25 Jul
2006
25 Jul
'06
7:12 p.m.
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:20:05 -0500
From: Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org>
Doc Shipley wrote:
It seems to vary a great deal with time. A few months ago there was
a surplus dealer selling LJ4050s with Postscript and after the first
bunch sold at higher prices, the remainder were selling for $40 -
$80, plus shipping.
If the original poster's only requirement is 600 dpi, then consider
the HP LJ 4 Plus or 4M Plus (the M denotes postscript included).
Those did 600 dpi, but are quite old by now. I think they're very
cool though, because they had an optional 500 page paper tray and an
optional duplexer, and these options just made the printer higher,
they didn't increase the small footprint.
<digression> Though for small footprint it's really hard to beat the
TI Microlaser Plus from around 1989 - 1991. Unfortunately, you'd be
hard pressed to find one with working pick-up rollers (not exit
rollers, which are easily replaced) and the pick-up rollers are no
longer available anywhere. But it was 300 dpi, so not really
relevant to this discussion. BTW, does anyone want to come by
Austin, TX and pick two up? One has Postscript and a LocalTalk
port, but has the pickup roller problem. It has new exit rollers and
the maximum RAM installed. The second one I don't know much about as
I picked it up to scavenge the pick up rollers out of. I've got a
couple of new toner cartridges, an OPC drum, and a developer kit too.
Since we bought the LJ2100 keeping the TI ML wheezing along seems
kind of pointless. </digression>
The 4050 does 1200 X 1200 dpi, I believe. The LJ2100 is a nice
little printer and also does 1200 dpi. The Computer Works store in
San Antonio has been selling a couple of pallets of LJ2100s for $80
each (IIRC) and of course they're available on Ebay as well. The
ones in SA have anywere from 10^4 pages to 3 X 10^5 page count,
depending on how busy the office from which they came was.
Jeff Walther
I paid $100 for mine, but it had a 6900 page
count. 4000 models go
cheaper.
No idea where you got it; ebay shows >$200 for models that have 35K
pagecount. One 4050 was selling for $79, but it had an 800K (!!!)
pagecount, is that possible? Can these things last nearly one million
pages? 
25 Jul
25 Jul
7:17 p.m.
Jeff Walther wrote:
If the original poster's only requirement is 600
dpi, then consider the
HP LJ 4 Plus or 4M Plus (the M denotes postscript included). Those did
600 dpi, but are quite old by now. I think they're very cool though,
because they had an optional 500 page paper tray and an optional
duplexer, and these options just made the printer higher, they didn't
increase the small footprint.
I agree. I inherited a 4+. Scrounged the PS SIMM out of a 4M
along with the NIC from yet another LJ. With 66(?)M or
RAM in it, the thing just sits there waiting to gobble up
whatever print jobs I send it's way!
A couple of friends feed me partially used toner cartridges
so I seem to be in LJ Heaven. :>
(unfortunately, I print < 1000 pages a year so it's almost
a waste of space! :< )
The 4050 does 1200 X 1200 dpi, I believe. The LJ2100
is a nice little
printer and also does 1200 dpi. The Computer Works store in San
Antonio has been selling a couple of pallets of LJ2100s for $80 each
(IIRC) and of course they're available on Ebay as well. The ones in SA
have anywere from 10^4 pages to 3 X 10^5 page count, depending on how
busy the office from which they came was.
I just tossed an Optra Se3455 (1200dpi) because the replacement
toner cartridge was SO expensive (~$200)
A pair of LJ5L's (?) will join the pile as soon as their
toner cartridges run out (they're really "toy" printers only
useful for one-off printing) -- which will hopefully be BEFORE
they develop pick problems!
7:39 p.m.
On 7/25/2006 at 4:17 PM Don Y wrote:
A pair of LJ5L's (?) will join the pile as soon as
their
toner cartridges run out (they're really "toy" printers only
useful for one-off printing) -- which will hopefully be BEFORE
they develop pick problems!
Unless it's a high-volume duplex printer or something really special, does
it makes sense to buy a used laser printer? (As I said, I've got a couple
of Panasonic KXP-4450/4455's from before 1990 still grinding away, but I'm
the original owner). Sitting on my desk next to me, I've got a Brother
4050 that I paid $100 new for two years ago--still on its first cartridge,
which is supposed to be a "half capacity" model. At that price, I can just
about afford to buy a new one when the toner runs out...
