On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:56:33 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

Yes, they are all chipped.

If that's the case, and since I have all too much (bad) experience with
the HP d-series chipped ink tanks, maybe an ink printer isn't in the
future for me, as I'm sick and tired of their silly games.

"J.G." writes:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:34:40 +0000, J.G. wrote:

The only solution (for those printers) is to NEVER BUY THOSE PRINTERS!
Otherwise, attempting to re-fill the chipped ink will be sheer hell.


Do we have a good list of other brand's models NOT to buy because
they too chip their ink tanks?

Canon chips their inks, but there are chip clearers, and besides, you can as far as I know still print with empty tanks, you just have to override the message each time.

--
Gernot Hassenpflug

"J.G." writes:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, when I was working I went thru several color laser printers with
the idea they would be able to do color photos better then the
"expensive" inkjet process.

I'm slowly coming to the following hard-won realization,
much to my chagrin, regarding printing color photos at home:

0. B&W laser writers (such as my HP 3200m) are trivial & cheap to refill
1. Most color laser writers are also trivial & cheap to refill.
2. However, color laser writers stink at printing pictures at home!

Given that, we are FORCED to look at ink-based printers:
0. IMHO, all ink-based printers from HP are to be avoided at all costs!
1. Kodak/Canon/Dell ink-based printers 'may' be a viable alternative.
2. The key is to buy the printer based on the ease of "replacing" the ink!

Drat! Color lasers, which are the subject of this task, are slowly
dropping off the radar screen ... and the dreaded ink-based printers
are rising up, again.

Why is finding a decent printer to print photos at home at a decent
price such a miserable process?

Why is Epson not recommended in the US (I assume most posters here are
in the US)? Epson is great for photos, although as I concentrate on
linux Canon driver development I only use Epson as a backup. I buy 3rd
party inks for my Epson, haven't tried refilling it. I'm not aware of
any problems with the ink cartridges, but maybe there are, which is
why Epson is not being discussed here?
--
Gernot Hassenpflug

On 2012-08-20 22:07:52 -0700, Gernot Hassenpflug
said:

"J.G." writes:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, when I was working I went thru several color laser printers with
the idea they would be able to do color photos better then the
"expensive" inkjet process.

I'm slowly coming to the following hard-won realization,
much to my chagrin, regarding printing color photos at home:

0. B&W laser writers (such as my HP 3200m) are trivial & cheap to refill
1. Most color laser writers are also trivial & cheap to refill.
2. However, color laser writers stink at printing pictures at home!

Given that, we are FORCED to look at ink-based printers:
0. IMHO, all ink-based printers from HP are to be avoided at all costs!
1. Kodak/Canon/Dell ink-based printers 'may' be a viable alternative.
2. The key is to buy the printer based on the ease of "replacing" the ink!

Drat! Color lasers, which are the subject of this task, are slowly
dropping off the radar screen ... and the dreaded ink-based printers
are rising up, again.

Why is finding a decent printer to print photos at home at a decent
price such a miserable process?

Why is Epson not recommended in the US (I assume most posters here are
in the US)? Epson is great for photos, although as I concentrate on
linux Canon driver development I only use Epson as a backup. I buy 3rd
party inks for my Epson, haven't tried refilling it. I'm not aware of
any problems with the ink cartridges, but maybe there are, which is
why Epson is not being discussed here?

Nobody has said anything about Epson not being recommended for photo
printing. There are many of us using Epson printers and are quite happy
with them, actually, very happy.
I believe there are some R3880, R3000, and some of the more exotic
Epson users here. I am using an R2880.
I also have a disappointing Canon i9900 which has never given me
results anywhere close to those my R2880 gives me.

I think the issue the OP has, is a particular one with HP and color
laser printers and the manner in which HP chips its toner cartridges. I
believe he wants a color laser printer which will give him adequate
results for photographs, as he rightly feels that the cost of inks for
photo quality ink jet printers is excessive. The bottom line is, there
is no free, or low budget ride, when it comes to producing quality
photo prints at home, or anywhere else for that matter.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 20/08/2012 20:55, J.G. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:39:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

What is this "HP drop dead date" thing ?
"...All Hewlett Packard ink cartridges have microchips installed that
tell the printer when the cartridge expires.

In addition to what Oren and Percival said, here's what HP says (verbatim):
"What is ink expiration?
Basically ink expiration is a built-in date on which certain
HP ink cartridges will stop working."

Dell 1320cn isn't bad for almost photoreal laser printing (good enough
for small leaflet if you choose the paper to match the lustre of the
toner). And there are reengineered third party toner cartridges on sale
for about £40 a set (or two sets of original OEM for £110 with a free
laser printer thrown in). Offers on that model are over but I expect its
replacement will follow a similar trajectory. Shame no-one offers a deal
on C,M,Y,K,K - as that is about the right mix ratio even if you have a
dedicated monochrome laser printer for ordinary use.

I am keeping all my old empty Dell toner cartridges to refill one day if
the bulk refills ever become cheaper than whole cartridges!

If you are buying for photographic printing check out reviews carefully
- some laser printers are fit only for printing business graphs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 20/08/2012 23:10, J.G. wrote:
Point is, the ONLY reason HP ink costs as much as it does
is that it is an integral part of their sales strategy.

I, for one, will NEVER buy another HP ink-based printer
again, the rest of my life for this very reason.

The strategy is used by virtually ALL the inkjet makers, not just HP -
they sell the printers cheaply, sometimes at a loss, and then make their
money on the replacement cartridges.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:11:45 +0100, Brian wrote:

The strategy is used by virtually ALL the inkjet makers, not just HP -
they sell the printers cheaply, sometimes at a loss, and then make their
money on the replacement cartridges.

If that's the case (which it very well may be) ... then it's confusing to
me why I can quite easily replace the 250 grams of black toner in my
HPC092a (aka 92A) toner cartridge for my HP 3200m AIO printer.

Q: Why make ink so difficult to refill ... but not toner?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:21:19 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:11:45 +0100, Brian wrote:

The strategy is used by virtually ALL the inkjet makers, not just HP -
they sell the printers cheaply, sometimes at a loss, and then make their
money on the replacement cartridges.

If that's the case (which it very well may be) ... then it's confusing to
me why I can quite easily replace the 250 grams of black toner in my
HPC092a (aka 92A) toner cartridge for my HP 3200m AIO printer.

Q: Why make ink so difficult to refill ... but not toner?

WAG here, but probably more bean counters involved in buying printers
with toner. Inkjets are for consumers.

