R
Robert Baer
Guest
I am interested in obtaining a working Canon BJC printer, series 4000
preferred.
Please contact me if you can help.
Thanks.
R. Baer
preferred.
Please contact me if you can help.
Thanks.
R. Baer
V
VanguardLH
Guest
Robert Baer wrote:
Found one listed at eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Cannon-BJC-4000-bubble-jet-printer/323685396629?hash=item4b5d273095:g:j~UAAOSw8a9cMtYJ
Found one listed at Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-BJC-4300-Printer-capacity-Parallel/dp/B0000C7938/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UPYJ3YORYHYN&keywords=canon+bjc-4300+printer&qid=1551845714&s=gateway&sprefix=canon+bjc+4%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-1
First contact the sellers to make sure they are selling a working
*printer* and not a non-working printer for parts.
Found one listed at eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Cannon-BJC-4000-bubble-jet-printer/323685396629?hash=item4b5d273095:g:j~UAAOSw8a9cMtYJ
Found one listed at Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-BJC-4300-Printer-capacity-Parallel/dp/B0000C7938/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UPYJ3YORYHYN&keywords=canon+bjc-4300+printer&qid=1551845714&s=gateway&sprefix=canon+bjc+4%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-1
First contact the sellers to make sure they are selling a working
*printer* and not a non-working printer for parts.
R
Robert Baer
Guest
VanguardLH wrote:
The Amazon listing clearly states "for parts". At the price
requested, that is a no-go.
Ebay listing said it was functional when taken offline, but not
(recently) tested. Seller gives NO warrantee and refuses return.
Furthermore shipping is $50, and the e-Bay "moneyback guarantee" is less
useful that mammary appendages on a boar hog of male persuasion.
From personal experiences, e-bay is less trustworthy than Miz Clinton.
The Amazon listing clearly states "for parts". At the price
requested, that is a no-go.
Ebay listing said it was functional when taken offline, but not
(recently) tested. Seller gives NO warrantee and refuses return.
Furthermore shipping is $50, and the e-Bay "moneyback guarantee" is less
useful that mammary appendages on a boar hog of male persuasion.
From personal experiences, e-bay is less trustworthy than Miz Clinton.
Guest
Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
news:G%7gE.11799$8K6.6595@fx28.iad:
You guys all claim to be so smart. The entire jet printer/ink
cartridge 'industry' is a fucking wallet suck scam.
Yet, even after they have become cheap, you are still using jet
printers instead of laser?
You guys ain't all that bright.
news:G%7gE.11799$8K6.6595@fx28.iad:
You guys all claim to be so smart. The entire jet printer/ink
cartridge 'industry' is a fucking wallet suck scam.
Yet, even after they have become cheap, you are still using jet
printers instead of laser?
You guys ain't all that bright.
P
Paul
Guest
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Now I feel so bad about myself.
And all it took was a single enlightening post.
The poor gentleman works at the Smithsonian, on their
new "defunct Canon Inkjet Printer" display. Imagine entering
the hall, and seeing a thousand inkjets all printing a
welcome message on sheets of white paper. That's the plan...
All it will take, is the right set of defunct printers.
And lots of fresh carts and print heads.
Paul
Now I feel so bad about myself.
And all it took was a single enlightening post.
The poor gentleman works at the Smithsonian, on their
new "defunct Canon Inkjet Printer" display. Imagine entering
the hall, and seeing a thousand inkjets all printing a
welcome message on sheets of white paper. That's the plan...
All it will take, is the right set of defunct printers.
And lots of fresh carts and print heads.
Paul
Guest
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in news:q5rpqj$jgf$1@dont-
email.me:
Nice troll... attempt.
email.me:
Nice troll... attempt.
V
VanguardLH
Guest
Robert Baer wrote:
Depends on to where you have it shipped. It would be $36 to me. Does
seem high but then this is probably a one-off sale, non-commercial
shippers often require double boxing for these items, it's bulky and
they rate on dimensions. Since you know something about this printer
since you asked specifically for this one, you should know how much it
weighs and its dimensions, and then add to the dimensions for bubble
packing, and check the shipping cost at USPS and UPS Ground. Then
you'll know if the shipping charge is excessive. You make it sound like
shipping is high but the cost may be reasonable depending on where they
are, where you are, and how it is being shipped.
Also, some sellers will have a low price but overcharge on shipping. If
you find the shipping from the seller to you is excessive, report it to
eBay. They may kill the auction and the seller will realize they can
get banned for this practice. I've done that several times.
I noticed the seller is foolishly using USPS Priority Mail. There is no
reason this item needs to be shipped in 2 days to you. Priority Mail is
very expensive, especially for large items. It's pricey for small
items. Contact the seller and ask what the price would be for USPS
Ground or UPS Ground.
When I went to USPS.com, put in the dimensions of the printer (and added
3 inches in each dimension for bubble packing) and the weight (at 10
pounds which is a couple pounds more than just the printer), USPS
Priority Mail would be $91 to me from the seller. USPS Retail Ground
was $29. I didn't bother checking with UPS Ground. Go check for
yourself what shipping might cost. You won't get the business rate of a
trucking company delivering a pallet of a hundred printers.
I've used the eBay Buyer protection about half a dozen times. It has
been helpful with buyers that don't respond, buyers that have
disappeared, or when I can show my case to eBay that the buyer
misrepresented their item. In fact, eBay has effected the Buyer
Protection when I didn't even know I needed it. A seller had sold off
instances of a volume license which is illegal. They refunded me before
I knew there was a problem. Likely someone else reported the illegal or
pirated copies, so eBay refunded all buyers from that seller (and they
kicked off the seller).
