> The only real advantage I see for the
> laser is where people let the printer sit unused for months
Two immediate advantages of a laser, sharper, crisper,
and darker print on plain bond paper, the ink doesn't
wick into the fibres, plus it's waterproof.
Postman arrives in a downpour and if the envelope is
inkjet printed you can hardly read the address, plus
if the letter inside is inkjet printed it is probably wet
and a right mess.
And of course, as you say, if you don't do much
printing, or have been away on holiday, you don't
have the pain in the butt job of getting the heads
uncloged and printing again. In the process
emptying the cartridge, and finding it's a Bank
Holiday and the shops are shut.
Personally I use both.
On Sep 8, 11:35 pm, Legion <Leg...@Invalid.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Al <albun...@mailinator.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 8, 2:15 pm, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > If you are looking for LASER then all laser printers require TONER and
> >> > DRUM for laser printer to work.
>
> >> Some toner cartridges have plenty of toner but the wiper/doctor/sc****r
> >> blade that returns surplus toner to the hopper fails early in life, so
> >> you soon get dark smudges and repeated images spreading
> >> down the printout.
>
> >I realize I'm slightly off topic with this comment, but laser printers
> >seem to be a pain to operate with all the potential failures and
> >expensive parts. The inkjet is so cheap and reliable if you have a
> >cheap source of ink to refill. The only real advantage I see for the
> >laser is where people let the printer sit unused for months.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha>>>>bull crap.
Hey, I admit I have NO experience with a laser printer. I'm interested
in testing one if I can get one cheap enough. For me that would have
to be at a garage sale or something. Meanwhile, I have a fleet of HP
and Canon printers and quarts of dye based ink purchased at $1/ oz.
while is was available. So for me the inkjet is very cheap indeed.
When I need to move on, I'll have the combined knowledge base of the
laser users that have posted here.
> On Sep 8, 2:15 pm, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you are looking for LASER then all laser printers require TONER and
> > > DRUM for laser printer to work.
> >
> > Some toner cartridges have plenty of toner but the wiper/doctor/sc****r
> > blade that returns surplus toner to the hopper fails early in life, so
> > you soon get dark smudges and repeated images spreading
> > down the printout.
>
> I realize I'm slightly off topic with this comment, but laser printers
> seem to be a pain to operate with all the potential failures and
> expensive parts. The inkjet is so cheap and reliable if you have a
> cheap source of ink to refill. The only real advantage I see for the
> laser is where people let the printer sit unused for months.
It seems to have lot of knowledge about laser printer.
I agree. There is really no argument to be made, both technologies have
their high and low points, and anyone who is really looking for economy
is best off having at least one of each. It is just a matter of
figuring out which technology offers the best value for the specific use.
In general, laser printers (the machines) actually outlast inkjet
printers in durability and number of prints one can output before
failure. It is a very mature technology, and the designs are well
proven. While inkjet printers have less "mechanics, they are designed
to be very cheaply made in general, and they tend to wear out more
quickly. And anyone who thinks inkjet printers aren't mechanical, needs
to look at the service manuals. I'll take a laser repair over an inkjet
any day if the mechanics are involved. The majority of the guts of a
laser printer is in the toner cartridge, the same cannot be said for the
ink cartridge in an inkjet printer. Yes, laser printers use paper
transport and heading fusing sections, but that stuff is old technology,
and the precision required is less with B&W lasers.
Absolutely, current laser printers are not as well made as they once
were, and that has lowered cost of manufacture, but I'm still amazed at
how well they stand up. And for speed, and low cost per print, laser is
still the way to go, especially if multiple copies are required.
And finally, as you stated, back and white laser works on almost the
cheapest paper under the sun and provides clean crisp and waterproof
results (and you can print second side without bleed through).
Cost per print for black and white, laser has inkjet beat all other
things being equal.
Color is a much less simple equation, however.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
Ato_Zee wrote:
>> The only real advantage I see for the
>> laser is where people let the printer sit unused for months
>
> Two immediate advantages of a laser, sharper, crisper,
> and darker print on plain bond paper, the ink doesn't
> wick into the fibres, plus it's waterproof.