My printer [an HP] is for convenience, not for saving money. I got
an HP because it works, and it does colors that the others don't. [I
can't describe it, but I can see it.]

When I want cheap, I go to Staples/Kinkos/Walmart.

Jim

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:14:41 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

I think the issue the OP has, is a particular one with HP and color
laser printers and the manner in which HP chips its toner cartridges. I
believe he wants a color laser printer which will give him adequate
results for photographs, as he rightly feels that the cost of inks for
photo quality ink jet printers is excessive. The bottom line is, there
is no free, or low budget ride, when it comes to producing quality photo
prints at home, or anywhere else for that matter.

Wow. Nice synopsys!

In my naive days, I bought multiple HP ink printers from Costco, such as
the HP d135, which, due to the extreme expense of replacement ink tanks,
I naturally got very good at refilling. However, as noted, it should
NEVER be as difficult as HP purposefully makes it to simply refill an ink
tank - so - over the years, this frustration soured me on any and all HP
inkjets, swearing them off forever - and feeling good about that decision.

Still needing a printer, I immediately matured when I bought for about
$600 in those days, an HP laserjet 3200m, soon coming to the realization
that there 'was' a better way, which was B&W laser printing. Refilling
the C4092A is basically uneventfully trivial.

The kids/wife wanting a color printer notwithstanding, it 'appears' that
a color laser printer is not going to be acceptable for family photos;
hence I'm back to the only choice feasible - which is ink printers -
which I've previously sworn off forever (at least HP ink printers).

Finding out that almost all manufacturers make ink refilling difficult,
it appears that I'll have to choose my printer in reverse. That is, find
one that allows refilling - and then buy THAT printer.

This appears to be the only feasible method, although this entire process
of realization makes me want to kiss my trusty B&W printer in retrospect.

On 8/20/2012 1:25 PM, wrote:

The reason HP inks are so expensive is because you're getting a new printhead as part of the ink cartridge on most of their models. Kodak's are cheap because the printhead is part of the printer. You might get 2-3 cartridges worth of ink through a printhead before output quality starts to degrade noticeably on the Kodaks.

HP does have a few models now with separately replaceable printheads. I have a 7000 series wide carriage printer with the separate head and a full set of double-life inks is only about $50. My previous HP's black cartridge was easily $50 by itself.

Personally I don't know anyone with a Kodak inkjet printer so I can't
comment on Kodak's print heads, but I do know people with Canon inkjet
printers and every one has had to either replace the print head or toss
the printer. It's an expensive proposition to replace the print head,
but some people do it because they have so many ink cartridges that they
don't want to change printers.

But the reason that HP inkjet cartridges are so expensive is really
because the price is set to what the market will bear, it's not the cost
of manufacturing. This may change as demand falls and consumers become
more savvy as to the cost of consumables. The popularity of tablets is
driving down demand for ink (and other printing consumables) because
finally there's a convenient portable way to take your content with you.

The falling prices of laser printers may also be a cause of reduced
demand for ink. I recently purchased a laser printer for the
daughter-unit to take off to college. $80 for a laser printer that does
double-sided, has wireless, and that has easily refillable toner
cartridges. It's not to the build quality of one of the older HP
Laserjets, but none of the consumer quality laser printers are built to
that level.

On 8/21/2012 4:11 AM, Brian wrote:
On 20/08/2012 23:10, J.G. wrote:
Point is, the ONLY reason HP ink costs as much as it does
is that it is an integral part of their sales strategy.

I, for one, will NEVER buy another HP ink-based printer
again, the rest of my life for this very reason.

The strategy is used by virtually ALL the inkjet makers, not just HP -
they sell the printers cheaply, sometimes at a loss, and then make their
money on the replacement cartridges.

I worked for a printer company in the 1980's. The big money was still in
supplies (back then it was print wheels and ribbons). The margins on
supplies were huge because the supplies were so cheap to manufacture.
Back then there were machines for re-inking ribbons to save money. We
made regular ribbons that could be used until there was no ink left and
then be re-inked, but we also had single-strike ribbons that produced
better quality but that were single use. But you could not repair a
broken print wheel.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:22:09 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, when I was working I went thru several color laser printers with
the idea they would be able to do color photos better then the
"expensive" inkjet process.

I'm slowly coming to the following hard-won realization,
much to my chagrin, regarding printing color photos at home:

0. B&W laser writers (such as my HP 3200m) are trivial & cheap to refill
1. Most color laser writers are also trivial & cheap to refill.
2. However, color laser writers stink at printing pictures at home!

Given that, we are FORCED to look at ink-based printers:
0. IMHO, all ink-based printers from HP are to be avoided at all costs!
1. Kodak/Canon/Dell ink-based printers 'may' be a viable alternative.
2. The key is to buy the printer based on the ease of "replacing" the ink!

Drat! Color lasers, which are the subject of this task, are slowly
dropping off the radar screen ... and the dreaded ink-based printers
are rising up, again.

Why is finding a decent printer to print photos at home at a decent
price such a miserable process?

Last time I needed to buy a new AIO Inkie I was going to avoid HP. I
read all the reviews I could find, compared features and user
satisfaction, plus looked at reported problems. I Finally settled on
a Canon that sounded REALLY good from the reviews. After getting it I
was VERY disappointed in it's print quality for text and photos, it
just did not match the quality on simple run of the mill daily
printing that I was used to from my old defunct (my fault) HP. Some
users had mentioned it's lengthy startup time for the first page but
it didn't sound too bad so I still bought it. Start up time turned
out to be a HUGE pain in the butt. If it sat for more then a few
minutes it seemingly parked it's print heads and then when you went to
print again there was all sorts of start up racket and delay while it
brought the heads out of cold storage. Then I discovered that in what
it considered normal mixed color and b/w printing it used a mix of all
the color inks to produce the "black" which came out more like a dark
charcoal. So its prints looked lousy and used up all the color ink!!
I took it back and returned to an HP AIO. Good luck with your
search!!

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:25:41 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:11:47 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Another thing to consider with lasers is startup time.

I print maybe one page every two or three days, on average.

I generally leave the printer on all the time.

However, I 'could' just as well turn it off, for all it has
been used.

But, when I had the HP d135 AIO printer, I remember admonishments
to keep it running all the time - otherwise it wasted ink (I was
told).

And, we all know, HP ink costs more than it's weight in gold.

So, what's the general consensus for leaving printers on
which are only used sporadically a few days of the week?

Does that play a role in our printer selection decision?

Most lasers will have a power save that turns off the fuser heat which
is similar to turning them off. You definitely don't want to have one
that keeps the fuser hot all the time if you only print once or twice
a day and never turn the printer off. Of course, when the fuser is
turned off that means a delay in printing when you do want to print.
If it's only once a day it's probably not much of an issue.

I don't recall HP saying their printers should be left on all the
time, only that they should be turned off properly, which means with
their power button, not just by turning off the power strip it's
plugged into. If the printer is turned off in mid print by cutting
power from the power strip it will leave the print heads un-parked
which could lead to ink drying in them and causing clogging. In my
experience, no matter what you do there will be periodic episodes when
the HP goes into "clean and polish" mode where it exercises the print
heads by squirting some ink thru them into a build in disposal
reservoir.

On 21/08/2012 23:47, Ashton Crusher wrote:
In my
experience, no matter what you do there will be periodic episodes when
the HP goes into "clean and polish" mode where it exercises the print
heads by squirting some ink thru them into a build in disposal
reservoir.

My Canon Pixma does the same - sometimes I have quite a wait before it
gets started on the actual printing!

On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

snip

I took it back and returned to an HP AIO. Good luck with your
search!!

All the rantings about HP are not because of the print quality, they are
because of the business practices of what has essentially become an ink
company.

I find an HP AIO to be ideal. The print quality is excellent. I buy the
replacement color ink cartridges from monoprice.com for as low as $8.
The price of HP ink cartridges does not affect me.

The key is to look at consumables first, and then select a printer based
on the availability of after-market consumables. Even if it means
finding a used printer.

Freecycle is full of used printers. When computers lost their parallel
ports there were a bunch of free laser printers available (often of a
quality that is no longer available) because so many people wanted
printers with USB ports. Then a lot of people wanted printers with
wireless built in so they gave away their printers that lacked wireless.
Now a lot of people want printers that support Airprint, so they can
print directly from an Apple iPad or iPhone, so they are buying new
printers that support Airprint.

Of course there have always been easy workarounds to these issues, but
they are not well known. I.e. I have a wireless print server with two
USB and one parallel port that my printers connect to. There is an
Airprint print server from Lantronix so any network printer can print
from an iPad or iPhone. But new inkjet printers are so cheap that few
people will bother with any workaround that costs $100. What they don't
realize is that that new inkjet printer is designed to stop the use of
refilled ink cartridges and aftermarket ink cartridges.

In rec.photo.digital SMS wrote:
On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

snip

I took it back and returned to an HP AIO. Good luck with your
search!!

All the rantings about HP are not because of the print quality, they are
because of the business practices of what has essentially become an ink
company.

I find an HP AIO to be ideal. The print quality is excellent. I buy the
replacement color ink cartridges from monoprice.com for as low as $8.
The price of HP ink cartridges does not affect me.

The key is to look at consumables first, and then select a printer based
on the availability of after-market consumables. Even if it means
finding a used printer.

I happily used one of the allegedly better quality EPSON-compatible
inks for a few years. Not the cheapest, but a good reputation on the
web. My own tests had shown me only slight differences in colour, not
worth paying all the extra for unless I wanted to do some exhibition
quality prints. Which I sometimes did. And so sometimes I ended up
doing a few of my family snaps with EPSON inks, and most with the same
good quality replacement ink.

My wife pinned those she liked best on the kitchen wall, carefully
choosing a position the sun never reached. Nevertheless after a year
all the replacement inks had browned off like old masters, whereas the
EPSON ink snaps were still bright and colorful. After two years the
compatible prints looked like fading sepia prints, whereas the EPSON
ink prints still looked newly minted.

So now I stick to the printer maker's inks. Have you tried any
lightfast fading tests on your 3rd party inks?

--
Chris Malcolm

Ashton Crusher writes:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:22:09 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, when I was working I went thru several color laser printers with
the idea they would be able to do color photos better then the
"expensive" inkjet process.

I'm slowly coming to the following hard-won realization,
much to my chagrin, regarding printing color photos at home:

0. B&W laser writers (such as my HP 3200m) are trivial & cheap to refill
1. Most color laser writers are also trivial & cheap to refill.
2. However, color laser writers stink at printing pictures at home!

Given that, we are FORCED to look at ink-based printers:
0. IMHO, all ink-based printers from HP are to be avoided at all costs!
1. Kodak/Canon/Dell ink-based printers 'may' be a viable alternative.
2. The key is to buy the printer based on the ease of "replacing" the ink!

Drat! Color lasers, which are the subject of this task, are slowly
dropping off the radar screen ... and the dreaded ink-based printers
are rising up, again.

Why is finding a decent printer to print photos at home at a decent
price such a miserable process?

Last time I needed to buy a new AIO Inkie I was going to avoid HP. I
read all the reviews I could find, compared features and user
satisfaction, plus looked at reported problems. I Finally settled on
a Canon that sounded REALLY good from the reviews. After getting it I
was VERY disappointed in it's print quality for text and photos, it
just did not match the quality on simple run of the mill daily
printing that I was used to from my old defunct (my fault) HP. Some
users had mentioned it's lengthy startup time for the first page but
it didn't sound too bad so I still bought it. Start up time turned
out to be a HUGE pain in the butt. If it sat for more then a few
minutes it seemingly parked it's print heads and then when you went to
print again there was all sorts of start up racket and delay while it
brought the heads out of cold storage. Then I discovered that in what
it considered normal mixed color and b/w printing it used a mix of all
the color inks to produce the "black" which came out more like a dark
charcoal. So its prints looked lousy and used up all the color ink!!
I took it back and returned to an HP AIO. Good luck with your
search!!

Yes, many of the Canon inkjets which, after all, are made for
photo-printing, improve the shades of grey by using other colors. This
is quite natural since the point of using them is to print quality
photos.

However, if one wants to use the printer for other things, which is
also natural, such as low-cost B/W printing, then one has to ensure
that the printer comes with at least one plain media mode (not the
highest or even medium quality one, in most cases) that prints only
using black ink. Then one uses that.

There is a whole range of Canon printers dealing with this problem by
shipping with two cartridges: black and color. One can then select
black-only cartridge and print all one's work only in black. Refilling
either cartridge is also trivial.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug

On 23 Aug 2012 13:11:32 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

Ashton Crusher writes:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:22:09 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, when I was working I went thru several color laser printers with
the idea they would be able to do color photos better then the
"expensive" inkjet process.

