«

Well, this thread is addressing my interests and situation, too. First I
want to jump in on the evils of printers. My opinion is that all printers
are the spawn of Satan, and their only real purpose in life is to mangle as
much paper as they can get into their little trays. The last good printer
was Benjamin Franklin. Brother MFC error 41 is only the latest manifestation
of printer evilness.

I will mention one alternative that hasn't been mentioned, but I'm pretty
sure the response is going to be either "What?" or "It's extinct." A company
named ALPS used to make printers with a kind of film ribbon cartridge
instead of ink or laser. The printer itself wasn't too expensive, but my
recollection is that the ribbons were pretty pricey. However, if you print
very rarely, which is my situation, then the ribbons would last
indefinitely.

Right now, I'm just reentering the printer market because of the demise of
my Brother MFC (mentioned in another thread). I hate to give up the color
capabilities, but it looks like I should be considering a color laser
printer, expensive though it might be... The discussion seems to say that
the integrated ink cartridge and printhead printers are no longer being
made? If that's incorrect, concrete models would be appreciated.

The MFC (multifunction thing) appealed to me, and actually I did much more
scanning than printing with the Brother. However, the error 41 has disabled
the scanning capabilities, too, so I feel thoroughly screwed, and I'm
inclined against buying another MFC device. Can anyone address those
questions in the context of the rarely used printer part? I think it just
makes more sense to get a good small printer and a good small scanner than
to try to get one device that does a mediocre job in both categories--and
especially when the resulting complexity of the integration makes it easy
for the device to go bonkers.

Eric wrote:
> "OldNick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I only use a printer occasionally; maybe once per week, for a
>> couple/few pages. I am not in a situation where I cam simply borrow
>> another one to print.
>>
>> I was using an HP printer. However I had many paper feed problems, as
>> did at least one other person I knew. So I bought an Epson or two,
>> the current one being a C61.
>>
>> The troubles are twofold
>> (1) It clogs if I don't run it every day (often I am not even there)
>> (2) Its "cleaning" process, whether I turn it off or leave it on,
>> meant I was paying damn near Aud$1.00 per page in ink, because I will
>> often run off only one page or so. The ink was just flying out the
>> door.
>>
>> So, has some honest maker reverted to printers that did not use ink
>> as a money-making venture yet? <G>. I would even consider another HP,
>> feed and all, if I could trust that they were better.
>>
>> Thanks for any advice.
>
> Hi,
>
> Your printing needs sound very familiar with mine. I should also
> add that I hate printers. I've literally slapped a few around,
> similar to the slapping the printer in "Office Space" received.
>
> I went with a cheap laser printer and couldn't be happier. My main
> printing needs are technical; documentations, diagrams, schematics,
> tables, etc. No need for color. In fact, I wouldn't want to use
> color as I find it distracting.
>
> I went with an HP Laserjet 1020 for $112 from Newegg. No major
> complaints so far. Print quality, in my eyes, is as sharp and vivid
> as the multi-thousand dollar laser printers I use at work. Its also
> quiet and fast. Basically, everything you'd expect from a laser
> printer -- expensive or cheap.
>
> My only very minor complaint is that, while printing large
> documentation, the paper begins to curl a bit as the drum gets really
> hot. The paper straightens itself out as it cools though. This is
> probably something that all cheap laser printers face.
>
> Also, its a "Win"-printer that can't standalone on a network by
> itself. The GNU/Linux and Mac communities have gotten it to work
> partially, but best the place for it is hanging off a Windoze
> computer.
> As others have said, one of the advantages of laser toner over inkjet
> ink is that since it is already dry you can go much longer inactive. I've
> had inkjets in the past, but I'm through with them now. Should've gone to
> a laser years ago. In the future, if I ever have a
> real need for color, its going to be a laser color printer.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric

tomm42 wrote:

>Canon, Epson and HP seem to make the best printers.
>
True

>None is perfect, as
>a former ALPS printer owner, it was a terror, always jamming with the 3
>paper pulls.
>
>
ALPS had a good reputation.

> I would split up the scanner and printer.
>
Me Too

>Stay away from HP scanners,
>it seems to be the one folks have the most problems with, their
>printers are fine. Buying the bottom end of any product line is frought
>with peril,
>
True

