|
|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
mrsnesbitt
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 1576
|
|
|
|
|
mrsnesbitt
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 1576
|
|
|
|
|
heronview Guest
|
|
|
|
|
ButteryHOLsomeness
Joined: 03 Apr 2005 Posts: 770
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 05 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
Hi heronview -
(why not register and join in on other topics)
Epson make excellent printers, BUT - they will suffer from blocked nozzles, particularly if not routinely turned off, or not used much, or used with (at least some) "compatible" inks.
And with Epsons, the printhead (with the nozzles) is a permanent part of the printer, not a comsumable as with some printers.
The good news is that an ammonia based cleaner, such as Windowlene, can be used to flush out clogged nozzles. There are plenty of articles to be found on the web, (the american equivalent is called "Windex"). |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
tawny owl
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 563 Location: Hampshire
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 05 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
Sarah D wrote: |
I have an Epson C62 Stylus - I bought it because I liked the shape. It's about two years old now, and has done sterling service for us - there's four of us using it constantly - committee work and papers, accounts, the childrens books and other writing, photos, knitting patterns, etc. Never had any major problem with it, and we use the compatible cartridges. If we used the Epson ones we would have to remortgage the house at the rate we use them. |
Wouldn't it be better to have a laser printer instead (or in addition), if you're using it that much? Running costs for laser are about 2-3p, as opposed to the 18-35p of an inkjet, and they've come down a heck of a lot in price - Brother now do a basic laser printer for about 60 quid. You'd make that back in running costs in a few months. |
|
|
|
|
sally_in_wales Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 20809 Location: sunny wales
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
tawny owl
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 563 Location: Hampshire
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
tawny owl
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 563 Location: Hampshire
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 05 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
dougal wrote: |
It may be worth noting that lasers use *lots* more electricity than inkjets (but still hardly a vast amount) and emit a bit of ozone. Today's Times has an ad for a new HP laser, around the �70 mark. The "cartridge" should do 2,000 pages (standard text). |
Agreed, but because the laser prints out so much faster, it works out at actually slightly less than the inkjet (assuming you switch it off when you're finished). A laser will print out between 8 and 25 pages/min, whereas an inkjet will probably still be chugging through the 3rd or 4th.
I use a Samsung, and the cartridge on that lasts for about 3000 pages, at about �55/cartridge. Well worth checking how many pages a cartridge will last for, and work out cost per page, and also, check if you need to replace a separate drum; most modern lasers incorporate the drum as part of the cartridge, but some don't and that can be another 200 quid every couple of years. IMO, the HP is a bit flimsy-looking, as is the Canon. Brother and Samsung seem to do much more substantial ones, and some of the lesser-known makes such as Oki and Kyocera are supposed to be good. |
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 05 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
tawny owl wrote: |
.. but because the laser prints out so much faster, it works out at actually slightly less {electricity} than the inkjet (assuming you switch it off when you're finished). A laser will print out between 8 and 25 pages/min, whereas an inkjet will probably still be chugging through the 3rd or 4th. |
Hmmm. Generalisation is never accurate. But because lasers *must* heat up their "fuser" roller to a temperature that risks setting fire to your paper if there's a jam, they do use a large amount of energy in preparing to print. (To prevent fires, the "paper jam" sensor shuts off the fuser heating.)
Its called a "fuser" because it melts the toner powder so that it sticks ("fuses") onto the paper.
Turning the printer off after each and every print job is not a realistic or sensible recommendation. The excessive thermal cycling is likely to cause problems such as premature failure of the fuser heater, never mind all the other electrical and electronic components.
Some machines, (I recall the original Canon colour office lasers), count the life of the drum in "turns". And startup costs more turns than printing a page! Exactly TD's inkjet problem!
"Pages/minute" specifications of lasers don't accurately represent real world performance. They just show the maximum paper transport speed. Even the slowest is fast enough for home use.
But lasers are generally much faster than inkets.
And usually have a higher "duty cycle" - a useful figure that indicates the maximum usage that the machine is designed for, eg 5,000 pages/month would be reasonable for an office laser, overkill for most homes. It indicates just how "heavy duty" the thing is supposed to be.
Quote: |
I use a Samsung, and the cartridge on that lasts for about 3000 pages, at about �55/cartridge. Well worth checking how many pages a cartridge will last for, and work out cost per page, and also, check if you need to replace a separate drum; most modern lasers incorporate the drum as part of the cartridge, but some don't and that can be another 200 quid every couple of years. |
I pointed out the cartidge capacity on that HP because its on the low side. (Many inkjets manage 1,000). 5,000 was normal for office lasers. Some (such the old HP 4mv - a magnificent beast) would give 10,000 A4's on a fill.
Cartridges with integral drum can often be refilled, as with inkjets.
Kyocera have long advocated a separate drum to reduce 'total cost of ownership' - but for very light duty such things are likely to prove uneconomic. And a machine with a �200 drum is going to cost way over �200 for the machine...
Quote: |
IMO, the HP is a bit flimsy-looking, |
The �79+vat HP 1020 has a duty cycle of 5,000 pages/month. The �105+vat HP 1022 is said to be good for 8,000 a month.
Heavyweight is not always heavy duty, as will be attested by anyone that ever lifted one of the original Canon CX engines (whether badged Canon, HP or Apple). |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 25795 Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|