I'm slowly coming to the following hard-won realization,
much to my chagrin, regarding printing color photos at home:

0. B&W laser writers (such as my HP 3200m) are trivial & cheap to refill
1. Most color laser writers are also trivial & cheap to refill.
2. However, color laser writers stink at printing pictures at home!

Given that, we are FORCED to look at ink-based printers:
0. IMHO, all ink-based printers from HP are to be avoided at all costs!
1. Kodak/Canon/Dell ink-based printers 'may' be a viable alternative.
2. The key is to buy the printer based on the ease of "replacing" the ink!

Drat! Color lasers, which are the subject of this task, are slowly
dropping off the radar screen ... and the dreaded ink-based printers
are rising up, again.

Why is finding a decent printer to print photos at home at a decent
price such a miserable process?

Last time I needed to buy a new AIO Inkie I was going to avoid HP. I
read all the reviews I could find, compared features and user
satisfaction, plus looked at reported problems. I Finally settled on
a Canon that sounded REALLY good from the reviews. After getting it I
was VERY disappointed in it's print quality for text and photos, it
just did not match the quality on simple run of the mill daily
printing that I was used to from my old defunct (my fault) HP. Some
users had mentioned it's lengthy startup time for the first page but
it didn't sound too bad so I still bought it. Start up time turned
out to be a HUGE pain in the butt. If it sat for more then a few
minutes it seemingly parked it's print heads and then when you went to
print again there was all sorts of start up racket and delay while it
brought the heads out of cold storage. Then I discovered that in what
it considered normal mixed color and b/w printing it used a mix of all
the color inks to produce the "black" which came out more like a dark
charcoal. So its prints looked lousy and used up all the color ink!!
I took it back and returned to an HP AIO. Good luck with your
search!!

Yes, many of the Canon inkjets which, after all, are made for
photo-printing, improve the shades of grey by using other colors. This
is quite natural since the point of using them is to print quality
photos.

However, if one wants to use the printer for other things, which is
also natural, such as low-cost B/W printing, then one has to ensure
that the printer comes with at least one plain media mode (not the
highest or even medium quality one, in most cases) that prints only
using black ink. Then one uses that.

There is a whole range of Canon printers dealing with this problem by
shipping with two cartridges: black and color. One can then select
black-only cartridge and print all one's work only in black. Refilling
either cartridge is also trivial.

The single Canon I tried did have both black and color carts. Yet it
insisted on using the color mix for black unless you did something to
force it to use the black - I forget the details now. You could work
around it but it was a pain to deal with and simply wasn't a problem
with the HP. The thing that surprised me most was that so many
reviewers raved about its print quality and it was clearly, at least
to my eye, inferior to HP for the 90% of the printing I do. When
doing 4x6 color on glossy photo paper it did fine but no better then
the HP.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:47:42 -0700, SMS wrote:

The key is to look at consumables first, and then select a printer based
on the availability of after-market consumables.

That's sage advice!

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:47:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

You definitely don't want to have one that keeps the fuser hot all the
time if you only print once or twice a day and never turn the printer
off.

Hmmm... I will have to look to see if my B&W HP 3200m laser printer turns
itself off.

What feature am I looking for by name?

I googled for "hp 3200m turn off feature" but didn't find what I'm
looking for.

Does this auto-off feature have a name that I can see if the HP 3200m
laserjet has the capability?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:47:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I don't recall HP saying their printers should be left on all the time,
only that they should be turned off properly, which means with their
power button, not just by turning off the power strip it's plugged into.

I just downloaded the manual for the HP laserjet 3200m
http://crl.ap.buffalo.edu/faculty/phones/3200manual.pdf

I did a search (control + F) of the PDF for "power" and "turn off" but
didn't see any mention of what the recommendation is.

I leave mine on all the time - but folks said that's wasteful for
printing a page or three a week.

Any suggestions?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:47:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Most lasers will have a power save that turns off the fuser heat which
is similar to turning them off.

At first, I couldn't find that 'feature' by name in the HP 3200 laserjet
manual:
http://crl.ap.buffalo.edu/faculty/phones/3200manual.pdf

But, reading page by page by page, on page 228 of that manual, I find
this chart which talks about "idle mode" which may be the thing you are
talking about?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Power requirements = 100 to 127 volts +/-10% 50 to 60 hertz
Power consumption = Continuous copy mode: 135 watts
Idle mode = 7 watts
Minimum recommended circuit capacity = 4.2 amps (110 volts)
Idle power = 7 watts
-----------------------------------------------------------

The question is whether it goes into "idle mode" on its own or if I have
to put it into that mode. Unfortunately, a control F shows that "idle
mode" is used only once in the entire 300-page document! And its at that
chart. So there's not much to go by.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:03:56 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:47:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I don't recall HP saying their printers should be left on all the time,
only that they should be turned off properly, which means with their
power button, not just by turning off the power strip it's plugged into.

I just downloaded the manual for the HP laserjet 3200m
http://crl.ap.buffalo.edu/faculty/phones/3200manual.pdf

I did a search (control + F) of the PDF for "power" and "turn off" but
didn't see any mention of what the recommendation is.

I leave mine on all the time - but folks said that's wasteful for
printing a page or three a week.

Any suggestions?

Can't speak for yours specifically, but most every printer made in the
past few years is in a very low power mode when not in use. The heavy
power is the heating element that fuses the toner and that is not on
until it is going to print.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:10:02 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:47:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Most lasers will have a power save that turns off the fuser heat which
is similar to turning them off.

At first, I couldn't find that 'feature' by name in the HP 3200 laserjet
manual:
http://crl.ap.buffalo.edu/faculty/phones/3200manual.pdf

But, reading page by page by page, on page 228 of that manual, I find
this chart which talks about "idle mode" which may be the thing you are
talking about?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Power requirements = 100 to 127 volts +/-10% 50 to 60 hertz
Power consumption = Continuous copy mode: 135 watts
Idle mode = 7 watts
Minimum recommended circuit capacity = 4.2 amps (110 volts)
Idle power = 7 watts
-----------------------------------------------------------

The question is whether it goes into "idle mode" on its own or if I have
to put it into that mode. Unfortunately, a control F shows that "idle
mode" is used only once in the entire 300-page document! And its at that
chart. So there's not much to go by.

Yes, it goes into idle mode on its own.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:32:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:03:56 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:47:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I don't recall HP saying their printers should be left on all the
time, only that they should be turned off properly, which means with
their power button, not just by turning off the power strip it's
plugged into.

I just downloaded the manual for the HP laserjet 3200m
http://crl.ap.buffalo.edu/faculty/phones/3200manual.pdf

I did a search (control + F) of the PDF for "power" and "turn off" but
didn't see any mention of what the recommendation is.