>skip the top of the line too.
>

Unless you got the money and do not care about the value

>I have both an Epson and HP
>printers (mid range) they are both over 2 years old and are working
>fine. The Epson is a pigment ink version, gets used the least and has a
>little clogging problem, but one or two cleanings and it is fine. The
>HP is our house printer and just keeps working, to the Epson's defence
>it is a dye ink model.
>
>Good luck
>Tom
>
>Shannon Jacobs wrote:
>
>
>>Well, this thread is addressing my interests and situation, too. First I
>>want to jump in on the evils of printers. My opinion is that all printers
>>are the spawn of Satan, and their only real purpose in life is to mangle as
>>much paper as they can get into their little trays. The last good printer
>>was Benjamin Franklin. Brother MFC error 41 is only the latest manifestation
>>of printer evilness.
>>
>>I will mention one alternative that hasn't been mentioned, but I'm pretty
>>sure the response is going to be either "What?" or "It's extinct." A company
>>named ALPS used to make printers with a kind of film ribbon cartridge
>>instead of ink or laser. The printer itself wasn't too expensive, but my
>>recollection is that the ribbons were pretty pricey. However, if you print
>>very rarely, which is my situation, then the ribbons would last
>>indefinitely.
>>
>>Right now, I'm just reentering the printer market because of the demise of
>>my Brother MFC (mentioned in another thread). I hate to give up the color
>>capabilities, but it looks like I should be considering a color laser
>>printer, expensive though it might be... The discussion seems to say that
>>the integrated ink cartridge and printhead printers are no longer being
>>made? If that's incorrect, concrete models would be appreciated.
>>
>>The MFC (multifunction thing) appealed to me, and actually I did much more
>>scanning than printing with the Brother. However, the error 41 has disabled
>>the scanning capabilities, too, so I feel thoroughly screwed, and I'm
>>inclined against buying another MFC device. Can anyone address those
>>questions in the context of the rarely used printer part? I think it just
>>makes more sense to get a good small printer and a good small scanner than
>>to try to get one device that does a mediocre job in both categories--and
>>especially when the resulting complexity of the integration makes it easy
>>for the device to go bonkers.
>>
>>Eric wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"OldNick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I only use a printer occasionally; maybe once per week, for a
>>>>couple/few pages. I am not in a situation where I cam simply borrow
>>>>another one to print.
>>>>
>>>>I was using an HP printer. However I had many paper feed problems, as
>>>>did at least one other person I knew. So I bought an Epson or two,
>>>>the current one being a C61.
>>>>
>>>>The troubles are twofold
>>>>(1) It clogs if I don't run it every day (often I am not even there)
>>>>(2) Its "cleaning" process, whether I turn it off or leave it on,
>>>>meant I was paying damn near Aud$1.00 per page in ink, because I will
>>>>often run off only one page or so. The ink was just flying out the
>>>>door.
>>>>
>>>>So, has some honest maker reverted to printers that did not use ink
>>>>as a money-making venture yet? <G>. I would even consider another HP,
>>>>feed and all, if I could trust that they were better.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for any advice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Your printing needs sound very familiar with mine. I should also
>>>add that I hate printers. I've literally slapped a few around,
>>>similar to the slapping the printer in "Office Space" received.
>>>
>>>I went with a cheap laser printer and couldn't be happier. My main
>>>printing needs are technical; documentations, diagrams, schematics,
>>>tables, etc. No need for color. In fact, I wouldn't want to use
>>>color as I find it distracting.
>>>
>>>I went with an HP Laserjet 1020 for $112 from Newegg. No major
>>>complaints so far. Print quality, in my eyes, is as sharp and vivid
>>>as the multi-thousand dollar laser printers I use at work. Its also
>>>quiet and fast. Basically, everything you'd expect from a laser
>>>printer -- expensive or cheap.
>>>
>>>My only very minor complaint is that, while printing large
>>>documentation, the paper begins to curl a bit as the drum gets really
>>>hot. The paper straightens itself out as it cools though. This is
>>>probably something that all cheap laser printers face.
>>>
>>>Also, its a "Win"-printer that can't standalone on a network by
>>>itself. The GNU/Linux and Mac communities have gotten it to work
>>>partially, but best the place for it is hanging off a Windoze
>>>computer.
>>>As others have said, one of the advantages of laser toner over inkjet
>>>ink is that since it is already dry you can go much longer inactive. I've
>>>had inkjets in the past, but I'm through with them now. Should've gone to
>>>a laser years ago. In the future, if I ever have a
>>>real need for color, its going to be a laser color printer.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Eric
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:22:55 GMT, measekite <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>ALPS had a good reputation.


ALPS printers were garbage, compared even to the
inkjet printers at the time. A poor implementation of
a ribbon-based dye-sub design.

I bought an Alps MD-1000 and returned it about a week
later -- after seeing how much better the output was from
an Epson Stylus Color 600. That was about 1999 or so.

Color depth and color uniformity were awful. And if you
didn't use an adequately smooth paper surface, you
ended up with white "pits" in the output where no
pigment was deposited. Banding was nasty -- so all
the ALPS "test images" had bright colors and nothing
but detail. God forbid you should have a patch of
clear blue sky in your image.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Raphael Bustin
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>I bought an Alps MD-1000 and returned it about a week
>later -- after seeing how much better the output was from
>an Epson Stylus Color 600. That was about 1999 or so.

That Stylus 600 was the last inkjet I had, we ran it for a couple of
years, but I gave up once colour lasers dipped below the £1,000 mark.

--
Timothy

"CSM1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xa1Ig.3310$(E-Mail Removed) m...

> The cheap low end printers use print cartridges that has very little ink,
> and cost much more to use the printer. A $38 printer will cost you that
> much and more just for the replacement ink cartridges on the first
> replacement.

ISTR a comment that the ink is more expensive per ml than the rarest of
wines or champagnes.

"Homer J Simpson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_OhOg.12360$bf5.2912@edtnps90...
>
> "CSM1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xa1Ig.3310$(E-Mail Removed) m...
>
>> The cheap low end printers use print cartridges that has very little ink,
>> and cost much more to use the printer. A $38 printer will cost you that
>> much and more just for the replacement ink cartridges on the first
>> replacement.
>
> ISTR a comment that the ink is more expensive per ml than the rarest of
> wines or champagnes.
>
Yes. - That's why I gave up printing, and took up drinking.......