Cheers,
Chuck
7:49 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 7/25/2006 at 4:17 PM Don Y wrote:
I don't think it makes sense unless you have big-time printing
needs. Without looking very hard, you can find working laser
printers (especially HP's) headed for the trash almost every
week (and I'm not in a particularly *good* location for
surplus materials!). They're *so* commonplace that it is
hardly worth the time to repair them -- unless it's a simple
"swap-out-the-fuser" type of repair. Just move it aside
and put another in it's place.
I've given away 3 LJ4's in the past year just because they're
not worth the space to store them! (Annoying that their RAM
requirements differ from the 4+).
I've been offered two Phasers in the past 6 months and just
can't justify that much color printing to set aside that
much floorspace :>
A pair of LJ5L's (?) will join the pile as
soon as their
toner cartridges run out (they're really "toy" printers only
useful for one-off printing) -- which will hopefully be BEFORE
they develop pick problems!
Unless it's a high-volume duplex printer or something really special, does
it makes sense to buy a used laser printer? (As I said, I've got a couple
of Panasonic KXP-4450/4455's from before 1990 still grinding away, but I'm
the original owner). Sitting on my desk next to me, I've got a Brother
4050 that I paid $100 new for two years ago--still on its first cartridge,
which is supposed to be a "half capacity" model. At that price, I can just
about afford to buy a new one when the toner runs out... 
8:16 p.m.
I use LJ2s and 4s. I used to use only the LJ original but they became
to rare. I work in a thrift shop as a volunteer and we have them come
thru all the time and sell them for $5. If they are working I stack
them in the garage and if they are not I remove the cartridge and
sometimes the innards and store them. The LJ2 and the original LJ
make the best printing I have seen from ANY printer and it almost
looks like and old fashioned offset printer output even has a raised
feel to it that you can feel. And at $5 a piece I can afford to stack
them and when one screws up I pitch it.
OTOH....I have an HP1600 color printer/scanner/copier that wasnt worth
$5 the day I bought it new. The ink is expensive the printer often
doesnt recognise the cartridge and even when I dont need
ink...scanning...it wont let it work unless I have ink in it. What a
waste of technology. Currently it isnt recognising the color ink
module so I will be pitching it into the trash tomorrow after less
than 300 copies.
On 7/25/06, Don Y <dgy at dakotacom.net> wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
On 7/25/2006 at 4:17 PM Don Y wrote:
I don't think it makes sense unless you have big-time printing
needs. Without looking very hard, you can find working laser
printers (especially HP's) headed for the trash almost every
week (and I'm not in a particularly *good* location for
surplus materials!). They're *so* commonplace that it is
hardly worth the time to repair them -- unless it's a simple
"swap-out-the-fuser" type of repair. Just move it aside
and put another in it's place.
I've given away 3 LJ4's in the past year just because they're
not worth the space to store them! (Annoying that their RAM
requirements differ from the 4+).
I've been offered two Phasers in the past 6 months and just
can't justify that much color printing to set aside that
much floorspace :>
A pair of LJ5L's (?) will join the pile as
soon as their
toner cartridges run out (they're really "toy" printers only
useful for one-off printing) -- which will hopefully be BEFORE
they develop pick problems!
Unless it's a high-volume duplex printer or something really special, does
it makes sense to buy a used laser printer? (As I said, I've got a couple
of Panasonic KXP-4450/4455's from before 1990 still grinding away, but I'm
the original owner). Sitting on my desk next to me, I've got a Brother
4050 that I paid $100 new for two years ago--still on its first cartridge,
which is supposed to be a "half capacity" model. At that price, I can just
about afford to buy a new one when the toner runs out...
8:52 p.m.
On 7/25/2006 at 7:16 PM Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
OTOH....I have an HP1600 color printer/scanner/copier
that wasnt worth
$5 the day I bought it new. The ink is expensive the printer often
doesnt recognise the cartridge and even when I dont need
ink...scanning...it wont let it work unless I have ink in it. What a
waste of technology. Currently it isnt recognising the color ink
module so I will be pitching it into the trash tomorrow after less
than 300 copies.
I've never owned an inkjet printer. The whole idea smacks too much of King
Gillette.
I do recall seeing the IBM inkjet printer demo at NCC back in 1970's. My
reaction was that it was such a complicated affair that (heavens!) couldn't
even print on NCR multipart paper, so what good was it, above being a very
clever bit of machinery?
