Re: All printers stink



Michael Johnson wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:

Hi Michael,

I think we are basically in agreement, in that we can't expect products costing 1/10th that of their older brothers will both be faster and give better quality output AND also be as reliable and durable a product. Those inexpensive alternatives simply didn't exist 10 years ago, but a mixture of business model design and demand for less costly initial investment, and competition has lead to very inexpensive, and not very reliable peripherals.

Now it seems that electronics companies are under extreme pressure to bring newer technology to market in order to spur sales. Product cycles are shorter than ever. That being said, I don't think most people would pay the price for printing equipment that was designed and built to last. They can buy durable models now but they don't so are the printer companies just giving us what we want? That being cheap purchase prices

He thinks the Epson 3800, Canon 5100, Canon 6100, Canon Pro 9000, Canon Pro9500 are cheap.
even if it means high consumable costs. It seems that too many want their cake and eat it too by having cheap goods that are durable. This economic model probably don't work for the printer manufacturers although the inexpensive printers I use have been working fine for anywhere from 2-4 years. I am amazed at how many people will buy a printer of any variety and never investigate the cost of consumables as part of their due diligence. Then they complain when the cost of a set of cartridges is more than they paid for the printer.

Hard drives used to come with 4-5 year warranties and often outlived them, then costs and miniaturization occurred, and the warranty went down to one year, and failure rates exploded. A few manufactures seem to have gone back to improving quality and warranties have gone up on some models again.

Seagate has five year warranties of many of their hard drives.

I am not expecting a $50 inkjet printer to give the same duty cycle as a $1000 one, and I don't think anyone else should be disappointed if that
is their fate as well. As you say, one can seek out more durable alternatives, some of which will also save considerably on consumables, due to the lower ink prices when they get more of the profit up front with the purchase of the hardware.

I just don't see the reason for anyone to complain about cheap printers when there are plenty of models they can buy that will give the the durability they desire. They just can't be cheapskates about forking over the cash to acquire them. Like the old saying goes, "You get what you pay for"
And that is why you should use OEM ink.

Michael Johnson wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Anyone who claims printers are better made today than 10 years ago is living in a delusion.

There was a reason they cost nearly 10x as much for the same basic technologies back then. They may be faster, and may have somewhat improved output, but they are definitely made less reliable and break down much more often and more easily.

Reliability is just not the design consideration. Parts are smaller and thinner, made of lighter and less durable materials.

When it comes to printers, you have probably forgotten more than I will ever know. That being said, I think many people today expect to have their inexpensive printer do duty like an office workhorse. There seem to be lots of heavy duty printers available but one needs to fork over the cash to own them. A case in point is the Canon N2000 printer I own. It has a print head rated at 50,000 pages, has 80 ml color cartridges and a whopping 130 ml black cartridge. It was designed to print all day in an office environment. It was an expensive printer when new but it was built to last. Even the less expensive inkjets we use have been very durable. The Canon iP4000 my wife has used for the past 3 years has been flawless. The same goes for the Mp780, i960 and an old S520. I have an OLD HP Designjet 220E that I use to print large format civil engineering drawings. I think it will outlive me. I don't expect a cheap printer to last forever but the ones I have been using seem to be much more durable than I expected them to be when I bought them.

I can't speak for microwave ovens, mine is about 25 years old and works the way it did new, which is to say, adequately. Again, newer models have more features, but also have more parts to fail. Mine has no clock, no touch pressure switches, uses a simple timer with a bell. The company probably is long out of business. It came with a 5 year warranty, and has continued to work without any repair for 5 times that time. I haven't even needed to replace the bulb in it. It gets a lot of use, also.

I have a 1990 Sharp microwave convection oven that is still going strong. It just won't die. It has the touch pad and is programmable. The only thing that gave out was the metal rack. I had to spend $30 on a new one but if it lasts as long as the first one I will be pleased. BTW, if you ever get a new microwave make a convection microwave. The speed and quality of the food produced when cooking with heat and microwaves simultaneously is absolutely amazing. Our oven can cook a twelve pound turkey to absolute perfection in a little over an hour.

It cost me $44 new and it looks like the day I bought it also. It isn't pretty, it just works.

Art


If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

Al Bundy wrote:
On Jul 4, 1:37 pm, Stevep...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
What's up with printers these days? I've went through every brand and
they are all bad. No not the print quality, just the basic stuff.

I had a few nice printers in the mid 90s and ditched them for what I
thought would be improved printers. The main problems are the simplest
problems, to actually get the printer to feed paper through
consistently without jamming. The second issue is also basic: to get
ink to flow. This is ridiculous. Printer have two basic functions: to
feed paper and put ink on it. That's it! TWO things to do and they
can't even do this. This is 2008 hello!

People marvel at the speed of technology. I marvel at the digression
of technology in many areas. For instance Microwave ovens way back in
the 1980s would boil water in 45 seconds flat, even the cheapest
micros. Today I have one of the most powerful m ovens and the damn
thing takes well over two minutes to accomplish that feat. In 2008 we
are still driving gas guzzling cars. This is insane. We drive in is
35MPG cars today. *** in the 1970s there were 35mpg cars!! What's up
scientists and r&d people? Too many coffee breaks?

You're just wrong or you're playing with yourself.

First, your statements are too ambiguous to consider seriously.
Microwaves of the 80's often were 650 watts output or so. Now they are
1000-1100 or so and the input power is about the same so they are much
more efficient. It takes so many BTU's to boil a given amount of
water. You can put four cups or two pounds of water in a container and
measure the temperature rise in two minutes. Multiply that by 17.35
(guessing here) and you get the wattage output of that oven. It's all
very predictable and measurable. A 1000 watt oven boils much faster
than 650.

Printers are better and faster too. If you don't have the correct
paper or know how to take care of things, nothing will work for you. I
think that's where you're at. You are 25 years older and not 25 years
wiser than you were. Science has passed you by.
.