Simplest and most reliable printer for an iMac?
in [Printers]
|
Prev: OKI 5800 Reset counters
Next: Epson R-300
From: nospam on 3 Jan 2010 20:09 In article <478456d8-3e95-4ada-b381-e6a040192b97(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, <"kiromark(a)aol.com"> wrote: > Personally, I prefer the Epson and Canon for printing photographs (I > also use a photo 1400) and flyers (I do a lot of that) because of > sharper colors and better balance. I use the HP mainly to copy and > print forms (it's faster). good choices. > I think one should use the right tool for > the task, and not be limited by brand loyalty. exactly.
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Jan 2010 21:34 On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:44:18 -0500, Adam <adam(a)address.invalid> wrote: >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 Sounds useful, but not as useful as knowing these figures before I buy stuff. -- "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 21:55 Howard Brazee wrote: >> 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. > > Sounds useful, but not as useful as knowing these figures before I buy > stuff. Yes, that is quite true. I have all of my (home) computer system plugged into a power strip so when that's switched off, power consumption is zero. If it's any help, I used my Kill-A-Watt to measure "switched off" power consumption, and most things were way under 10 kWh per year. I consider that negligible, although that's a matter of opinion. The only real exception was an antique (1996) color laser printer. Adam
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Jan 2010 22:08 On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:55:22 -0500, Adam <adam(a)address.invalid> wrote: >> Sounds useful, but not as useful as knowing these figures before I buy >> stuff. > >Yes, that is quite true. > >I have all of my (home) computer system plugged into a power strip so >when that's switched off, power consumption is zero. If it's any help, >I used my Kill-A-Watt to measure "switched off" power consumption, and >most things were way under 10 kWh per year. I consider that negligible, >although that's a matter of opinion. The only real exception was an >antique (1996) color laser printer. I'd like computer companies to have an incentive to use less power while in stand-by mode now that it is so common for people to dial into their work computer. I think rechargers could be smarter. I've read that power supplies could easily and cheaply be smarter. -- "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: Jolly Roger on 4 Jan 2010 01:41
In article <020120101929234343%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-3F7BD6.21101202012010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > Google shows 202,000 hits for the search term "epson clogged nozzles". > > So realistically, we're talking about a sample size of a much greater > > number. ; ) > > that doesn't prove anything. nevertheless, google shows 233,000 hits > for canon clogged nozzles and 337,000 for hp clogged nozzles, so by > your metric, epsons clog the least. LOL! Touche, touche... -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR |