Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Testing Cheaper Printer Ink

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the droplets-of-common-sense dept.

Printer 290

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Computer users world-wide spend $22 billion a year on ink cartridges, and the big companies are getting stingier with the amount of ink they are putting into each cartridge, the Wall Street Journal reports. Entrepreneurs are seeking a slice of that market by undercutting HP and Lexmark with ink prices 20% to 50% lower. The Journal tested do-it-yourself refill kits, cartridge retail outlets and replacement cartridges from online stores to find the best way to save money on ink refills. One major finding: The quality often wasn't as good as with the name-brand cartridges."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CIFS is the way to go (5, Insightful)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811043)

Too bad they haven't even mentioned Continuous Ink Flow Systems - CIFS replacement kits exist for most of the ink printers out there and you stop getting raped by the printer manufacturers. Why buy cartridges at all, when you can buy ink by the barrel?

Re:CIFS is the way to go (-1, Offtopic)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811063)

Wow, your first post got marked redundant...

Re:CIFS is the way to go (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811087)

The mods have gone crazy.

Oh. Like that's something new. Mod points means less and less every day.

Re:CIFS is the way to go (0, Offtopic)

Council (514577) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811127)

What does 'redundant' mean, anyway? Does it mean that it's the same as something you've posted, or someone else?

Re:CIFS is the way to go (-1, Redundant)

bryan8m (863211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811384)

Redundant = repetative, excessive, unecessary, duplicate (FYI).

Re:CIFS is the way to go (-1, Redundant)

Dizzle (781717) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811453)

Redundant = repetitive, excessive, unecessary, duplicate (FYI).

I've been looking at this system (2, Informative)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811319)

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZjlwsales [ebay.com]

Its had one very good review (http://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24 1206 [videohelp.com] ) and for awhile he was offering free profiling of an image- definately worth the cost...

BUT... if you want stuff to last, buy AgX prints. There's 100+ years of technology in that...

Re:CIFS is the way to go (3, Interesting)

cryogenix (811497) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811397)

We had a group try this at my work. It was "ok" but just ok.. The color quality was much better than the originals. It was an epson 1280 at the time. We called it the borg printer because of all the tubes coming out of it :)

frizzy pizzy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811046)

eff pee

It's like... (1)

jigyasubalak (308473) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811050)

..offering a do-it-yourself mach-3 gillete cartridge replacement. The DIY kit won't ever be as good and the named brands will continue to milk users on their cartridges.
I, for one, would have been glad to have read that there were cheaper alternatives but this article doesn't say anything new :(

Prinkter ink by the gallon (2, Informative)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811316)

There was a story a while back about the cost of printer ink if figure out by the gallon.

It turned out to be in the 6 figure range per gallon. (Although this story says its up to 8 kbucks per gallon [ebusinessforum.com] ) and there was this story about a US woman suing Hewlett Packard [bbc.co.uk] , saying its printer ink cartridges are secretly programmed to expire on a certain date.

Also, some people will want to do their own thing on their homecomputer but often have to print two or three pictures in order to get a good one. Many people are not skilled at getting the color, contrast and cropping right and they don't want the hassle. So for them getting prints the traditional way may be the best option.

Printer ink can be purchased by the gallon [google.com] starting at about 100 bucks per gallon, depending on the usual factors

Other Comparisons (shamelessly stolen)

  • Diet Snapple
    16 oz $1.29 ....... $10.32 per gallon
  • Lipton Ice Tea
    16 oz $1.19 ...........$9.52 per gallon
  • Gatorade
    20 oz $1.59 ..... $10.17 per gallon
  • Ocean Spray
    16 oz $1.25 . $10.00 per gallon
  • Brake Fluid
    12 oz $3.15 . $33.60 per gallon
  • Vick's Nyquil
    6 oz $8.35 ... $178.13 per gallon
  • Pepto Bismol
    4 oz $3.85 .... $123.20 per gallon
  • Whiteout
    7 oz $1.39 ........ .. $25.42 per gallon
  • Scope
    1.5 oz $0.99 .$84.48 per gallon
  • Evian water
    9 oz $1.49..........$21.19 per gallon?!

yellow, blue and magenta? (4, Insightful)

HazE_nMe (793041) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811053)

From TFA: "The kit included three ink colors -- yellow, blue and magenta"
Not to be anal, but isn't it cyan, magenta, yello (CMY)? Blue is part of RGB. There is a difference IIRC.

Re:yellow, blue and magenta? (1, Funny)

njcoder (657816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811118)

From TFA: "The kit included three ink colors -- yellow, blue and magenta"
That might have something to do with their poor results :)

Re:yellow, blue and magenta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811458)

That explains some of it. The printer they used explains the rest. HP? Come on!