> From personal experiences, e-bay is less trustworthy than Miz Clinton.
As is any online e-tail site. When have you ever been absolutely sure
of anything you buy online? I don't get that even with Newegg or
Walmart. It's caveat emptor: you have to do some research, not just
grab stuff on impulse. I've bought 20+ CR-2032 coin cell batteries
twice from eBay; however, I researched online what the retail packaging
should look like to compare against what the seller shows. And I've not
had a problem using eBay's Buyer Protection -- as you claim you have
(but your description makes it sound like you got screwed once and made
an assumption that would always be the case). I've bought many items
from eBay sellers and been generally pleased with most transactions.
Yes, there have been a few bad ones, but I've also gotten bad produce
from my local grocer. Nothing's perfect.
I'm curious. Why do you want and old, used, and worn but working
printer when you could get a new one and probebly with more features?
What does buying an unsupported and used printer get you that you cannot
get with a new printer? Unless you find a local seller to eliminate the
shipping cost, finding the old printer elsewhere means you do get stuck
with shipping charges. You're stuck with using Craigslist or other
resale sites for local sellers (and no one here knows where you are).
The problem with the vast majority of Craigslist sellers is that they
are way too attached to their wares and overprice them. They'll want
90% of the new price for a used item but without the mfr warranty.
Craiglist often includes a large metro and its suburbs, and the driving
and gas will cost you lots of time and some gas money for a local pickup
-- unless you add your city or suburb and some of the surrounding
suburbs in your search or use their miles-from-zipcode filter to reduce
the distance for a "local" pickup. I found some Canon inkjets being
sold at Craigslist but that's irrelevant to you since I cannot search
the site for your area. There was a separate domain for eBay for
local-only auctions (http://www.ebayclassifieds.com/). I never had any
luck with that site: not much to choose from. They got rid of it
(ebayclassifieds.com redirects to ebay.com); also see
https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/listings/listing-tips/selling-classified-ads?id=4167.
For about $5 to $10 more than just the shipping cost to me for the used
eBay printer, I can get a new Canon inkjet printer from Walmart and have
it shipped free to me (total sale must be $35, or more, so the new cheap
inkjet printer and a set of spare cartridges would exceed that). If
there's a problem, well, there are local Walmarts where I can return the
item rather than paying to ship it back.
Is it that the BJC 4000/4300 printer has a straight paper path? That
is, you don't want the "paper" to get bent going through the printer?
There are lots of straight feed printers, like for those that want to
print on cardstock. From the online pics that I've seen for the Canon
BJC-4300, it has less bend then inkjets that siphon out of a underside
storage tray but it was still not a straight-feed printer (there was
still some bending). I saw one guy in a forum finding the Canon 9000
worked for printing on 1/32" balsa. Several used ones are listed at
eBay (the new ones are much more expensive). That user thought the
Epson 3800 for work for him, too. New (unused, not refurbished)
straight-feed printers seem expensive. Rear-feed printers albeit not
truly straight-feed, like your Canon BJC-4300, might also work for your
unspecified usage and are cheaper, like $35 (see
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-PIXMA-TS3122-Wireless-All-in-One-Inkjet-Printer/542288238
and
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-PIXMA-MG2522-All-in-One-Inkjet-Printer/108208974).
Depends on to where you have it shipped. It would be $36 to me. Does
seem high but then this is probably a one-off sale, non-commercial
shippers often require double boxing for these items, it's bulky and
they rate on dimensions. Since you know something about this printer
since you asked specifically for this one, you should know how much it
weighs and its dimensions, and then add to the dimensions for bubble
packing, and check the shipping cost at USPS and UPS Ground. Then
you'll know if the shipping charge is excessive. You make it sound like
shipping is high but the cost may be reasonable depending on where they
are, where you are, and how it is being shipped.
Also, some sellers will have a low price but overcharge on shipping. If
you find the shipping from the seller to you is excessive, report it to
eBay. They may kill the auction and the seller will realize they can
get banned for this practice. I've done that several times.
I noticed the seller is foolishly using USPS Priority Mail. There is no
reason this item needs to be shipped in 2 days to you. Priority Mail is
very expensive, especially for large items. It's pricey for small
items. Contact the seller and ask what the price would be for USPS
Ground or UPS Ground.
When I went to USPS.com, put in the dimensions of the printer (and added
3 inches in each dimension for bubble packing) and the weight (at 10
pounds which is a couple pounds more than just the printer), USPS
Priority Mail would be $91 to me from the seller. USPS Retail Ground
was $29. I didn't bother checking with UPS Ground. Go check for
yourself what shipping might cost. You won't get the business rate of a
trucking company delivering a pallet of a hundred printers.
I've used the eBay Buyer protection about half a dozen times. It has
been helpful with buyers that don't respond, buyers that have
disappeared, or when I can show my case to eBay that the buyer
misrepresented their item. In fact, eBay has effected the Buyer
Protection when I didn't even know I needed it. A seller had sold off
instances of a volume license which is illegal. They refunded me before
I knew there was a problem. Likely someone else reported the illegal or
pirated copies, so eBay refunded all buyers from that seller (and they
kicked off the seller).
> From personal experiences, e-bay is less trustworthy than Miz Clinton.