Cheers,
Chuck
9:26 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 7/25/2006 at 7:16 PM Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
Yup. Fast forward to 2009... "Introducing the new, gillette
Track 47 razor -- complete with training wheels to help you
support it while shaving!"
(Though Gillette had an interesting little "residence" in CT
complete with a small *train* that circled the property -- long
since sold to Lake Compounce(?) as a kiddy ride...)
OTOH....I have an HP1600 color
printer/scanner/copier that wasnt worth
$5 the day I bought it new. The ink is expensive the printer often
doesnt recognise the cartridge and even when I dont need
ink...scanning...it wont let it work unless I have ink in it. What a
waste of technology. Currently it isnt recognising the color ink
module so I will be pitching it into the trash tomorrow after less
than 300 copies.
I've never owned an inkjet printer. The whole idea smacks too much of King
Gillette. I do recall seeing the IBM inkjet printer demo at NCC
back in 1970's. My
reaction was that it was such a complicated affair that (heavens!) couldn't
even print on NCR multipart paper, so what good was it, above being a very
clever bit of machinery?
OTOH, industrial inkjet printers are pretty interesting
devices (though really not very "clever" when you consider
the conditions under which they operate). But *really*
messy! (and, when one screws up, it can ruin a boatload
of packaged product real quick! :>)
IIRC, _The Medium is the Massage_ had a photo of printing
on an (raw) egg yolk. A good example of what you *could*
do with inkjet technology (though I'd have to re-examine
the photo to have a better idea if that is really what was
used)
10:13 p.m.
Rumor has it that Chuck Guzis may have mentioned these words:
I've never owned an inkjet printer. The whole idea
smacks too much of
King Gillette.
OK, Tony.
[[ Oh, did I type that out loud??? ;-O ]]
I do recall seeing the IBM inkjet printer demo at NCC
back in 1970's. My
reaction was that it was such a complicated affair that (heavens!) couldn't
even print on NCR multipart paper, so what good was it, above being a very
clever bit of machinery?
Let's see - the ability to make an inexpensive[1] (for the time), quiet,
high-resolution printing device that's *Portable*????
[1] In the era of $150+ 9-pin DM, $225 24-DM, and $1500 300dpi laser
printers, $300 for 360dpi w/built-in battery good for 50 pages of
single-spaced was one helluva deal!
My Canon BJ-10ex was a masterful piece of machinery, and yes, I *did* take
it with me to Annual Training in the Army National Guard to print
newsletters & reports on in the field - tied to my *also ontopic* Tandy
Model 200 laptop.
I'd still have it if it didn't get *stolen*... obviously someone else found
value in it beyond me!
The cartridges held enough to be a decent (to me - to others it was still a
*fair*) deal, were universally available (and still are - even in my
backwater town!) and even after oopsing and reversing polarity on my CoCo's
serial->parallel adapter & letting some of the magic smoke out of the
printer (I'm guessing plastic, not sillycon) it still worked for several
years until it's "forced relocation."
I've had *very few* printers that can live up to that reputation.
Inkjets don't suck. Epson's requirement to change 1/2-full cartridges does,
but you can't blame the technology for a stupid business decision.[2]
[2] Yes, I use Gillette razors. *For My Skin Profile* (before we get into
comp.razors.advocacy issues) I find them to be the best shave... at least
until I have the coin to try a Braun Activator. Want my Norelco? *That*
sucks...
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
P.S. I didn't understand the reference at first, so yes, I did research
King Gillette... Like I always say - if it's stupid, but works, it ain't
stupid! BTW, we're not all living in Niagara Falls, are we???
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | Anarchy doesn't scale well. -- Me
zmerch at 30below.com. |
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
26 Jul
26 Jul
7:22 p.m.
Rumor has it that Chuck Guzis may have mentioned these words:
Is that aimed at me?
I do have and use an inkjet printer. An original 2225B Thinkjet. The
only reason I use it is because it has an HPIL interface and is rather
handy on the HP71. Mind you, there's one design wart in it. Although it's
portable, and battery powered, there's no way to fix the paper supply to
it. I guess you're supposed to take it to where you want to use it, put
it on a desk, take out a stack of fanfold paper and feed it in. Hmmm...
And yes, before you ask, I have a Thinkjet service manual, and have
repaired sections that the manual claims are not feild repairable (mostly
replating to the carriage drive mechanism).
-tony
I've never owned an inkjet printer. The whole
idea smacks too much of
King Gillette.
OK, Tony. 