Re:yellow, blue and magenta? (4, Insightful)

dnixon112 (663069) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811257)

Probably just the author's inexperience showing there. Cyan is a mix of green and blue, and to one who is not familiar with design or color theory it could be easily construed as just being blue.

Here's what cyan looks like. [hypertextbook.com]

Re:yellow, blue and magenta? (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811277)

Not to be anal, but isn't it cyan, magenta, yello (CMY)? Blue is part of RGB. There is a difference IIRC.

Even if it is a three-colour CMY ink cartridge, that's not particularly advanced - my fairly basic Epson Stylus Photo 1290 uses five-colour CcMmY cartridges along with the separate black one, the lower-case initials being lighter versions of the 'pure' colours.

If I printed a bit more [hylobatidae.org] , I'd buy one of those continuous ink flow systems [inksupply.com] as mentioned earlier - but they're terribly expensive!

From my own experience with cheap photo paper and cheap, non Epson ink in off-the-shelf cartridges - the colours are awful, the printing can be fuzzy, and I've no idea how long the printouts will last. So I just stick with the Epson stuff...

(Oh, and Spider Blog: when I started work this morning, the spider was waiting on my mouse-mat (actually a coffee-stained iBook manual). I moved my friendly arachnid out the way, and it's currently trundling around some paperwork on my desk. Wahey!)

Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811491)

6 different colors of ink for a consumer printer isn't fairly basic.

Going for extra anality (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811292)

I think it's actually King's Yellow (yellow shade), Azire (blue shade) and Cinibar (magenta shade) :P

Re:yellow, blue and magenta? (2, Insightful)

egyptiankarim (765774) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811310)

'tis the last hurdle of true WYSIWYG. why isn't there white printer ink?

White ink? (2, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811441)

'tis the last hurdle of true WYSIWYG. why isn't there white printer ink?

Because (a) There isn't really a market for it, and (b) Printer ink works on the subtractive model, and to produce an ink that can print white on non-white paper would violate this model, and thus (more importantly) the ink itself would have to be substantially different in nature to the standard CMYK inks.

Think about printing white on black; the ink would have to be dense enough to *cover* the black up (something like 'Tipp-Ex'/'Liquid Paper'), and I'd guess we'd require a lot more of it on the paper. (Bear in mind that 'cover up' is the word here; this is neither subtractive nor additive- for the latter case, we can't add light. It also implies that the only way to get certain colours on certain non-white papers is to cover them with white ink, then use the CMYK inks on top of *that*).

All this implies new print-nozzle technologies would be required, and these would have to be separate from the current CMYK ones (there's *no* way they could design a nozzle that can handle 'normal' ink and the white ink *and* retain decent performance *and* sell it at a reasonable price).

Yeah, I realise you were possibly joking, but if it were trivial, I bet we'd have seen white ink by now.

Don't hold your breath waiting for it. Oh, and while I'm here.... In order to pre-empt any "white ink" jokes:-

"Uh, I can get you some white ink. Just wait till I get my pr0n collection, huh huh."

Pathetic. There goes the "insightful" mods...

Hmm.. (4, Interesting)

onion2k (203094) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811057)

Ok, first thought on the quality is .. Durrr .. obviously the quality is going to be lower. Any idiot could tell you that.

However ..

Does it actually matter? Certainly I find that any documentation I want a client to see has to be *perfect*, which generally means sending it out to a proper copy shop or in-house repro facility. Internal documentation doesn't need to be anywhere near as high quality, so replacement inks are ok assuming they actually last a few years on the paper, I find thats more important than a few lines here and there.

So really where I work there isn't actually a market for "premium" ink cartridges. They're too expensive for everyday things, and not good enough for top quality things. There isn't any middle ground.

Re:Hmm.. (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811103)

If your office is using inkjets, and you have more than 2 employees, then your IT or management are being extremely stupid.

Laser printing is the absolute cheapest with the Xerox color laser printers being the cheapest per page with their solid toner printers. We allow the sales department to print all they color they want as the Xerox is lower per page in full color than the HP4100dn Black and White, and yes I am counting printer cost+maintaince.

Inkjets are good for home use only or in LARGE format photo quality printing. Using then in an office is the absolutely stupidest thing in the world, you can recoup the cost of a $1900.00 Xerox color laser in less than 1 year with ink prices alone.... And yes, I know what I am talking about. We have a remote office of 3 employees and one manager, they were spending $225 a month in ink on two HP inkjets.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

Bimo_Dude (178966) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811167)

Amen to that!

Even at home, laser is the way to go. My wife likes to print a lot of documents. We were spending a fortune on inkjet carts. Finally, I bought a couple of old LJ4 printers off of ebay, cleaned them up, put new toner in them, and put them on the network. Now, she can print at about 1/10 the cost as before.