As is any online e-tail site. When have you ever been absolutely sure
of anything you buy online? I don't get that even with Newegg or
Walmart. It's caveat emptor: you have to do some research, not just
grab stuff on impulse. I've bought 20+ CR-2032 coin cell batteries
twice from eBay; however, I researched online what the retail packaging
should look like to compare against what the seller shows. And I've not
had a problem using eBay's Buyer Protection -- as you claim you have
(but your description makes it sound like you got screwed once and made
an assumption that would always be the case). I've bought many items
from eBay sellers and been generally pleased with most transactions.
Yes, there have been a few bad ones, but I've also gotten bad produce
from my local grocer. Nothing's perfect.
I'm curious. Why do you want and old, used, and worn but working
printer when you could get a new one and probebly with more features?
What does buying an unsupported and used printer get you that you cannot
get with a new printer? Unless you find a local seller to eliminate the
shipping cost, finding the old printer elsewhere means you do get stuck
with shipping charges. You're stuck with using Craigslist or other
resale sites for local sellers (and no one here knows where you are).
The problem with the vast majority of Craigslist sellers is that they
are way too attached to their wares and overprice them. They'll want
90% of the new price for a used item but without the mfr warranty.
Craiglist often includes a large metro and its suburbs, and the driving
and gas will cost you lots of time and some gas money for a local pickup
-- unless you add your city or suburb and some of the surrounding
suburbs in your search or use their miles-from-zipcode filter to reduce
the distance for a "local" pickup. I found some Canon inkjets being
sold at Craigslist but that's irrelevant to you since I cannot search
the site for your area. There was a separate domain for eBay for
local-only auctions (http://www.ebayclassifieds.com/). I never had any
luck with that site: not much to choose from. They got rid of it
(ebayclassifieds.com redirects to ebay.com); also see
https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/listings/listing-tips/selling-classified-ads?id=4167.
For about $5 to $10 more than just the shipping cost to me for the used
eBay printer, I can get a new Canon inkjet printer from Walmart and have
it shipped free to me (total sale must be $35, or more, so the new cheap
inkjet printer and a set of spare cartridges would exceed that). If
there's a problem, well, there are local Walmarts where I can return the
item rather than paying to ship it back.
Is it that the BJC 4000/4300 printer has a straight paper path? That
is, you don't want the "paper" to get bent going through the printer?
There are lots of straight feed printers, like for those that want to
print on cardstock. From the online pics that I've seen for the Canon
BJC-4300, it has less bend then inkjets that siphon out of a underside
storage tray but it was still not a straight-feed printer (there was
still some bending). I saw one guy in a forum finding the Canon 9000
worked for printing on 1/32" balsa. Several used ones are listed at
eBay (the new ones are much more expensive). That user thought the
Epson 3800 for work for him, too. New (unused, not refurbished)
straight-feed printers seem expensive. Rear-feed printers albeit not
truly straight-feed, like your Canon BJC-4300, might also work for your
unspecified usage and are cheaper, like $35 (see
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-PIXMA-TS3122-Wireless-All-in-One-Inkjet-Printer/542288238
and
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-PIXMA-MG2522-All-in-One-Inkjet-Printer/108208974).
R
Robert Baer
Guest
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Those powder boxes are nowhere as inexpensive.
So, who is un-bright, eh?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Really? When refill ink is cheap and the cartridges last years.
Those powder boxes are nowhere as inexpensive.
So, who is un-bright, eh?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
R
Robert Baer
Guest
VanguardLH wrote:
seller.
The e-Bay "watchdogs" always screw me even when i have
incontrovertible proof of my position (eg: Sony DVD R/W actually over 2
lbs instead "only a few ounces", and actual cost of shipping about $20
instead of $1).
The particular seller said "no returns" and did not own up to actual
condition.
Not worth the total hassle even if was free.
I have a number of ink cartridges for the BC 4100; cartridges for the
newer printers are as expensive or more and AFAIK cannot be refilled.
Furthermore,one cannot do a DOS print (you know, COPY TextFile.TXT
LPT1
.
Oh,yes..a number of those fancy printers do not work if the color
cartridge is missing or empty.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I have been screwed to many times on e-Bay, both as a buyer and as a
seller.
The e-Bay "watchdogs" always screw me even when i have
incontrovertible proof of my position (eg: Sony DVD R/W actually over 2
lbs instead "only a few ounces", and actual cost of shipping about $20
instead of $1).
The particular seller said "no returns" and did not own up to actual
condition.
Not worth the total hassle even if was free.
I have a number of ink cartridges for the BC 4100; cartridges for the
newer printers are as expensive or more and AFAIK cannot be refilled.
Furthermore,one cannot do a DOS print (you know, COPY TextFile.TXT
LPT1
.Oh,yes..a number of those fancy printers do not work if the color
cartridge is missing or empty.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Guest
Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in news:I6pgE.52473
$1d.41824@fx11.iad:
> Really?
Yes.
> When refill ink is cheap
Come back when refill ink is cheap, because right now it is not.
> and the cartridges last years.
You must be trolling. The cartridges do not last for years, and
the jet nozzles even get clogged.
> Those powder boxes are nowhere as inexpensive.
Yer an idiot. I can get thousands of print jobs from one laser
cartridge. I am certain that you do not get such a print job count
from an ink cartridge. The only jet printers doing that are the
large format jobs that cost thousands of dollars.