I leave mine on all the time - but folks said that's wasteful for
printing a page or three a week.

Any suggestions?

Can't speak for yours specifically, but most every printer made in the
past few years is in a very low power mode when not in use. The heavy
power is the heating element that fuses the toner and that is not on
until it is going to print.

True of my LaserJet 4 machines, and they were made in 1993.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 8/26/2012 7:32 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:03:56 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:47:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I don't recall HP saying their printers should be left on all the time,
only that they should be turned off properly, which means with their
power button, not just by turning off the power strip it's plugged into.

I just downloaded the manual for the HP laserjet 3200m
http://crl.ap.buffalo.edu/faculty/phones/3200manual.pdf

I did a search (control + F) of the PDF for "power" and "turn off" but
didn't see any mention of what the recommendation is.

I leave mine on all the time - but folks said that's wasteful for
printing a page or three a week.

Any suggestions?

Can't speak for yours specifically, but most every printer made in the
past few years is in a very low power mode when not in use. The heavy
power is the heating element that fuses the toner and that is not on
until it is going to print.


True, but some draw surprising amounts of power while they "sleep". A
Kill-a-watt" meter is handy to find stuff like that.

Ashton Crusher writes:

On 23 Aug 2012 13:11:32 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

/../

There is a whole range of Canon printers dealing with this problem by
shipping with two cartridges: black and color. One can then select
black-only cartridge and print all one's work only in black. Refilling
either cartridge is also trivial.

The single Canon I tried did have both black and color carts. Yet it
insisted on using the color mix for black unless you did something to
force it to use the black - I forget the details now. You could work

Er, of course. You have to select the black cartridge. The printer is
not a mind-reader! This ability is what is special. In the other range
of models, which have 4 or more separate ink tanks, you also usually
have one or more black-only modes for plain media in the mono mode
selection, but it is not guaranteed: they might all use other inks as
well, that is controlled in the firmware.

With the range I described above, you can select black cartridge only
in the driver.

around it but it was a pain to deal with and simply wasn't a problem
with the HP. The thing that surprised me most was that so many
reviewers raved about its print quality and it was clearly, at least
to my eye, inferior to HP for the 90% of the printing I do. When
doing 4x6 color on glossy photo paper it did fine but no better then
the HP.

It is up to the printer manufacturer to determine what quality to give
for mono modes. Some use only black ink, some use other inks as well
for high-quality mono modes, and black only for lower qualit mono
modes. You can't rely on the next model having the same specs there.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug

Ashton Crusher wrote:

[mixing colours to reach black]

The single Canon I tried did have both black and color carts. Yet it
insisted on using the color mix for black unless you did something to
force it to use the black - I forget the details now. You could work
around it but it was a pain to deal with and simply wasn't a problem
with the HP.

Did you ever look at the HP greys and blacks with a loupe?

And how do you correct for colour tints? Believing that every
black ink will be colour cast free under every light, in every
density, on every paper ...

The thing that surprised me most was that so many
reviewers raved about its print quality and it was clearly, at least
to my eye, inferior to HP for the 90% of the printing I do.

Hmmm, that looks like you did something wrong.
Or used the wrong printer for the task.
Or used the wrong ink.
Or used the wrong paper.

When
doing 4x6 color on glossy photo paper it did fine but no better then
the HP.

What else did you print? Text on recycled paper?

-Wolfgang

Le Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:07:52 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug a écritÂ*:

"J.G." writes:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:08:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, when I was working I went thru several color laser printers
with the idea they would be able to do color photos better then the
"expensive" inkjet process.

I'm slowly coming to the following hard-won realization, much to my
chagrin, regarding printing color photos at home:

0. B&W laser writers (such as my HP 3200m) are trivial & cheap to
refill 1. Most color laser writers are also trivial & cheap to refill.
2. However, color laser writers stink at printing pictures at home!

Given that, we are FORCED to look at ink-based printers: 0. IMHO, all
ink-based printers from HP are to be avoided at all costs! 1.
Kodak/Canon/Dell ink-based printers 'may' be a viable alternative. 2.
The key is to buy the printer based on the ease of "replacing" the ink!

Drat! Color lasers, which are the subject of this task, are slowly
dropping off the radar screen ... and the dreaded ink-based printers
are rising up, again.

Why is finding a decent printer to print photos at home at a decent
price such a miserable process?

Why is Epson not recommended in the US (I assume most posters here are
in the US)? Epson is great for photos, although as I concentrate on
linux Canon driver development I only use Epson as a backup. I buy 3rd
party inks for my Epson, haven't tried refilling it. I'm not aware of
any problems with the ink cartridges, but maybe there are, which is why
Epson is not being discussed here?

I don't have an Epson printer at home, but I have seen Epson printed
photos and HP printed conterparts. I mostly noticed that Epson colours
seem to fade a lot faster than HP's. True enough, the fading of HP
prints, although slow, is an awful lot faster than that of old photos
that were chemically treated !

On 11/13/2012 8:19 AM, wrote:


The problem is my kid wants a color printer and the wife concurs.

Tell the wife and kid that there will be a coin jar next to the printer.
They'll have to put in a quarter for every page printed.
Plus, since the head clogs if you don't use it, there'll be an
additional 50-cents/day surcharge...and they'll have to pre-pay.
See if they still want a color printer.

Unless you're in advertising, color is wasteful.
You can buy a digital picture frame for less than the cost to
print all those pictures in color.
For most of us, taking the flash card into Walgreens for printing
costs less than owning a color printer.

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:26:34 -0800, mike wrote:

On 11/13/2012 8:19 AM, wrote:


The problem is my kid wants a color printer and the wife concurs.

Tell the wife and kid that there will be a coin jar next to the printer.
They'll have to put in a quarter for every page printed.
Plus, since the head clogs if you don't use it, there'll be an
additional 50-cents/day surcharge...and they'll have to pre-pay.
See if they still want a color printer.

Unless you're in advertising, color is wasteful.


I can't believe all the color (laser) printers at work. One has to go
out of one's way to print in B&W. Most of them do ledger, too. Yes,
wasteful, for the most part, but in some cases color is useful.

I have a couple of color printers at home but they're never used so
they don't. I also have a B&W laser that doesn't get used much but at
least it does work. Aftermarket cartridges are cheap enough, too.

You can buy a digital picture frame for less than the cost to
print all those pictures in color.

Different.

For most of us, taking the flash card into Walgreens for printing
costs less than owning a color printer.

