Good occasional use printer

  • Thread starter Thread starter OldNick
  • Start date Start date
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
 
Eric said:
Yeah. Laser definetly makes sense if you don't print that often and don't
need/want color. I'm happy.
Toner (whole drum assembly) for laser printers cost more than inkjet carts,
but lasts longer and can sit around dormant much longer.
I haven't bothered playing with any any numbers, but I suspect that the
manufacturers have and made sure that the overall maintanence of a cheap
laser printer comes out relatively even with that of an inkjet. They aren't
going to let us off that easy.

I agree.
Drum cost (off the top of my head) for what's in my house, Okidata LED
printer: $165; Brother laser: $135. These are "street" prices.

Richard
 
tomm42 wrote:

Stay away from HP scanners,
it seems to be the one folks have the most problems with,

Let me add Visioneer to this list. Also the derivative and brands
supplied (Memorex, etc.). I'll probably have to throw out my scanner
because the company won't bother themselves to write a driver for
Windows XP. They also have great problems answering the phone.

Richard
 
Unlike some people that replied I still use my MD-5000. The dye-sub is nice
if you make smaller pictures. 8x10 works, but like someone else said, you'd
get banding, especially in a blank, blue sky. However, it can print pictures
all the way to tiny, TINY sizes and you can see that there's detail all the
way down. There aren't any ink dots, but there's a hash pattern. Overall, if
you're looking for a photo printer, this one isn't the one to get. Besides
its been discontinued and we're down to a few months before all support for
the printer ceases.

That said, text is very, very sharp. The printer is still in high demand
that still can fetch about $500 mainly from the decal creation community.
Since the printouts are waterproof and have the ability to print in white
it's made it ideal for creating decals. There's the ability to use gold and
silver foil which is really nice when making cards. There are also metallic
inks, but I don't use them often.

The printer has a tendency to take 2 or more sheets of paper at a time and
sometimes bends one of the edges. I just feed one sheet at a time. No big
deal to me. It's also able to print on really, really thick paper which is
great for making greeting cards.

So overall, you'll be surprised when I tell you to look elsewhere for a
printer. It won't be worth your time to learn all the idiosyncracies of a
"dead" printer that has no support. It had a huge learning curve, but it was
second to none when it came to capability.

Nathan
 
I haven't bothered playing with any any numbers, but I suspect that the
manufacturers have and made sure that the overall maintanence of a cheap
laser printer comes out relatively even with that of an inkjet. They aren't
going to let us off that easy.

All the printer manufacturers are Ink Empires.

Cheers,
Eric

I've mentioned these costs before on this newsgroup, but you're
exactly right:

HP K550 Business Inkjet. Large black cartridge: $35. Page yield: 2350
pages. Cost per page: 1.4 cents

HP 2600n Color Laser printer: Large black toner: $80. Page yield: 2000
pages. Cost per page: 4 cents

The difference in the color yield is similarly bad. Lasers aren't
worth it unless you buy a really expensive one that takes giant toner
cartridges, or if you're buying it specifically to avoid ink clogging
which would save you money in the long run.

--

http://www.FenrirOnline.com

Computer services, custom metal etching,
arts, crafts, and much more.
 
Raphael Bustin said:
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.
 
In message said:
Canon, Epson and HP seem to make the best printers.
<Snip>

For a printer that is only used occasionally, HP are good as the ink
cartridge includes the head. We had an Epson at work and the heads got
gummed up, also it used most of the ink attempting to clean them. With
an HP a new cartridge would have fixed the problem properly. For normal
use (e.g. not printing photos) I have a DeskJet 930c which I brought in
2000. It's still going strong.
 
Surfer! said:
<Snip>

For a printer that is only used occasionally, HP are good as the ink
cartridge includes the head. We had an Epson at work and the heads got
gummed up, also it used most of the ink attempting to clean them. With an
HP a new cartridge would have fixed the problem properly. For normal use
(e.g. not printing photos) I have a DeskJet 930c which I brought in 2000.
It's still going strong.

I would agree on the HP printer, however get a medium priced HP printer
rather than one of the cheap low end printers.

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.

Good page on HP ink cartridges.
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/fastFaqDocument?lc=en&cc=us&docname=c00059209#N323
 
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 said:
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.......
 
Back
Top