> So, who is un-bright, eh?
un-bright? Ummm... You, child. You failed to think it through.
Oh and then there is that fade issue too. Jet printers lose their
color corretness 10 seconds after the print job finishes and from
there forward it is an ever changing color gamut on the paper from
one day to the next. Zero color fixation quality.
$1d.41824@fx11.iad:
> Really?
Yes.
> When refill ink is cheap
Come back when refill ink is cheap, because right now it is not.
> and the cartridges last years.
You must be trolling. The cartridges do not last for years, and
the jet nozzles even get clogged.
> Those powder boxes are nowhere as inexpensive.
Yer an idiot. I can get thousands of print jobs from one laser
cartridge. I am certain that you do not get such a print job count
from an ink cartridge. The only jet printers doing that are the
large format jobs that cost thousands of dollars.
> So, who is un-bright, eh?
un-bright? Ummm... You, child. You failed to think it through.
Oh and then there is that fade issue too. Jet printers lose their
color corretness 10 seconds after the print job finishes and from
there forward it is an ever changing color gamut on the paper from
one day to the next. Zero color fixation quality.
V
VanguardLH
Guest
Robert Baer wrote:
If you don't want to pay for shipping, you're stuck looking for a local
seller -- and it highly unlikely anyone in Usenet will be within 30
miles of your location and with a working Canon BJC 4xxx printer and who
will guarantee its functionality.
If online local sales/auction sites don't pan out, you might have
salvage or refurbish or recycling centers for electronics or computers
that might have the old printer. I've found swap meets are mostly for
foraging for old junk that you might utilize but not if you are looking
for something specific. Even if you don't find what you want on the
online auction sites, some let you advertise as "wanted", like
Craigslist; i.e., you post as a buyer trying to find a seller. I've
never posted "wanted" ads at Craigslist, so I have no clue as to how
successful those are.
I doubt the Canon cartridges are usable in only 1 or 2 models of their
printers. Have you done the reverse by looking up the cartridges to see
in which models they fit? After finding the model number of the
cartridges for the BCJ-4100, look up the cartridge models to see in what
printers they fit. For example, in a Google search on "canon bjc-4100
cartridge", I found:
https://www.4inkjets.com/Canon-BJC-4100-printer-ink-cartridges-toner
(never bought from there, just the 1st hit in the search)
That listed the Canon BCI121Bk black cartridge. I then clicked on the
link to the cartridge which took me to:
https://www.4inkjets.com/BCI21B-Canon-Ink-Cartridge-Black-Compatible
In their web page for that product, they have a slew (30) of compatible
printers listed. I never keep a large inventory of spare inkjet
cartridges because they go bad over time, and I replace them at about
1-year intervals because I do so little printing. I only keep 1 set
(black + color) on hand for immediate swapping when the current set gets
empty. I don't know how many is "a number"; however, looks like you can
use them in more than just the BJC-4100 printer.
Please turn off Avast's spam, especially since it is NOT a valid
signature block.
I have a number of ink cartridges for the BC 4100; cartridges for the
newer printers are as expensive or more and AFAIK cannot be refilled.
Furthermore,one cannot do a DOS print (you know, COPY TextFile.TXT
LPT1
Oh,yes..a number of those fancy printers do not work if the color
cartridge is missing or empty.
If you don't want to pay for shipping, you're stuck looking for a local
seller -- and it highly unlikely anyone in Usenet will be within 30
miles of your location and with a working Canon BJC 4xxx printer and who
will guarantee its functionality.
If online local sales/auction sites don't pan out, you might have
salvage or refurbish or recycling centers for electronics or computers
that might have the old printer. I've found swap meets are mostly for
foraging for old junk that you might utilize but not if you are looking
for something specific. Even if you don't find what you want on the
online auction sites, some let you advertise as "wanted", like
Craigslist; i.e., you post as a buyer trying to find a seller. I've
never posted "wanted" ads at Craigslist, so I have no clue as to how
successful those are.
I doubt the Canon cartridges are usable in only 1 or 2 models of their
printers. Have you done the reverse by looking up the cartridges to see
in which models they fit? After finding the model number of the
cartridges for the BCJ-4100, look up the cartridge models to see in what
printers they fit. For example, in a Google search on "canon bjc-4100
cartridge", I found:
https://www.4inkjets.com/Canon-BJC-4100-printer-ink-cartridges-toner
(never bought from there, just the 1st hit in the search)
That listed the Canon BCI121Bk black cartridge. I then clicked on the
link to the cartridge which took me to:
https://www.4inkjets.com/BCI21B-Canon-Ink-Cartridge-Black-Compatible
In their web page for that product, they have a slew (30) of compatible
printers listed. I never keep a large inventory of spare inkjet
cartridges because they go bad over time, and I replace them at about
1-year intervals because I do so little printing. I only keep 1 set
(black + color) on hand for immediate swapping when the current set gets
empty. I don't know how many is "a number"; however, looks like you can
use them in more than just the BJC-4100 printer.
Please turn off Avast's spam, especially since it is NOT a valid
signature block.
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-03-08, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
Both can be refilled, even the ink ribbons for impact printers can be
re-inked but refilling is almost-always messy. the stuff that leaves a
mark leaves a mess. Such is the nature of physical graphics.
--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Both can be refilled, even the ink ribbons for impact printers can be
re-inked but refilling is almost-always messy. the stuff that leaves a
mark leaves a mess. Such is the nature of physical graphics.
