Simplest and most reliable printer for an iMac?
in [Printers]
|
Prev: OKI 5800 Reset counters
Next: Epson R-300
From: TJ on 3 Jan 2010 09:13 David wrote: > In article <hhmi2e$3tc$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, > jbrock(a)panix.com (John Brock) wrote: > >> My siblings and I bought our 80-some year old mother a new iMac >> for Christmas, and her Epson Stylus Color 740 -- unsupported by >> Snow Leopard -- is now junk. So we'd like to hear recommendations >> for a new printer. >> >> We're not interested in speed or ultra-high quality photos or >> multi-function; we're looking for robustness and simplicity above >> all. We'd like our mother to be able to change the ink cartridges >> by herself! Beyond that, we're looking for a major brand with good >> OS X support, and not overly expensive (especially the ink). Under >> $200 certainly, and under $100 would be nice. Given these criteria, >> what would be the best choice? > > Any of the HP or Canons in basic form should do the trick - certainly > avoid Epson (even though they do print nicely) as she will be forever > cleaning heads. > > With HP (I have had 4 of them over the past 15 years) they just sit > there until you want to print, then they print. No trouble no fuss. > > Re cost of ink - generally the cheaper printers tend to be harder on ink > than the more expensive units, but that is not such a problem unless you > (or her) are going to do a lot of printing. > > One big advantage of the HP and Canon is that cartridges are available > at most department stores and at post offices. > > Cheers > > David Most intensive discussion this one little post spawned. Fascinating on how it developed, too. The debate is about why some folks experience clogging with Epsons and others don't. The defenders start by saying they don't clog with "proper" use, but when others dispute that claim that defense somehow changed to "normal" use. Guess what, people? "Normal" use probably isn't what Epson considers "proper!" TJ
From: Jan Alter on 3 Jan 2010 09:44 "heiko recktenwald" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:hhq6jo$tna$03$2(a)news.t-online.com... > Jan Alter schrieb: >> From my perspective the only thing that will turn things around is >> consumer revolution to enjoin legislation, making it easier for the user >> to >> refill cartidges and end this costly waste of materials, money, and greed >> on >> both Epson's and the other printer makers. > > But what choice do consumers have today? Except letters to DC or legal > action. Where is EFF? ;-) > > Clearly the mass of consumers are not riled up enough to do much. Once and awhile I'll hear of Staples offering to give incentives for returning empty inkjet cartridges to them for recycling. Barely a handful of people are writing to their legislatures from what I see and hear on the news. I haven't read anything in Consumer Reports about the interest, except vaguely to refill cartridges, and then that continues with more ignorance from CR, saying that using OEM is probably the better choice since filled cartridges may not last as long, the ink may not be as 'high quality'. The same goes from them for using third party cartridges. Despite the fact that the masses are using millions of these printers there is no momentum at this point to bring the issue to equal getting rid of plastic bags, or driving smaller cars, or wearing a sweater in the house on a cold day to cut out the waste. -- Jan Alter bearpuf(a)verizon.net
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Jan 2010 12:18 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:10:12 -0600, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: >No, IMO, it's a crappy printer. From what i can tell, most people who >buy the cheap Epson inkjet printers are very likely occasional users. I have an expensive Epson, it was over $300 when I bought it several years ago - primarily because it has a built in Ethernet connection. Printing generally takes a long time as it clears out the ink heads. I use Epson ink, but if I don't use the printer for a month or two (while leaving my printer on, as is my practice), it won't unclog. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Jan 2010 12:22 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:29:23 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >that would be nice, however, it's also not really a big deal to turn >something off when not in use. i assume you do that with the lights in >your house, your tv set, your stove, vacuum cleaner, etc. are those >also crappy because there's no auto-shutoff? My Epson is connected to the home LAN via its own NIC and Ethernet cable. Admittedly, my wife two floors up doesn't use it often, but she does use it, so I leave it on. I wouldn't mind seeing a requirement for computers and other electronic devices listing their power consumption when on standby or when "off". Now that we use a VPN to connect to work, my work computer stays on all the time (Since it is Windows, I reboot it before I go home to clear out daily problems). -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Adam on 3 Jan 2010 12:44
Howard Brazee wrote: > I wouldn't mind seeing a requirement for computers and other > electronic devices listing their power consumption when on standby or > when "off". If you're in the USA, there's a handy device called a "Kill-A-Watt" (about $20 from NewEgg or elsewhere) that measures both instantaneous and cumulative power consumption of whatever's plugged into it (max 1500W). I checked out a few things when they were on standby, and sometimes it took over 24 hours for the kWh used to get up to 0.01 kWh. Adam |