1:06 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I've never owned an inkjet printer. The whole
idea smacks too much of King
Gillette.
Nah, my favorite "cheezy" printing technology has always been thermal
transfer. Nothing beats waiting from 12 to 35 minutes for a C64 to
print out a full page in color, on curled paper, smelling very much like
hot wax. You can smell the quality!
</sarcasm>
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
1:09 a.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I worked on the design of a thermal dye transfer printer many years
ago. It doesn't *have* to be slow -- we printed a 400dpi page
in 11 seconds -- a decent speed for that era.
Problem with the technology is the HUGE power requirements
(our prototype power supply had *batteries* in it to handle
the peak currents :> ).
I've never owned an inkjet printer. The
whole idea smacks too much of
King
Gillette.
Nah, my favorite "cheezy" printing technology has always been thermal
transfer. Nothing beats waiting from 12 to 35 minutes for a C64 to
print out a full page in color, on curled paper, smelling very much like
hot wax. You can smell the quality!
1:57 a.m.
On 7/25/2006 at 10:09 PM Don Y wrote:
Problem with the technology is the HUGE power
requirements
(our prototype power supply had *batteries* in it to handle
the peak currents :> ).
Didn't Oki (IIRC) market a printer that used a ball-point-pen like stylus
to print? I seem to remember that one could even tell it to put a little
random jiggle into the process to simulate human handwriting.
Does anyone own a Datagraphics printer or plotter that uses a CRT and
photographic paper? That must hold the record for the highest
cost-per-sheet of printing...
Cheers,
Chuck
2:15 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 7/25/2006 at 10:09 PM Don Y wrote:
Honeywell made an "oscillographic recorder" that used a
special *squashed* CRT (called a "honeywell bottle")
and photosenstive paper.
Problem with the technology is the HUGE power
requirements
(our prototype power supply had *batteries* in it to handle
the peak currents :> ).
Didn't Oki (IIRC) market a printer that used a ball-point-pen like stylus
to print? I seem to remember that one could even tell it to put a little
random jiggle into the process to simulate human handwriting.
Does anyone own a Datagraphics printer or plotter that uses a CRT and
photographic paper? That must hold the record for the highest
cost-per-sheet of printing... 
1:44 a.m.
On 7/26/06, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Nah, my favorite "cheezy" printing
technology has always been thermal
transfer. Nothing beats waiting from 12 to 35 minutes for a C64 to
print out a full page in color, on curled paper, smelling very much like
hot wax. You can smell the quality!
Sure... cheap thermal transfer is kinda nasty, but I worked with a
thermal transfer printer in the mid-1990s that was _nice_. We
used it for crisp color images of ice floes near McMurdo station
(the ice, clouds and water were in shades of grey, the annotations
and hazards were in color).
It was an expensive printer (I was told it used about $2 in consumables
per printed page) - it had three rolls of dye that spooled by no matter
what was being printed. Each spool did exactly so many pages then
ran out, even if you printed one pixel on a page. The advantage, I
guess, is a simplified mechanism and consistent printing.
-ethan
2:13 a.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
Sure... cheap thermal transfer is kinda nasty, but I
worked with a
thermal transfer printer in the mid-1990s that was _nice_. We
used it for crisp color images of ice floes near McMurdo station
(the ice, clouds and water were in shades of grey, the annotations
and hazards were in color).
It was an expensive printer (I was told it used about $2 in consumables
per printed page) - it had three rolls of dye that spooled by no matter
what was being printed. Each spool did exactly so many pages then
ran out, even if you printed one pixel on a page. The advantage, I
guess, is a simplified mechanism and consistent printing.
You can't really "conserve" film based on the image
*content*. Usually, the film rides atop the paper
as it passes through the marking engine. It's not
like you can STOP the film's progress while the paper
continues along.
2:19 a.m.
On 7/26/06, Don Y <dgy at dakotacom.net> wrote:
Ethan Dicks wrote:
Certainly that's the easy way to do it... one could design a mechanism
that only advanced the color transfer films if they were printed to,
or to only advance them if, say, _any_ content was being printed (to
skip swaths of white), but that makes things more complicated and
certainly slower.
-ethan
It was an expensive printer (I was told it used
about $2 in consumables
per printed page) - it had three rolls of dye that spooled by no matter
what was being printed. Each spool did exactly so many pages then
ran out, even if you printed one pixel on a page. The advantage, I
guess, is a simplified mechanism and consistent printing.