--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
M
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Guest
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 13:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
<snip>
That is incorrect, inkjets are way cheaper. Recently german magazine
c't tested black-white multifunction (which can copy too) printers
for
the office. 7 less expensive laserprinters (185 to 410 euro) were
compared with one of the large tank inkjet printers, the Epson
ET-M2140 . See
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Schwarzweissdruck-fuers-Buero-
Toner-oder-Tinte-4296937.html for a short announcement (in German,
use DeepL to translate).
The result:
Toner/ink coste per ISO page: Epson 0.28 eurocent, the cheapest laser
(Xerox Workplace 3335W/DW) 1.84 cent. all others 2.8 to 4.1 cents.
Power consumption while printing: Epson 16W, all laser > 400W.
Power consumption in standby: Most around 5-6W, the Xerox 43W , a
Ricoh 34 W.
Power consumption in sleep mode: 1-2 W, exept the Xerox: 8 W.
Emissions: none for the Epson, all for the lasers.
Photo print: no contest, the Epson is street lengths ahead.
Text print: the Canon, Hp and Xerox were very good, other lasers less
so, the Epson was comparable, one laser was worse than the Epson.
Copy quality: most lasers were better than the Epson for text, except
the Xerox. For photos and graphic the Epson was far ahead.
Speed in pages/minute. normal quality: prettey much the same for all.
Time to first page: Epson fastest, Xerox slowest.
Recommended monthly print volume (the maximum is much higher): Epson
800, lasers 2 to 5 times that.
There are more things to consider, e.g. a laser printout is much more
resistant than most inkjets except Epson, might be an issue for legal
documents, but as far as costs is concerned, there is no competition:
high-volume inkjets are way ahead. If color is desired, Canon's G4511
is also a high-volume inkjet with very low ink cost/page, but slow
(although it copies black/white text pages faster than the Epson).
But it will do a decent color photo.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
<snip>
That is incorrect, inkjets are way cheaper. Recently german magazine
c't tested black-white multifunction (which can copy too) printers
for
the office. 7 less expensive laserprinters (185 to 410 euro) were
compared with one of the large tank inkjet printers, the Epson
ET-M2140 . See
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Schwarzweissdruck-fuers-Buero-
Toner-oder-Tinte-4296937.html for a short announcement (in German,
use DeepL to translate).
The result:
Toner/ink coste per ISO page: Epson 0.28 eurocent, the cheapest laser
(Xerox Workplace 3335W/DW) 1.84 cent. all others 2.8 to 4.1 cents.
Power consumption while printing: Epson 16W, all laser > 400W.
Power consumption in standby: Most around 5-6W, the Xerox 43W , a
Ricoh 34 W.
Power consumption in sleep mode: 1-2 W, exept the Xerox: 8 W.
Emissions: none for the Epson, all for the lasers.
Photo print: no contest, the Epson is street lengths ahead.
Text print: the Canon, Hp and Xerox were very good, other lasers less
so, the Epson was comparable, one laser was worse than the Epson.
Copy quality: most lasers were better than the Epson for text, except
the Xerox. For photos and graphic the Epson was far ahead.
Speed in pages/minute. normal quality: prettey much the same for all.
Time to first page: Epson fastest, Xerox slowest.
Recommended monthly print volume (the maximum is much higher): Epson
800, lasers 2 to 5 times that.
There are more things to consider, e.g. a laser printout is much more
resistant than most inkjets except Epson, might be an issue for legal
documents, but as far as costs is concerned, there is no competition:
high-volume inkjets are way ahead. If color is desired, Canon's G4511
is also a high-volume inkjet with very low ink cost/page, but slow
(although it copies black/white text pages faster than the Epson).
But it will do a decent color photo.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Guest
"Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> wrote in
news:zavrhjmncnay.po5thp1.pminews@news.aioe.org:
This simply is not true. The printers are a mere couple hundred,
but the refills will get you and their longevity is the killer.
what do you think HP spends more time on? Their laser printer
line or their jet printer line?
Real businesses buy and use laser because it is more reliable more
color accurate and usually quicker on the job too. The colors
remain longer and the cartridges print more pages before requiring
replacement.
(there are multi-function laser printers too)
Oh boy! "Large tank" Wow! I am impressed! Does the box also
say "New and Improved!"?
That is not the cheapest laser here. And sorry, but they fail to
weigh in time. If I have to publish a report to 200 hundred work
associates, the laser will floor the jet printer on getting the job
done, and yes, time is money, so without factoring that in, the
german magazine's experiment yields false cost numbers.
Emissions? Big deal. Idle current? I can leave my laser OFF
untill I need it, and the idle current on HPs are not the same as
their Xerox candidate. Points toward a jet biased article.
Sure... five minutes later... different color.
Epson? Bwuahahahah! It uses half an ink cartridge clearing its
fixed on the printer jet nozzles. I'd go with HP's new jets with
each cartridge model.
Likely a setting on scan resolution that was overlooked. Many of
them use the same print engine still?
Nice job of using Xerox for the test when HP lasers win.
Read "That should tell you something about the (false)print speed
claim."
Yeah, those "big tank", large format drafting printers.
Home printers for the consumer market? Hardly.
I think Epson paid a German mag to do a jet centric leaning
article.
Bwuahahahahaha!
