Best Printer

Based on the standards you hold printers to there must not be much in
your life that operates according to your high standards.... including
yourself.

Burt wrote:
wrote in message nothing of real world value and therefore snipped

Based on the standards you hold printers to there must not be much in
your life that operates according to your high standards.... including
yourself.

snip

Michael Johnson wrote:
Based on the standards you hold printers to there must not be much in
your life that operates according to your high standards.... including
yourself.

Burt wrote:
wrote in message nothing of real world value and
therefore snipped

Michael, you didn't really mean for that to be a reply to Burt, did you?

TJ

TJ wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote:
Based on the standards you hold printers to there must not be much in
your life that operates according to your high standards.... including
yourself.

Burt wrote:
wrote in message nothing of real world value
and therefore snipped

Michael, you didn't really mean for that to be a reply to Burt, did you?

No I didn't. I reposted to the intended target. I hoped that would be
clear but thanks for making it so.

On Feb 26, 11:38 am, "Burt" wrote:

Very nasty tone and hypercritical to the point of misinformation. - are
you related to our resident troll, Measekite? Or just taking lessons from
him.

Mea who? I'm an optimist .. where/when it's appropriate. Haven't you
noticed? I've already demonstrated my love for laser mice. Hell even
10yo printers are semi-cool. But I'm also pragmatic unlike most here.
I bet the clowns here owned beepers and do texting on their cell
phones with a smile too .. and love thumb rollers as pointing devices.

Coz they lie. My experience is that all 20+ printers I've used suck.
Stop using the ones that come in crackerjack boxes and buy a decent printer.

Yeah that damn sugared corn really sticks to the teeth .. spoken while
tossing rotten canon inkjets, nasty hp laser printers out the
window .. toys!

HP5p - lasted ten years with fairly heavy use, still working just fine, but

Where ya bin? I've said 10yo printers are the best all along .. get
those cataracts looked at. 8)

Even devices with no moving parts can fail - pens run out of ink, pencil
lead breaks, etc.

So when your gas runs low in your tank you consider your car failing?

One more angry troll to killfile.

You see yourself in your mirror. Your cataracts ain't too bad. Count
your blessings.. spoken like a true optimist

I bet if you were willing to pay the same cost (in ratio) for your
printer as that 747 it would tend to run more reliably. Jets do have a
few $billion in research (mainly paid by taxpayers) under their belts.

Art


wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:32 pm, Michael Johnson wrote:


If you are so knowledgeable and printer technology is so simple

Oh, I'm knowledgeable now? Again the mechanical aspect of getting
paper in one side with an image on the other side faithfully ain't
that complicated.


then why not design and build your own printer?

No time nor interest. We have people who already do it.


Just cobble it together in your garage from bailing wire and duct tape.

Ran out of duct tape after anthrax scare.


You're just one of those people that complains about everything and
thinks he can do design/engineering better than the experts.

All my laser mice work perfect and have for years. Sorry to put a
hole
in your theory.


There are
plenty of writing instruments and note pads for sale if the printers
aren't up to your standards of operation.

Robust paper feed = high standards. [chuckle]


On Feb 26, 5:26 am, Arthur Entlich wrote:

Most people who purchase cars just want them to start and run so they
can get from point A to B. You'd think that after a century or so of
making them, and being that they cost 300 or more times the cost of a
color inkjet printer, they should always work, and do so nearly forever,
but, you know, when I look in the Yellow Pages under auto repair, or car
mechanics, the lists go on for pages and pages.


Precisely my point. 100 years to get a car to work good and it took
humans
30 years to get this far with printers .. a device with 1/100th the
mechanics involved as cars. My Honda car gets me to work and back for
years
without a jam, err AAA call.


No printer is 100% reliable forever.

What is? No argument from me, but you seem to miss the point. I'm not
talking
longevity. I'm talking reliable from the get go and yes to last a few
years
with minimal use.


If you want what could be
considered a relatively reliable technology, black and white laser
printers have proven to be fairly solid, at least those made a few years
back. Today, price point is driving less quality into the build.


