Bob said:
My favorite is the HP Photosmart 2610. I have bought one new, as well
as three others on eBay for relatives. Get the optional duplexer, I am
spoiled by two sided printing.
Bob, I have to thank you again for helping me to realize that the
duplexer that came with my HP 970c printer would also work perfectly
with my 940c and Photosmart 1115. I believe that the duplexer came
standard with the 970 (is this correct?). Although the accessory plus
the software slows throughput to keep the wet ink from smearing, the
duplexer has been so delightful that I can't imagine living without one.
It saves in paper cost -- and if anyone's paid attention, have you
noticed how much more expensive paper is now than it was a year ago?
Equally important domestically is the amount of shelf space and binder
costs I now save. My LED printer is still hooked up, and if I were doing
a writing or editing job, I'd be working on hard copy spewed out from it
(editing exclusively on-screen is a great way to turn out crappy work).
When using the laser-class printer, I print on low-cost (but not the
cheapest) 20# copier paper. With the inkjets, I use more expensive 24#
inkjet paper. So, I figure that my paper cost may be about 1/4 - 1/5
more per sheet, and that the space that I save is perhaps 80%.
If I want to use, for example, the 2610 that you like, does this use the
same duplexer that I already have? Also, what should I look out for if I
buy another duplexer, used. I admit that I've become a real duplexer
junkie, and I want to have a spare just in case something horrible
happens to the one I've got.
Regarding LF's remark that simple is good, I have an ironic observation:
the more I learn about inkjet printers, the more it has dawned on me
that the inkjet systems seem vastly more complicated than Laser
printers. I think that its easy for us to assume that because these
printers are cheaper and more ubiquitous, that they're simple. There
seems to be so much more involved in the software and firmware in order
to optimize the process to handle the characteristics of the liquid
inks, especially when printing graphics and photos.
Let's look at toner: it's made of something like one or two types of
plastic (one chosen for its melting/fusing properties), and a colorant.
The toner particles have to meet size criteria, and in some cases, the
shape and uniformity of the particles are also important. Inkjet ink,
according to one aftermarket formulator, has to hit about 40 different
chemical and physical criteria in order to function properly. This is no
casual undertaking.
So, as I see it, when I consider the development costs of the printer,
the software, and the inks -- we're looking at quite a bit of R, D, and
manufacturing money. And the printer, despite coming from China,
probably is a loss leader for the manufacturer. So, virtually all of
these costs have to be recouped from the sale of ink. My objection is
that this is a dishonest business model from the customer's perspective,
and the markup on the ink is still about as wild as the 10,000% profit
that I just gave Radio Shack for a set of two headphone pads for $5.00
(which I expect cost the company 2 cents).
I much prefer Kodak's model -- yeah -- even as I reflect that they're
making out like bandits on the ink anyway. Like, they're making, what?
-- 2,000% instead of 4,000% profit?
We use inkjet printers, we are the liquid in the manufacturers' money
punmps.
Bob, have I got all this correct?
Richard