Sure... for the five minutes it will last... then it becomes a
lesson in slow fade.
news:zavrhjmncnay.po5thp1.pminews@news.aioe.org:
This simply is not true. The printers are a mere couple hundred,
but the refills will get you and their longevity is the killer.
what do you think HP spends more time on? Their laser printer
line or their jet printer line?
Real businesses buy and use laser because it is more reliable more
color accurate and usually quicker on the job too. The colors
remain longer and the cartridges print more pages before requiring
replacement.
(there are multi-function laser printers too)
Oh boy! "Large tank" Wow! I am impressed! Does the box also
say "New and Improved!"?
That is not the cheapest laser here. And sorry, but they fail to
weigh in time. If I have to publish a report to 200 hundred work
associates, the laser will floor the jet printer on getting the job
done, and yes, time is money, so without factoring that in, the
german magazine's experiment yields false cost numbers.
Emissions? Big deal. Idle current? I can leave my laser OFF
untill I need it, and the idle current on HPs are not the same as
their Xerox candidate. Points toward a jet biased article.
Sure... five minutes later... different color.
Epson? Bwuahahahah! It uses half an ink cartridge clearing its
fixed on the printer jet nozzles. I'd go with HP's new jets with
each cartridge model.
Likely a setting on scan resolution that was overlooked. Many of
them use the same print engine still?
Nice job of using Xerox for the test when HP lasers win.
Read "That should tell you something about the (false)print speed
claim."
Yeah, those "big tank", large format drafting printers.
Home printers for the consumer market? Hardly.
I think Epson paid a German mag to do a jet centric leaning
article.
Bwuahahahahaha!
Sure... for the five minutes it will last... then it becomes a
lesson in slow fade.
M
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Guest
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:51:17 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
The test compared office printers, with copy/scan possibility. The
Epson is about 10 times cheaper on ink then the lasers on toner, per
ISO page test. I've given the number below, the refills are exactly
what the inkjets make much cheaper. Epson's ink refill is for 6000
pages, plus maintenances kit 30.000 pages. Costs 0,28 ct/page. Xerox
toner refill XXL cartridge is 15.000 pages, drum 30.000 pages. Costs
1,84 ct/page (with one of the smaller cartridges it gets more
expensive). The HP laser in the test (MFP-M148fdw) biggest cartridge
lasts 2800 pages, photodrum 23.000, costs total 3,55 ct/page. If you
claim otherwise, show me the (tested) numbers.
Color lasers are much more expensive. More reliable? Where do you get
that from? Details please. And lasers are a poor substitute for
printing color photos compares to inkjet. Laser simply cannot mix the
various colors so good as inkjets, quite apart from the much higher
photo resolution of inkjets.
They are somewhat quicker, in test a 100 page PDF took 5:15 on the
Xerox, and 5:42 on the Epson. The quickest laser was the Kyocera
Ecosys M2135dn in 3:00 minutes, but its photo print quality is
atrocious.
devices.
Xerox's expensive XXL cartridge did more. Two other large tank
printers (in another c't test) also did 6000 pages/refill. You should
be impressed, they beat most lasers.
They tested multifunction devices, which allow copying too. I'm sure
there are cheaper lasers for just printing.
Printing is not much slower in the Epson, it slows a little more
compared to lasers when printing duplex. That the Epson does at 10
(duplex) pages/min, the HP (fastest in this test) at 16. The other
tested printers from 13.5 to 15.8 . The difference is there, but not
big.
personnel. Laser and laser/based copiers should be in rooms, well
ventilated, separate from where people work.
Idle current? I can leave my laser OFF
The idle current on the tested HP was 3.9 W, slightly less than the
Epson's 4.3 W.
In sleep mode the Epson wins from all 7 lasers.
Yes, you can leave you Xerox off, but then it takes 61 seconds to the
first page. The Epson 14. In the 47 seconds difference the Epson will
have printed 17 pages before the first pages comes out of the Xerox.
And because the Xerox is 4.3 pages/minute faster, it will take very
close to 4 minutes before it catches up. So for >102 pages the Xerox
is quicker. And needs 550 W for this, the Epson 16 W.
A A4 photo copy on a laser takes 9-21 seconds, on the Epson 44.
Slower yes, but very much better quality.
Nothing to do with scan settings. It is a limitation of the print
engine. The laser print engines cannot match resolution and ink drop
mixing of a inkjet.
than the HP to the first page. Where do you see that the HP was
faster?
What has print speed to do with recommended print volume? 800
recommended per month is to protect the print engine. If the Epson
printed full speed all month, it would do over 900.000 pages/month.
These were not home printers, but for office use, as I stated in the
beginning of my first reply. Did you actually read that? Large tank
inkjet printers for A4. If you looked up some of the models numbers
I've given, you'd know it.
You are way behind the times. Epson uses pigment (paint) based inks,
which last very long, even under UV testing. Canon on its consumer
printers uses pigment based ink only for single sided text, the rest
is dye ink.But even that does not fade much on proper paper, but more
than the Epson. I do not know what the black ink on Canon's large
tank A4 multifunction is. 3rd party ink is almost always much worse
in this fading aspect. I have many pages printed with inkjets more
than a decade ago, that are as new, and don't glue together or to the
binder which laser printed pages do.