> Postman arrives in a downpour and if the envelope is
> inkjet printed you can hardly read the address, plus
> if the letter inside is inkjet printed it is probably wet
> and a right mess.
> And of course, as you say, if you don't do much
> printing, or have been away on holiday, you don't
> have the pain in the butt job of getting the heads
> uncloged and printing again. In the process
> emptying the cartridge, and finding it's a Bank
> Holiday and the shops are shut.
> Personally I use both.
After some thought, I've realized that inkjet printing is
incredibly complicated and sophisticated. Laser printers don't
have to fine-tune for such things as ink drying time and paper type.
I'm enthralled with color printing with inkjets, but the
technology, while excellent in some respects, is so Mickey-Mouse
in others.
Flasherly wrote: "Drum is part of the toner."
It's important to note that this is only true of _some_ printers.
It's standard with HP.
A friend recently discovered that his Epson inkjet cartridges
were leaking and Epson allowed that there's no cure. He put the
Epson in his mountain cabin (around 6,000 feet). The printer is
back at sea level in San Jose, and, well, no more Epsons for him.
I told him to check into Kodak.
"Check into," because we don't have quite enough feedback on
their new line yet. And I suspect that while ink is much more
affordable than with the rip-off champs, I suspect that home
refilling may be an issue (the black cartridges appear to lay
down a fixatif, which would logically come from a second tank).
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> How long the drums last is very much dependent on how will they are
> manufactured. Some, especially older ones, were very durable and could
> survive dozens of toner refills. Some were designed as separate
> consumables relative to the toner cartridge. Some can be refinished to
> make them light sensitive and to evenly distribute the surface again.
>
> However, toner/drum cartridges today often get only one refill from them
> before the surface fails, so yes, it is yet another bit of planned
> obsolescence. Since the consumables are now the major revenue source for
> the manufacturers and retailers, remember to consider the cost of
> replacement consumables in your purchasing decisions.
Yes. Always good advice.
I've had Okidata LED printers from two different generations. An
LED printer is a great idea: it's a laser printer except that the
image is formed on the drum from a set of teentsy fixed LEDs
instead of a laser engine with its moving parts. However,
implementing the LED technology appears to have been a slog.
I also had an HP III. This early laser printer was a true
workhorse, but it also spewed massive amounts of sickening ozone
into the air, used toner that required high fusing temperature
(read high electric bills, warmup time, and heat output). Ozone
filters failed, and third-party ozone filters were worthless.
Oki's second-generation LED printers tried to address the "green"
problems. They were successful for the environment, a disaster
for printing. Re-formulating the toner to melt at lower
temperature wasn't difficult. But reformulating the drum coating
to go with the toner was a disaster: the expensive drums
self-destructed; the drums were so touchy that their shelf life
was a year at best; much shorter after being unpacked.
At $160 per drum, Oki didn't retain a lot of customers. In my
case, after a scathing letter from me, Oki actually replaced my
printer at their expense seven years later with one that was
straightened out. It's a nicely-built printer; print quality is
OK for text, not so good for half-tone. Inkjets are more fun.
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:24:52 +0000, Ato_Zee wrote:
>> I also had an HP III. This early laser printer was a true workhorse,
>
> No problems here with an elderly Canon SX engine flatbed Apple
> Laserwriter II for the odd letter, nice sharp, print.
We had one at work for year. OK as long as you didn't alter the
configuration more than about 4000 times - the 'memory' element wore out.
But a nice printer - PostScript too, with a price (in those days) to
match.
Richard Steinfeld <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonicANDTHISTOO.net> wrote:
>After some thought, I've realized that inkjet printing is
>incredibly complicated and sophisticated. Laser printers don't
>have to fine-tune for such things as ink drying time and paper type.
Well, I do know of one $10K or $20K corporate laser printer/copier that if you tell
the printer that the current paper is heavy cardstock it moves through the printer at
about one third speed.
> Two immediate advantages of a laser, sharper, crisper,
> and darker print on plain bond paper, the ink doesn't
> wick into the fibres, plus it's waterproof.
Also in my experience mono lasers print straight text pages _much_
faster than an inkjet in higher quality mode. However complex graphics
can take much longer to up-load to the printer before printing actually
starts.
Re: Laser printer and a drum? 
Linear Mode