Also makes a great anniversary present ;)

Re:Hmm.. (2, Insightful)

halleluja (715870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811269)

Nope.. get a free laserjet 4 from the junkyard :-)

But, how do "clone" toners perform?

Re:Hmm.. (1)

kniLnamiJ-neB (754894) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811412)

At work, we use NOTHING but the "clone" knockoffs in all our printers, because they're so much cheaper. We replace them at about the same frequency as the originals.

Re:Hmm.. (3, Informative)

smchris (464899) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811275)

If your office is using inkjets, and you have more than 2 employees, then your IT or management are being extremely stupid.

I don't remember ever working in an office that had an ink jet printer. I remember employees _asking_ for one (and being told it was stupid). I've had a home laser since '92 -- and it weighed about 40 pounds.

You want to save money beyond switching to laser: tonerrefillkits.com.

You'll almost always get one good refill for around $20. You might get two refills from a catridge particularly if you have some .pdf manuals to print because the cylinders usually start to wear at the edges. I got a little wild with the soldering iron the first time, but it really does take about 5 minutes when you get the hang of it.

Re:Hmm.. (2, Insightful)

StateOfTheUnion (762194) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811300)

Inkjets are good for home use only or in LARGE format photo quality printing.

Do lasers get the same color fidelity as inkjets as small format photo quality inkjets? My understanding is that they do not. That's the main reason I've avoided color lasers.

Last I heard color laser printers were ok for color charts and graphs, but photo leave quite a bit to be desired. Of course, things could have changed since I last looked at color lasers . . .

Re:Hmm.. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811418)

the old Xerox Phaser 850's produced photo quality 8X10's easily. the newer xerox color Lasers certianly keep pace with the current "photo quality" inkjets, but do not compare to the high end inkjets designed specifically for photo printing.

keep away from HP color printing. they still are the most expensive at nearly $1.00US a page and have the lowest quality color printout. Xerox with their Wax/Solid toner technology outpaces them in resolution ald overall look.

and at $0.09US per full color print, we let employees print out their photos (on their own photo paper) here at work after hours or during lunch.

Re:Hmm.. (2, Informative)

wallykeyster (818978) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811411)

If your office is using inkjets, and you have more than 2 employees, then your IT or management are being extremely stupid.

I am the IT Director for a small private university and I hate inkjets because of the enormous cost. However, I've been unable to get management's support to eliminate them because they don't want to deal with the convenience arguments from faculty and staff (mostly faculty). The employees have gotten used to having a printer on their desk and there is no way to replace inkjets with color laser on a one-to-one basis. I did the calculations last year and we would more than cover our investiment in the first year if we dropped inkjets for workgroup color lasers.

Laser printing is the absolute cheapest with the Xerox color laser printers being the cheapest per page with their solid toner printers.

Actually, we found that Kyocera offered the best price/performance numbers. We started out wanting the Xerox Phasers and hating the local Kyocera salesguy (he's just a pain in the ass) but in the end decided on Kyocera. Unfortunately, I could not get Cabinet support for the plan so no laser printers were purchased.

I did save over $10,000 in ink this year by simply not buying a single new inkjet all year. Any that died were replaced by connecting the user to an existing laser printer. There is more than one way to skin a cat :)

Re:Hmm.. (2, Interesting)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811475)

employee bonuses, or other incentives for saving money, may go a long way toward quieting the inevitable bitching when change is made. You've already made the cost analysis (which you have found to be positive) now push the benefits.

Re:Hmm.. (2, Insightful)

EnderWiggnz (39214) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811108)

If you're printing Photo's, you want the real stuff, no question about it.

I've been happy with Canon, and found that they have some of the cheapest per photo, and best looking prints around, if you use the right printer. (i850, i960)

Plus, their ink doesnt auto-expire.

Re:Hmm.. (3, Informative)

Biomechanical (829805) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811195)

Yeah but forget about Canon if you want to use Linux. As I've been told on the phone, their official stance is that they don't, and will not, support Linux in any way, shape, or form - no official drivers, no disclosure of how anything works, etc.

I've got a Canon PIXMA iP3000. Nice printer, nice functions, fucked support for Linux.

I can use Canon BJC-7004 drivers, or I can pay about AU$50 (nearly half the cost of the printer) to Turboprint.de for a driver they've cobbled together (amongst others) after they signed some sort of draconian NDA with Canon.

Using Windows? Nice printer. Using Mac OS X? Drivers are downloadable but I didn't see all the extra software that is available from Canon for Windows. Using Linux? Get a HP or Epson.