I'm not saying inkjets are soon replacing lasers, but as far as
cost/page is concerned, there is no competition: inkjets are _much_
cheaper. And I've supported my arguments with verifiable data, which
you have not done, so far.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
The test compared office printers, with copy/scan possibility. The
Epson is about 10 times cheaper on ink then the lasers on toner, per
ISO page test. I've given the number below, the refills are exactly
what the inkjets make much cheaper. Epson's ink refill is for 6000
pages, plus maintenances kit 30.000 pages. Costs 0,28 ct/page. Xerox
toner refill XXL cartridge is 15.000 pages, drum 30.000 pages. Costs
1,84 ct/page (with one of the smaller cartridges it gets more
expensive). The HP laser in the test (MFP-M148fdw) biggest cartridge
lasts 2800 pages, photodrum 23.000, costs total 3,55 ct/page. If you
claim otherwise, show me the (tested) numbers.
Color lasers are much more expensive. More reliable? Where do you get
that from? Details please. And lasers are a poor substitute for
printing color photos compares to inkjet. Laser simply cannot mix the
various colors so good as inkjets, quite apart from the much higher
photo resolution of inkjets.
They are somewhat quicker, in test a 100 page PDF took 5:15 on the
Xerox, and 5:42 on the Epson. The quickest laser was the Kyocera
Ecosys M2135dn in 3:00 minutes, but its photo print quality is
atrocious.
Of course, these were the ones tested. They were all multifunction
devices.
Large tank = 6000 pages, more than 6 of the 7 lasers. Only the
Xerox's expensive XXL cartridge did more. Two other large tank
printers (in another c't test) also did 6000 pages/refill. You should
be impressed, they beat most lasers.
They tested multifunction devices, which allow copying too. I'm sure
there are cheaper lasers for just printing.
Printing is not much slower in the Epson, it slows a little more
compared to lasers when printing duplex. That the Epson does at 10
(duplex) pages/min, the HP (fastest in this test) at 16. The other
tested printers from 13.5 to 15.8 . The difference is there, but not
big.
Come again? They are a big deal, if an office cares for its
personnel. Laser and laser/based copiers should be in rooms, well
ventilated, separate from where people work.
Idle current? I can leave my laser OFF
The idle current on the tested HP was 3.9 W, slightly less than the
Epson's 4.3 W.
In sleep mode the Epson wins from all 7 lasers.
Yes, you can leave you Xerox off, but then it takes 61 seconds to the
first page. The Epson 14. In the 47 seconds difference the Epson will
have printed 17 pages before the first pages comes out of the Xerox.
And because the Xerox is 4.3 pages/minute faster, it will take very
close to 4 minutes before it catches up. So for >102 pages the Xerox
is quicker. And needs 550 W for this, the Epson 16 W.
A A4 photo copy on a laser takes 9-21 seconds, on the Epson 44.
Slower yes, but very much better quality.
Nothing to do with scan settings. It is a limitation of the print
engine. The laser print engines cannot match resolution and ink drop
mixing of a inkjet.
HP was also tested, when in standby mode the Epson was 1 seond faster
than the HP to the first page. Where do you see that the HP was
faster?
What has print speed to do with recommended print volume? 800
recommended per month is to protect the print engine. If the Epson
printed full speed all month, it would do over 900.000 pages/month.
These were not home printers, but for office use, as I stated in the
beginning of my first reply. Did you actually read that? Large tank
inkjet printers for A4. If you looked up some of the models numbers
I've given, you'd know it.
You are way behind the times. Epson uses pigment (paint) based inks,
which last very long, even under UV testing. Canon on its consumer
printers uses pigment based ink only for single sided text, the rest
is dye ink.But even that does not fade much on proper paper, but more
than the Epson. I do not know what the black ink on Canon's large
tank A4 multifunction is. 3rd party ink is almost always much worse
in this fading aspect. I have many pages printed with inkjets more
than a decade ago, that are as new, and don't glue together or to the
binder which laser printed pages do.
I'm not saying inkjets are soon replacing lasers, but as far as
cost/page is concerned, there is no competition: inkjets are _much_
cheaper. And I've supported my arguments with verifiable data, which
you have not done, so far.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 08/03/2019 08:12, Robert Baer wrote:
Reverse engineered cartridge chips for the BJ5000 series and refills
have been available for at least 5 years now. Unless you really need
backwards compatibility with some antique geriatric computer that is
probably about to fail horribly anyway it might be worth picking a newer
Canon printer model still available second hand but less decrepit.
I chose iX6550 for A3+ and an almost straight paper path and MG5350 as a
stand alone multifunction. Laser printer takes most of the daily grind.
The inkjets are handy for quick high quality colour prints and larger
posters sizes (and printing onto thicker materials like thick card).
Both take exactly the same 525 & 526 series cartridges.
Some refilling sites explain how to use older cartridges in newer
printers (not for the faint hearted). I just use clone cartridges.
https://www.octoink.co.uk/kb/questions/106/Refilling+Canon+PGI-525%7B47%7DCLI-526+and+PGI-225%7B47%7DCLI-226
Duplex monochrome laser is hard to beat as a workhorse. It really
depends critically on what your monthly print volume is as to which
solution is the best one. Inkjets consume ink each time you switch them
on from cold and if you leave them to dry out periodically then a full
cleaning cycle really does use a lot of ink to no good end. By
comparison a laser printer will work first time after months unused.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
VanguardLH wrote:
I'm curious. Why do you want and old, used, and worn but working
printer when you could get a new one and probebly with more features?
What does buying an unsupported and used printer get you that you cannot
get with a new printer? Unless you find a local seller to eliminate the
 I have a number of ink cartridges for the BC 4100; cartridges for the
newer printers are as expensive or more and AFAIK cannot be refilled.