You can't really "conserve" film based on the image
*content*. Usually, the film rides atop the paper
as it passes through the marking engine. It's not
like you can STOP the film's progress while the paper
continues along.
2:23 a.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
On 7/26/06, Don Y <dgy at dakotacom.net> wrote:
The paper and film must be in contact as they pass over
the head UNDER PRESSURE (to fuse the wax into the paper).
You would need a mechanism that allowed the two surfaces
to be decoupled -- yet not experience any slippage
(i.e. so the image that you print at position X on the
page actually happens at position X regardless of how/if
the film was disengaged prior to that point).
You *might* be able to process black separately (for monochrome
prints) but that would increase the size of the mechanism.
One could ague that if you want to print monochrome, print
on a different printer! :>
(BTW, one big advantage of thermal dye transfer is the
degree of saturation of the colors. Black *is* black)
Ethan Dicks wrote:
Certainly that's the easy way to do it... one could design a mechanism
that only advanced the color transfer films if they were printed to,
or to only advance them if, say, _any_ content was being printed (to
skip swaths of white), but that makes things more complicated and
certainly slower. It was an expensive printer (I was told it used
about $2 in consumables
per printed page) - it had three rolls of dye that spooled by no matter
what was being printed. Each spool did exactly so many pages then
ran out, even if you printed one pixel on a page. The advantage, I
guess, is a simplified mechanism and consistent printing.
You can't really "conserve" film based on the image
*content*. Usually, the film rides atop the paper
as it passes through the marking engine. It's not
like you can STOP the film's progress while the paper
continues along. 
6:42 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 7/25/2006 at 4:17 PM Don Y wrote:
In general, no. But I needed a medium-high-volume duplex printer
that speaks AppleTalk and LPD. :-)
Doc
A pair of LJ5L's (?) will join the pile as
soon as their
toner cartridges run out (they're really "toy" printers only
useful for one-off printing) -- which will hopefully be BEFORE
they develop pick problems!
Unless it's a high-volume duplex printer or something really special, does
it makes sense to buy a used laser printer?
10:13 a.m.
The worst printer of all came before the computer. The Datafax. It
used paper sensitive to an electric discharge (spark) and could send
signatures by wire. The paper was held to a metal drum with tensioned
springs and a stylus hovered just above the paper and an electrical
discharge jumped from the stylus to the drum through the paper. I have
a stack of them in my garage.
On 7/26/06, Doc Shipley <doc at mdrconsult.com> wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
--
Jim Isbell
"If you are not living on the edge, well then,
you are just taking up too much space."
On 7/25/2006 at 4:17 PM Don Y wrote:
In general, no. But I needed a medium-high-volume duplex printer
that speaks AppleTalk and LPD. :-)
Doc
A pair of LJ5L's (?) will join the pile as
soon as their
toner cartridges run out (they're really "toy" printers only
useful for one-off printing) -- which will hopefully be BEFORE
they develop pick problems!
Unless it's a high-volume duplex printer or something really special, does
it makes sense to buy a used laser printer?
11:16 a.m.
On 7/26/2006 at 9:13 AM Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
The worst printer of all came before the computer. The
Datafax. It
used paper sensitive to an electric discharge (spark) and could send
signatures by wire. The paper was held to a metal drum with tensioned
springs and a stylus hovered just above the paper and an electrical
discharge jumped from the stylus to the drum through the paper. I have
a stack of them in my garage.
I believe the Sinclair ZX-81 had an option for a "spark printer". I recall
that kymographs and the like used to use that same paper for recording.
One aspect was that with an AC power supply, you coiuld get a pretty good
estimate of the pen speed by looking at the length and spacing of the dots
created by this process.
Cheers,
Chuck
4:29 p.m.
>The worst printer of all came before the computer.
The Datafax. It
>used paper sensitive to an electric discharge (spark) and could send
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I believe the Sinclair ZX-81 had an option for a
"spark printer". I recall
that kymographs and the like used to use that same paper for recording.
One aspect was that with an AC power supply, you coiuld get a pretty good
estimate of the pen speed by looking at the length and spacing of the dots
created by this process.
Radio Shack [briefly] sold an electrostatic printer for the TRS-80.
Nice black image on silvery paper. Until you crumple it and unfold it.
5:34 p.m.
On 7/27/06, Jim Isbell, W5JAI <jim.isbell at gmail.com> wrote:
The worst printer of all came before the computer.