True. As I said, printers (keyboards, etc) 10 years ago were more
reliable .. having less sophistication.


If you are willing to pay more, you may be able to get better quality
overall.


Not true with printers and most electronics. The more bells and
whistles,
the more potential for trouble.


On Feb 26, 5:39 am, TJ wrote:


It's like a lot of other stuff, isn't it? Take planes, for example.
Airplanes have been around for over 100 years, yet they still crash from
time to time. What's up with that? Can't they get anything right?


Yeah, but the failure rate on 747s is like .0000000001% or less and
there's a
tad more involved than a friggen printer.


If I were you, I'd avoid using anything with a mechanical component.


Not even a can opener? Clickable pen? Toothpick?


They just aren't reliable enough for you. They all fail, sooner or
later. That would include the on/off switch of your computer. Turn it
off before it lets you down again, and leave it off. Please. The rest of
us will struggle along without you. Save yourself before it's too late.


Another nervous doomsdayist [smirk]. Guess I'll have to ask my
librarian to
run copies for me for 25 cents then.

I think if our "friend" who spoke of 747 jets being reliable did a bit
of research, he'd find that they had a few "paper jams" "misfeeds" and
"head clogs" along the way. I, who only fly on jets about once a year
on average, if that, have several stories of failures on 747 jets (and
others) over the last two decades. Obviously, none were fatal, but I
have yet to hear of a death caused by a printer failure either.

I wonder if the term "Space Shuttle" means anything to him. They had
two catastrophic failures, killing all aboard, and those cost hundreds
of millions each.

Could inkjet printers be more reliable? Yeap, with some design changes,
and other alterations that might considerably increase the costly of
them. But then, some printers are quite reliable and are competitive in
price even now.

As to the issue of older models having greater reliability, that's true.
In part it is because the newer models have higher resolution, smaller
dots, faster motors, and partially because instead of raising in cost
with inflation, prices have gone down considerably. Rarely can downward
pricing pressure and higher overall build and qualities go hand in hand.

Art

Burt wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 7:49 am, Michael Johnson wrote:

Very nasty tone and hypercritical to the point of misinformation. - are
you related to our resident troll, Measekite? Or just taking lessons from
him.


(snip)

Coz they lie. My experience is that all 20+ printers I've used suck.

Stop using the ones that come in crackerjack boxes and buy a decent printer.


I
haven't had a laser printer fail on me for almost a decade.


No jams in a decade? No complaints at all? I have some ocean front
property in AZ for sale just for you.

HP5p - lasted ten years with fairly heavy use, still working just fine, but
I replaced it with an HP 3005 as it is much faster.
HPIIIp - used it for six years and left it when I sold my office with all
furnishings included.
Neither of these printers had a minute's down time or repair.

(snip)


Do you know about the concept of "duty cycle"? There is a reason they
are given to printing devices and it does tie back to how that printer
is designed and built.


Printer duty cycle? Four stroke or two? lol

Not LOL - more expensive printers generally have heavier duty cycles. Since
you don't know the term, it means the number of pages per given period of
time that it is made to print. Per day, month, etc.


... and your point is? If the failure of a printer cost human lives
then I'm sure they would have the same failure rate at airplanes and we
probably couldn't afford to buy them.


The comparison of a thing that has 10000 movable parts to one that has
a dozen or less makes for good humor, and my wife found that one
funny. Thanks for laugh.

Even devices with no moving parts can fail - pens run out of ink, pencil
lead breaks, etc.

Folks again, today's periferals (Spelling error) in general (excluding laser
mice and a
few other exceptions) ie (correct usage requires parentheses) keyboards
printers and scanners etc suck
compared to ten years ago, That is because the companies making them
ship em out half baked. You clowns are just to (too?) stupid or afraid or
gullible etc not to make a stink about it.

One more angry troll to killfile.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
I bet if you were willing to pay the same cost (in ratio) for your
printer as that 747 it would tend to run more reliably. Jets do have a
few $billion in research (mainly paid by taxpayers) under their belts.

Art


Might as well ignore the guy, Art. He just wants to rant.

TJ