 Furthermore,one cannot do a DOS print (you know, COPY TextFile.TXT
LPT1
 Oh,yes..a number of those fancy printers do not work if the color
cartridge is missing or empty.
Reverse engineered cartridge chips for the BJ5000 series and refills
have been available for at least 5 years now. Unless you really need
backwards compatibility with some antique geriatric computer that is
probably about to fail horribly anyway it might be worth picking a newer
Canon printer model still available second hand but less decrepit.
I chose iX6550 for A3+ and an almost straight paper path and MG5350 as a
stand alone multifunction. Laser printer takes most of the daily grind.
The inkjets are handy for quick high quality colour prints and larger
posters sizes (and printing onto thicker materials like thick card).
Both take exactly the same 525 & 526 series cartridges.
Some refilling sites explain how to use older cartridges in newer
printers (not for the faint hearted). I just use clone cartridges.
https://www.octoink.co.uk/kb/questions/106/Refilling+Canon+PGI-525%7B47%7DCLI-526+and+PGI-225%7B47%7DCLI-226
Duplex monochrome laser is hard to beat as a workhorse. It really
depends critically on what your monthly print volume is as to which
solution is the best one. Inkjets consume ink each time you switch them
on from cold and if you leave them to dry out periodically then a full
cleaning cycle really does use a lot of ink to no good end. By
comparison a laser printer will work first time after months unused.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
R
Robert Baer
Guest
Martin Brown wrote:
starter cartridge),left to the elements (rained a few nights), set to
dry in house 3 days and work 100% FIRST TIME thereafter?
3 months later, tried again and STILL WORKS OK.
Do you not hate reliable stuff?
How does one support a throw-away "economy"???
>
* How about a laser printer, abandoned after almost no use (still hadOn 08/03/2019 08:12, Robert Baer wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
I'm curious. Why do you want and old, used, and worn but working
printer when you could get a new one and probebly with more features?
What does buying an unsupported and used printer get you that you cannot
get with a new printer? Unless you find a local seller to eliminate the
  I have a number of ink cartridges for the BC 4100; cartridges for
the newer printers are as expensive or more and AFAIK cannot be refilled.
  Furthermore,one cannot do a DOS print (you know, COPY TextFile.TXT
LPT1
  Oh,yes..a number of those fancy printers do not work if the color
cartridge is missing or empty.
Reverse engineered cartridge chips for the BJ5000 series and refills
have been available for at least 5 years now. Unless you really need
backwards compatibility with some antique geriatric computer that is
probably about to fail horribly anyway it might be worth picking a newer
Canon printer model still available second hand but less decrepit.
I chose iX6550 for A3+ and an almost straight paper path and MG5350 as a
stand alone multifunction. Laser printer takes most of the daily grind.
The inkjets are handy for quick high quality colour prints and larger
posters sizes (and printing onto thicker materials like thick card).
Both take exactly the same 525 & 526 series cartridges.
Some refilling sites explain how to use older cartridges in newer
printers (not for the faint hearted). I just use clone cartridges.
https://www.octoink.co.uk/kb/questions/106/Refilling+Canon+PGI-525%7B47%7DCLI-526+and+PGI-225%7B47%7DCLI-226
Duplex monochrome laser is hard to beat as a workhorse. It really
depends critically on what your monthly print volume is as to which
solution is the best one. Inkjets consume ink each time you switch them
on from cold and if you leave them to dry out periodically then a full
cleaning cycle really does use a lot of ink to no good end. By
comparison a laser printer will work first time after months unused.
starter cartridge),left to the elements (rained a few nights), set to
dry in house 3 days and work 100% FIRST TIME thereafter?
3 months later, tried again and STILL WORKS OK.
Do you not hate reliable stuff?
How does one support a throw-away "economy"???
>
M
Michael Kellett
Guest
On 06/03/2019 01:54, Robert Baer wrote:
Hasn't been used for very many years - not tested.
Free any time you're passing by.
MK
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
I have a Cannon BJ-10ex here (South West Scotland).
Hasn't been used for very many years - not tested.
Free any time you're passing by.
MK
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
R
Robert Baer
Guest
Michael Kellett wrote:
the estimated functionality.
However, i do not swim that far (am in the US) and refuse to get near
the unconstitutional Airline Gestapo here.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I very much appreciate the offer, and the price is commensurate to
the estimated functionality.
However, i do not swim that far (am in the US) and refuse to get near
the unconstitutional Airline Gestapo here.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
M
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Guest
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 22:00:18 -0700, Robert Baer wrote:
<snip>
In another part of this thread I referenced a comparison between
office multifunction (copier/printer/scanner) lasers and an Epson
'large tank" inkjet model.
As part of the test, the Epson was orderly shutdown/powered of, left
in storage for 2 months, and worked immediately after that. I don't
think they tested for rain...
For all the inkjets I used (mostly Canon), I never had that problem
that after proper shutdown it wouldn't work.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
<snip>
In another part of this thread I referenced a comparison between
office multifunction (copier/printer/scanner) lasers and an Epson
'large tank" inkjet model.
As part of the test, the Epson was orderly shutdown/powered of, left
in storage for 2 months, and worked immediately after that. I don't
think they tested for rain...
For all the inkjets I used (mostly Canon), I never had that problem
that after proper shutdown it wouldn't work.
Mat Nieuwenhoven