------------
And you're their leader.
Frank