The cost of owning is nothing. The cost of *using* is huge. ;-)

In article , wrote:
On 8/20/2012 3:25 PM, J.G. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:11:47 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Another thing to consider with lasers is startup time.

I print maybe one page every two or three days, on average.

I generally leave the printer on all the time.

However, I 'could' just as well turn it off, for all it has
been used.

But, when I had the HP d135 AIO printer, I remember admonishments
to keep it running all the time - otherwise it wasted ink (I was
told).

And, we all know, HP ink costs more than it's weight in gold.

So, what's the general consensus for leaving printers on
which are only used sporadically a few days of the week?

Does that play a role in our printer selection decision?


energy hogs, i would guess. they have to be kept at a hot temp for the
toner to be fused to the paper, so you're paying to keep it hot, and
then the a/c costs to keep the room cool. i guess in winter, if you're
in a place that needs heating, it's a wash.


My laser printer when it goes into sleep mode draws 6 watts which is less than
the damn night light i have in my upsatirs hallway.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:39:15 +0000 (UTC), "J.G."
wrote:

Q: What color laser printer can cheaply be refilled with non-OEM toner?

For years, I bought the Costco HP inkjets which required ink priced at
about 100 times what ink 'should' cost. I even tried the Costco $20 ink
refills, but of course, HP makes refills almost impossible, on purpose,
so I simply vowed to never buy another HP ink-based printer.

I bought an HP B&W laser printer, and have happily and successfully been
buying $5 guaranteed-used-once C92 cartridges and refilling the C4092A
black toner over the years at home, for about $5 for 250 grams of toner
as shown below (after melting a circular hole in the toner cartridge):
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/9007348.jpeg

The problem is my kid wants a color printer and the wife concurs.

I never again wish to go through the expensive ink-refill sheer hell of
the typical HP inkjet ... so the 'only' color printer for me is one which
I can easily and inexpensively refill, at home, from non-OEM sources.

Hence my question:

Q: Do you know of a color laser printer that can be as easily refilled
from non-OEM sources like the B&W laserjets can?

HP CP2025 is relatively cheap ($400), produces excellent color
printing, has been reliable, and is easily refillable. Get your
refilling stuff at http://TonerRefillKits.com. they are made for each
printing engine.

I rebuild my own black laser toner cartridges, and I can tell you that if you're planning on buying a colour laser printer with the thought of refilling the toner yourself, you just don't know enough about the job yet to know that what you're wanting to do really isn't feasible.

Here's why:

1. Nowadays almost all laser toner cartridges require that you replace a counting chip on the toner cartridge before it will work properly. And, no one will sell you those chips because they know a rebuilt cartridge won't work without it.

2. A colour laser printer has 4 cartridges that are each identical to one another. The only difference is the colour of the toner in the cartridge. You have black, yellow, cyan and magenta (IIRC). But, once you get the hang of rebuilding one cartridge, you can rebuild all of them with different toners.

3. Any company that tells you to melt a hole in your supply hopper with their special tool is a scam. A laser printer toner cartridge has two halves; a supply hopper and a waste hopper. NOT ALL of the toner you put into the supply hopper ends up getting fused to paper during printing. There's a special wiper in the waste hopper side that scrapes off the unused toner and dumps it into the waste hopper, and that waste hopper gradually fills up with unused toner.
By, melting a hole in the supply hopper and dumping in more toner, you're doing nothing about emptying the unused toner out of the waste hopper, and once that waste hopper fills up, the cartridge won't work properly any more. You'll have waste toner coming out of that cartridge and getting into the machinery of your printer.

Besides, there already is a hole in the supply hopper to add toner.
That's the hole legitimate cartridge rebuilding businesses use to add toner.

If you want to save on your printing costs, your best bet is to buy an old colour laser printer with toner cartridges that don't require a chip, and learn how to refill those kinds of cartridges with new toner. Then, just add toner to it once or twice before exchanging it for a rebuilt cartridge. That way, you save most of the cost of buying rebuilt cartridges without having to learn how to rebuild toner cartridges properly (and trust me on this: It takes some practice to get good at rebuilding toner cartridges). Also, after 3 cycles, the OPC (Organic Photosensitive Coating) drum, wiper blade and PCR (Primary Charge Roller) need to be replaced anyway, and that's gonna cost you $25 at least.

I have an old HP Laserjet 5L and a Cannon 3240 multifunction laser printer, and I'm lucky that neither cartridge requires a chip for rebuilding. Still, those times I have rebuilt the cartridges, they haven't always worked very well, and I attribute that to the fact that I took them completely apart to rebuild them. Now, what I do is just empty the waste hopper, take the cap off the end of the supply hopper and dump new toner into the supply hopper. Once I've refilled the cartridge 2 or 3 times, I bring it in for a rebuilt unit because by that time the OPC drum needs to be replaced anyhow, and it's hard to find anyone that will sell the parts to rebuild laser toner cartridges.

If you want to know the procedure to rebuild toner cartridges, you can find step-by-step instructions for most printers on this web site:

Remanufacturing Guides

Alternatively, pay $35 for a one year on-line subscription to Recharger Magazine and download their remanufacturing instructions from this web site:

http://rechargermag.com/articles/lis...tructions.aspx

Or, just Google "toner cartridge remanufacturing instructions". There are quite a few You Tube videos that explain the procedure, but each different toner cartridge is slightly to a lot different, and there are hundreds of different kinds of toner cartridges.

Rebuilding the 4 toner cartridges in a colour laser printer is only feasible if you have someone you can rely on to sell you the parts. Most rebuilders frown on that, and people are reluctant to do it for fear of perhaps even losing their jobs (if the boss has it in for them anyway).

On Monday, 20 August 2012 18:50:34 UTC+1, SMS wrote:
On 8/18/2012 3:39 PM, J.G. wrote:

I never again wish to go through the expensive ink-refill sheer hell of
the typical HP inkjet ... so the 'only' color printer for me is one which
I can easily and inexpensively refill, at home, from non-OEM sources.

It's not hell at all. If it's not too new, you can buy third-party
cartridges fairly cheaply. I.e. right now (because of a 20% off sale), I
can buy HP97 color cartridges for my Officejet for $8 each at Monoprice.com.

The key is to choose an inkjet carefully. First, avoid at all costs any
inkjet printer where you the print head and the ink cartridge are not
one unit. It seems counter-intuitive, but the biggest problem with ink
jet printers is when the print head goes bad. For all the HP bashing,
the one big advantage of HP ink jet printers is that you get a new (or
at least tested) print head with each ink cartridge.

