1 |
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 6:42 AM Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> A laser printer is *much* more economical to run than inkjets. The toner |
4 |
> cartridges never dry out - with inkjet you often replace the ink before it has |
5 |
> run out, because it has dried out. Initially you pay more for a laser, but |
6 |
> over the years you will recuperate your investment in lower running costs. |
7 |
|
8 |
You will pay for it VERY quickly. A good color laser costs $200. An |
9 |
inkjet plus the first set of cartridges, which will last six months |
10 |
together, will cost you $100-150 (one way or another - either with a |
11 |
cheap printer with super-expensive cartridges, or an expensive printer |
12 |
with more reasonable cartridges). |
13 |
|
14 |
There is a reason just about any company with professional IT uses |
15 |
laser printers. They're just way cheaper to operate long-term, and |
16 |
really long-term works out to be something like a year. They also |
17 |
don't print photos (more on that below). |
18 |
|
19 |
If you have a family then laser printers also are worth it for peace |
20 |
of mind. Inkjets are a maintenance nightmare, and they tend to |
21 |
contribute to spouses becoming a maintenance nightmare. They seem to |
22 |
ALWAYS need unclogging or tweaking or whatever, and of course every |
23 |
time you hit that clean button you can just feel money draining out of |
24 |
your wallet. A laser printer just needs to be fed new toner when a |
25 |
cartridge empties, which is rare and takes two minutes. Occasionally |
26 |
they will jam, and usually the paper path is very easy to access and |
27 |
clear. |
28 |
|
29 |
> However, the quality of printing pictures is something you ought to check |
30 |
> before you buy. As a rule, inkjets with their liquid ink, print better colour |
31 |
> pictures than a comparable laser. Professional laser printers for thousands |
32 |
> of dollars are better than what you're thinking of buying, but even then they |
33 |
> won't match the colour flow and finish of a good quality inkjet. So, consider |
34 |
> your use case and go to a shop to try-before-you-buy, because a laser printer |
35 |
> may not be your optimal choice. |
36 |
|
37 |
If you care about photos, laser printers are useless. So are "cheap" |
38 |
inkjets, and they aren't cheap either. |
39 |
|
40 |
If you care about photos I almost always tell people to just have them |
41 |
printed commercially. Walmart is just fine for what most people care |
42 |
about, and their service will exceed the quality of any sub-$150-200 |
43 |
inkjet easily. A better service will simply be unbeatable by any |
44 |
reasonable home printer and will still be cheaper than most inkjet |
45 |
solutions. |
46 |
|
47 |
Now, if you print a LOT of photos then a higher-end inkjet might be a |
48 |
worthwhile investment, especially if printing on demand is |
49 |
commercially valuable for you. The higher-end printers combined with |
50 |
quality ink/paper can turn out a very good product and they're |
51 |
reasonable economical to operate because the ink is cheap and there |
52 |
probably are upwards of 10+ individual tanks in them, or they may |
53 |
support bulk ink out of the box. However, you have to print often |
54 |
enough to go through a set of cartridges every six months or so, |
55 |
because they still have a shelf life, and if you're throwing away 10% |
56 |
used cartridges your cost per page goes WAY up. |
57 |
|
58 |
And make no mistake, one way or another decent photos cost money to |
59 |
print. If you print high-volume with a good printer at home maybe |
60 |
that $10 print online only costs $7-8 to DIY. Photos go through a LOT |
61 |
of ink. When you see those stats about pages per cartridge they |
62 |
generally assume 5% coverage, and a photo is 100% coverage, and of |
63 |
course you have to use photo paper on top of that. If you aren't |
64 |
draining those cartridges completely before they dry up then your cost |
65 |
goes up, and any savings evaporate. They might be worth it for |
66 |
convenience, but you're paying for it. |
67 |
|
68 |
So, I would still generally advocate the laser printer for most |
69 |
people, augmented by commercial photo printing when needed. Also, |
70 |
think about whether you REALLY need color - the complexity of the |
71 |
printer goes up significantly with color and the cost to operate - a |
72 |
monochrome laser will be much cheaper to operate. |
73 |
|
74 |
Right now I'm at the point where I don't even have a working printer. |
75 |
My postscript color laser needs a new image drum and I just can't see |
76 |
one paying for itself. I can print at work if I need to, or if I'm in |
77 |
a hurry I can pay the outrageous $0.10/page at Staples (just email a |
78 |
PDF to an address and you get an access code to print the document on |
79 |
demand). Since a good quality printer easily costs half that already |
80 |
the break-even time to DIY would be quite long, though there is |
81 |
certainly a convenience factor having a printer at home. I just don't |
82 |
have that compulsion to print stuff out. If anything I do the reverse |
83 |
- scanning any paper I'm given and shredding it. |
84 |
|
85 |
-- |
86 |
Rich |