The Datafax. It
used paper sensitive to an electric discharge (spark) and could send
signatures by wire. The paper was held to a metal drum with tensioned
springs and a stylus hovered just above the paper and an electrical
discharge jumped from the stylus to the drum through the paper. I have
a stack of them in my garage.
I worked with a shades-of-grey spak printer attached to a PDP-11,
circa 1986 - the paper was multi-layered, and the intensity of the
spark ablated the paper to different depths, revealing darker and
darker shades.
It was fussy and, while it _did_ give visibly different shades, didn't
seem like it was worth all the effort. I think the design was
originally used as a SONAR hardcopy device (we were using it to
display ultrasound scan data for industrial parts inspection).
-ethan
10 p.m.
Doc Shipley wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
For about $25 locally I can pick up an old HP with a decent toner
cartridge, I stick with the HPLJ 4/5 series since I have a couple full
toner carts. What competes with that? I also have a 10/100 appletalk
card that I can move between them.
My only thought is power usage since I tend to just leave it on 24/7,
which may migrate me to a newer low power model.
On 7/25/2006 at 4:17 PM Don Y wrote:
In general, no. But I needed a medium-high-volume duplex printer that
speaks AppleTalk and LPD. :-)
Doc A pair of LJ5L's (?) will join the pile as
soon as their
toner cartridges run out (they're really "toy" printers only
useful for one-off printing) -- which will hopefully be BEFORE
they develop pick problems!
Unless it's a high-volume duplex printer or something really special,
does
it makes sense to buy a used laser printer?
9:25 p.m.
Mike Ford wrote:
My only thought is power usage since I tend to just
leave it on 24/7,
which may migrate me to a newer low power model.
That's exactly why I gave way my IBM 4039 and picked up an HP
4100N**. It looks like it's going to pay for itself in about 18 months.
Not to mention the teeny-tiny footprint.
Doc
** Well, and the fact that the HP had a page count of < 7000....
10:08 p.m.
Mike Ford wrote:
For about $25 locally I can pick up an old HP with a
decent toner
cartridge, I stick with the HPLJ 4/5 series since I have a couple full
toner carts. What competes with that? I also have a 10/100 appletalk
card that I can move between them.
My only thought is power usage since I tend to just leave it on 24/7,
which may migrate me to a newer low power model.
The 4 isn't very efficient -- even in power-save mode
(I think it draws about 100W in standby and ~700W printing).
The 5L is a much better bet if power is your concern.
But, the low temperature toner really isn't as good as
the LJ4's. I would NOT recommend the 5/6L unless you
really are interested in power consumption, have very low
print needs, can tolerate the lower print quality AND
are ready to deal with the inevitable pick problems! :>
The LJ3 is the biggest pig since it doesn't even try to
save power. That was my reason for tossing mine out
(despite the fact that toner was only $16 vs. 2 or 3
times that for the LJ4).
I print infrequent enough that I can just remember to
power up the printer (LJ4M+) before I need it and power
it off when done.
7:56 p.m.
On 7/27/2006 at 12:10 AM ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk wrote:
I think I'd rather have an old, solid, one, than
much of the fragile junk
made today.
As I mentioned, I've got a couple of big heavy built-like-a-brick-outhouse
Panasonics. But on my desk, I've also got a cheap Brother that I purchased
new for less than the cost of a new toner cartridge. I'm all for "reuse,
repair, recycle", but this one when it runs out of toner is going to give
me serious pause if I can't find a cheap toner refill that produces
readable print.
My problem with most modern inkjets is that the super-low-prices are
nothing more than an effort to get you to spend lots of money on ink
refills. King Camp Gillette marketed the disposable-blade safety razor; he
could almost afford to give the razor away because customers would keep
coming back for new blades. Hence my reference.
Cheers,
Chuck
27 Jul
27 Jul
3:57 a.m.
Hi,
Chuck Guzis said:
My problem with most modern inkjets is that the super-low-prices are
nothing more than an effort to get you to spend lots of money on ink
refills. King Camp Gillette marketed the disposable-blade safety razor; he
could almost afford to give the razor away because customers would keep
coming back for new blades. Hence my reference.
There are alternatives: Feed the ink from bottles...
See http://www.fotospeed.com/ for example.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb at dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
6575
days inactive
6577
days old
27 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgy＠DakotaCom.Net -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
jim.isbell＠gmail.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
trag＠io.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
zmerch-coco＠30below.com