1. Stay away from newer ink jet printers that make it very difficult to
use after-market or refilled cartridges.

2. Avoid ink jet printers where the print head is separate from the ink
cartridge.

3. Set up the printers in your house so that the default printer is the
monochrome laser.

4. Try to explain to your family that they should only select the color
printer for things that absolutely need to be printed in color.

5. Show your family how to send photos to Walgreen's, CVS, or Costco for
printing.

I very much agree with the suggestion to avoid the HP business range of A3 printers that have separate print heads HP11; although the colour ones are plentiful on ebay, the black ones are very rare and sell for about £20. I get through a black head every month. They have a counter chip on the head itself which I don't think you can reset. You can get resettable ink reservoirs but not head chips. You can refurbish the heads and prise them open to rinse but they wont run if the chips says no. The HP Deskjet 1200 series use the carts with heads built in. Much cheaper to run.. The carts are common to the big commercial plotters and hence they come up a lot on ebay.

I am undecided on colour laser printers; I run several A4 HP4500DNs and the toners are cheap as chips but they have transfer belts and photo drums which are not so easy to get now. There was a way to buy new photoconductive drums and strip the units to rebuild but they were not cheap. The chips on the drums can be bought in bulk from China. The transfer belts were the Achiles heals of these printers and did not last more than 6000 copies. The belts were not available for rebuilding the units. The speed is extremely slow (4PPM) but the quality is still good. They build up the colour with 4 passes. Many colour laser printers use transfer belts and these are a hidden cost to older printers. Maybe there are some now that don't have transfer belts???

On Monday, 20 August 2012 21:34:40 UTC+1, J.G. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:50:34 -0700, SMS wrote:

It's not hell at all.
The key is to choose an inkjet carefully.

Hi SMS,

At first I thought you were "clueless in San Jose",
but then I read your wonderful post, and I realized you
were right on the money!

One thing to add to your "choose your printer carefully" advice.

This HP web site tells us that there is no way to override the
drop dead date in "some" HP printers.

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/d...name=c01764161

Trust me, I've tried (on the d135).
It just can not be done.
Forget CMOS resets.
Forget motherboard shorts.
Forget changing the printer time.
Forget turning off the ink-drop counting mechanisms.
Even forget the otherwise venerable trick of cycling of three cartridges.

The only solution (for those printers) is to NEVER BUY THOSE PRINTERS!
Otherwise, attempting to re-fill the chipped ink will be sheer hell.

So that others benefit, we should add that list of printers to avoid
in order to eliminate hell in your otherwise wonderful instructions!
...
HP Officejet Pro K850
HP digital Copier Printer 610
HP Business Inkjet (all HP business inkjet printers!)
HP Officejet D series (all)
HP Officejet d125xi,
HP Officejet d135,
HP Officejet d145,
HP Officejet d155xi,
HP Officejet 7110,
HP Officejet 7130,
HP Officejet 7140xi,
HP Fax 610
HP Officejet 7100 series (all)
HP Officejet 9100 series (all)
HP Professional series 2000 (all)
HP Professional series 2500 (all)
HP Color Inkjet cp1160
HP Color Inkjet cp1700
...
HP Officejet Pro 8000,
HP Officejet Pro 8500,
HP Officejet Pro K550,
HP Officejet Pro K5300,
HP Officejet Pro K5400,
HP Officejet Pro K8600,
HP Officejet Pro L7400,
HP Officejet Pro L7500,
HP Officejet Pro L7600,
HP Officejet Pro L7700 Series
HP Photosmart 3110,
HP Photosmart 3210,
HP Photosmart 3310,
HP Photosmart 8250,
HP Photosmart C5180,
HP Photosmart C6180,
HP Photosmart C6200,
HP Photosmart C7180,
HP Photosmart C7200,
HP Photosmart C8100,
HP Photosmart D6160,
HP Photosmart D7160,
HP Photosmart D7200,
HP Photosmart D7360,
HP Photosmart D7400 series,
HP Photosmart Pro B8800,
HP Photosmart Pro B9180
HP Designjet 510,
HP Designjet 4000,
HP Designjet 4500,
HP Designjet 4X20,
HP Designjet 5100,
HP Designjet 5500,
HP Designjet 8000,
HP Designjet 9000,
HP Designjet 10000,
HP Designjet L25500,
HP Designjet L26500,
HP Designjet L28500,
HP Designjet L65500,
HP Designjet LX600,
HP Designjet LX800,
HP Designjet LX820,
HP Designjet LX850,
HP Designjet T610,
HP Designjet T620,
HP Designjet T770,
HP Designjet T790,
HP Designjet T1100,
HP Designjet T1120,
HP Designjet T1200,
HP Designjet T1300,
HP Designjet T2300 eMFP,
HP Designjet T7100,
HP Designjet Z2100,
HP Designjet Z3100,
HP Designjet Z3200,
HP Designjet Z5200ps,
HP Designjet Z6100,
HP Designjet Z6200 series,
HP CM8050
HP CM8060

Thanks for your summary. I would disagree with the inclusion of the HP1700c A3 printer. I removed the internal battery from the printer and have never had any refusal on date of either heads or ink cartridges. I use this printer solely on expired parts and use it a LOT. The printer has its own internal date system. It looks at each installed cartridge and head individually. I use a CIS ink system and there is never a problem. The chips on those don't take a count. One problem that does exist is the counter on the heads that can't be overridden. Unless anyone else knows differently...

On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 03:57:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, 20 August 2012 18:50:34 UTC+1, SMS wrote:
On 8/18/2012 3:39 PM, J.G. wrote:

I never again wish to go through the expensive ink-refill sheer hell of
the typical HP inkjet ... so the 'only' color printer for me is one which
I can easily and inexpensively refill, at home, from non-OEM sources.

Then find yourself an officejet pro 8000 or 8500MFP. Dead easy to
refill. You will buy new cartridges every 3 years for $40 each, +/-
when the chip times out.

It's not hell at all. If it's not too new, you can buy third-party
cartridges fairly cheaply. I.e. right now (because of a 20% off sale), I
can buy HP97 color cartridges for my Officejet for $8 each at Monoprice.com.

The key is to choose an inkjet carefully. First, avoid at all costs any
inkjet printer where you the print head and the ink cartridge are not
one unit. It seems counter-intuitive, but the biggest problem with ink
jet printers is when the print head goes bad. For all the HP bashing,
the one big advantage of HP ink jet printers is that you get a new (or
at least tested) print head with each ink cartridge.

Not on their GOOD printers. The officejet pro has easily replaceable
print heads and they stand up quite well.

1. Stay away from newer ink jet printers that make it very difficult to
use after-market or refilled cartridges.

2. Avoid ink jet printers where the print head is separate from the ink
cartridge.

3. Set up the printers in your house so that the default printer is the
monochrome laser.

4. Try to explain to your family that they should only select the color
printer for things that absolutely need to be printed in color.

The inkjet needs to be used regualarly to keep the heads from drying
out

5. Show your family how to send photos to Walgreen's, CVS, or Costco for
printing.

I very much agree with the suggestion to avoid the HP business range of A3 printers that have separate print heads HP11; although the colour ones are plentiful on ebay, the black ones are very rare and sell for about £20. I get through a black head every month. They have a counter chip on the head itself which I don't think you can reset. You can get resettable ink reservoirs but not head chips. You can refurbish the heads and prise them open to rinse but they wont run if the chips says no. The HP Deskjet 1200 series use the carts with heads built in. Much cheaper to run.. The carts are common to the big commercial plotters and hence they come up a lot on ebay.

We have about 30 8000 pro printers in the office, and most of them
have over 25,000 prints on them. Between the 30 printers I replace
about 6 heads a year. At $8 an ounce for premium ink, replacing tanks
about every 3 years, they are VERY economical to operate. Just
whatever you do, if you get a paper jam NEVER pull the paper out from
the front!!!!! Kill the printer pretty quick that way (breaks paper
feed clutch). Lost about 6 that way over the last 5 years or so.
I am undecided on colour laser printers; I run several A4 HP4500DNs and the toners are cheap as chips but they have transfer belts and photo drums which are not so easy to get now. There was a way to buy new photoconductive drums and strip the units to rebuild but they were not cheap. The chips on the drums can be bought in bulk from China. The transfer belts were the Achiles heals of these printers and did not last more than 6000 copies. The belts were not available for rebuilding the units. The speed is extremely slow (4PPM) but the quality is still good. They build up the colour with 4 passes. Many colour laser printers use transfer belts and these are a hidden cost to older printers. Maybe there are some now that don't have transfer belts???

For the HP colour lasers I buy good quality high yield compatible
cartridges for $55 canadian (that's about $35 yankee greenbacks)

1. Stay away from newer ink jet printers that make it very difficult to
use after-market or refilled cartridges.

2. Avoid ink jet printers where the print head is separate from the ink
cartridge.

3. Set up the printers in your house so that the default printer is the
monochrome laser.

4. Try to explain to your family that they should only select the color
printer for things that absolutely need to be printed in color.

5. Show your family how to send photos to Walgreen's, CVS, or Costco for
printing.

Just my opinion, but I refuse to pay the price to own an inkjet printer.
Its not just the ink, but for photos you need special paper, and so on.
If I want photos printed, I take a flash drive to the local drug store
or Walmart, and although it's not as convenient, it's actually cheaper.

Years ago, I bought a black and white laser printer. I never had to add
toner. (I dont print very much though). That was all I needed for
simple text documents. But when that printer quit working, I decided
that it was cheaper to just take the document to the local print shop,
or the library. But that's probably only 4 or 5 times a year. I have
since reconnected my old dot matrix printer, for the rare occasion I
want to simply print something like instructions for doing a car repair
or something like that.

I would have thought that by now, they would have something more high
tech for printing. But I guess there is huge profit to be made with
inkjet. Inkjet is lousy quality for printing something like colored
posters, and if those posters are used outdoors, sunlight fades them
real fast, and even one drop of water makes the ink run down the page.

I swear everytime I go to a garage or rummage sale, there is an inkjet
printer being sold for a buck or two. Thats cuz it's cheaper to buy a
new printer than to buy the ink.

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-4, wrote:
1. Stay away from newer ink jet printers that make it very difficult to
use after-market or refilled cartridges.

2. Avoid ink jet printers where the print head is separate from the ink
cartridge.

3. Set up the printers in your house so that the default printer is the
monochrome laser.

4. Try to explain to your family that they should only select the color
printer for things that absolutely need to be printed in color.

5. Show your family how to send photos to Walgreen's, CVS, or Costco for
printing.

Just my opinion, but I refuse to pay the price to own an inkjet printer.
Its not just the ink, but for photos you need special paper, and so on.
If I want photos printed, I take a flash drive to the local drug store
or Walmart, and although it's not as convenient, it's actually cheaper.

Years ago, I bought a black and white laser printer. I never had to add
toner. (I dont print very much though). That was all I needed for
simple text documents. But when that printer quit working, I decided
that it was cheaper to just take the document to the local print shop,
or the library. But that's probably only 4 or 5 times a year. I have
since reconnected my old dot matrix printer, for the rare occasion I
want to simply print something like instructions for doing a car repair
or something like that.

I would have thought that by now, they would have something more high
tech for printing. But I guess there is huge profit to be made with
inkjet.

They do have something more high tech, color laser.

To the original point, I've refilled Brother printer cartridges easily,
cost effectively, both black and color.

trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-4, wrote:
1. Stay away from newer ink jet printers that make it very difficult to
use after-market or refilled cartridges.

2. Avoid ink jet printers where the print head is separate from the ink
cartridge.

3. Set up the printers in your house so that the default printer is the
monochrome laser.

4. Try to explain to your family that they should only select the color
printer for things that absolutely need to be printed in color.

5. Show your family how to send photos to Walgreen's, CVS, or Costco for
printing.

Just my opinion, but I refuse to pay the price to own an inkjet printer.
Its not just the ink, but for photos you need special paper, and so on.
If I want photos printed, I take a flash drive to the local drug store
or Walmart, and although it's not as convenient, it's actually cheaper.

Years ago, I bought a black and white laser printer. I never had to add
toner. (I dont print very much though). That was all I needed for
simple text documents. But when that printer quit working, I decided
that it was cheaper to just take the document to the local print shop,
or the library. But that's probably only 4 or 5 times a year. I have
since reconnected my old dot matrix printer, for the rare occasion I
want to simply print something like instructions for doing a car repair
or something like that.

I would have thought that by now, they would have something more high
tech for printing. But I guess there is huge profit to be made with
inkjet.

They do have something more high tech, color laser.

To the original point, I've refilled Brother printer cartridges easily,
cost effectively, both black and color.

Hi,
+1, even though I don't refill myself, Brother is very user friendly.
All my printing is on color laaser but I still print photos with Canon
MP990.