Caveat Emptor [linuxprinting.org] , as they say.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

Klivian (850755) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811357)

Perhaps HP and Epson are nicer for Linux, but since both company's have started playing at silly buggers with their replacement cartridges. Trying to shut down cartridges cloners by way of DMCA and such tactics. Or placing restrictions similar to the sone policy in CSS on the cartridges. I'm starting to consider buying a Canon anyway, besides giving EUR 29.95 to a Linux company does not bother me so much. It looks like the drivers from Turboprint.de both are easy to install and of high quality. Have you tried the FreeEdition? I know the print quality is lower, but I'm curious how well it works/installs.

Epson is ok for refilling (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811471)

You just need to buy a 10 gizmo to reset the cartridge chips.

Linux support and print quality is awesome on the cheap Photo printers (R2xx/R3xx), even with bottled ink.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811439)

I've got a Canon PIXMA IP2000, it's a fairly decent printer but lack of support for Linux and 64-bit Windows is a PITA (IIRC people emailing support either got answers that 32-bit drivers work fine (they don't), they will be developed with XP-64 is released (it already is) and that they don't plan to support it). Can get it to print fine in both using BJC drivers, but still have to hook it up to my 32-bit Win laptop for cleaning print heads etc.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811227)

The second question would be what damage the ink will be doing to the printer. How man inkjets get clogged cartridges from 3rd party ink? This is a tough on because inkjets are so cheap that when the break you toss. No company who wants to make money will fix an inkjet unless it is one of those high quality ones that cost over 1k. So they just toss it and get a new one. But I have seen on Solid Ink Printers some nasty stuff when they used 3rd party ink. Lets just say it was like Carls Bad Caverns in there but in CYMB. I am sure InkJets would have some problems using nonauthorized ink as well. After 1000 prints the printer would be dead.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811317)

Quality is certainly an issue when you are forging stuff like invoices, insurance certificates etc.

"Theres nothing like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811059)

the re

ahh knew I shouldn't have got that cheap imitation!!

Back in the day (3, Informative)

el_womble (779715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811069)

I worked as an office junior for a guy once who refused to by branded cartridges once he found out about them - in this case Epsom. The cartriges were about 2/3 of the price and when they worked were pretty close to the quality of the original... when they worked. Between increased maintenance, broken printers and destroyed print outs I can't see how the TCO was much less than double the price of the branded inks.

Re:Back in the day (3, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811242)

Between increased maintenance, broken printers and destroyed print outs I can't see how the TCO was much less than double the price of the branded inks.


I bought small amounts. What worked I kept using. What didn't I junked.

Here is what works for me. My wife's re-branded Dell all in one - donated to goodwill. I couldn't see the thimble size carts priced the same as half full HP carts as a value. The carts could not be picked up down the street, so S & H from Dell was extra. I found no refilling instructions online. It never got it's first refill.

My HP laserjet III uses refilled carts. I would refill myself except it only needs a replacement once every couple years. Cost to operate is about $18/year in toner.

My HP950 The color carts were not reliable when refilled. Sometimes the printer simply stopped mid photograph. Black refills worked great. Bought black ink by the pint bottle. One time when one color died, I switched to B/W printing to get greyscale prints. Got a lovely purple picture. WTF? It uses color ink to print black and white. Printer now sits in a box on the shelf.
I liked the self alignment it does, so it would make a good networked printer, but cost of supplies retired it to spare status.

HP922c Color refills not reliable. Refills work if running a large batch of photos, but don't expect it to work the next day. Black refills work great. Uses the same black cart as the HP950. I am on my third re-order of ultra black pigmented ink. The twin pack of color carts are less than the price of a single color cart for the HP950. I buy the ocasional twin pack. I do photo printing through my local Costco at $0.19 per 4X6 and $1.99 per 8X10.

Most B/W printing gets done on the laser. Web pages go on the HP722c. I don't home print photos anymore.

All my printers are on network printservers (Hawking). At less than the price of one set of carts for the HP950, a printservers is a good investment. The inkjet printer sits on a shelf in the hall closet so the whole family can use it. This cuts down on problems of dried out carts and supporting a fleet of printers for each PC.

We have the 2 printers online and the HP950 sits as a spare.

Re:Back in the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811519)

It never got it's first refill.

"its".

Inkjets? Who needs them? (4, Interesting)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811072)

We never really use our inkjet at home. Most stuff gets sent to the ageing (7 y/o) Panasonic b/w laser printer, which was only 200UKP new - probably 120UKP for today's equivalent - and is on only its third toner cartridge.

Digital photos are printed on proper photographic paper using a web-based service which returns the (non-fading, and remarkably cheap) prints in the post two days later.

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (1)

tcoady (22541) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811098)

I agree. I bought a samsung ml 1510 for £50 and when I found the replacement for the half filled cartridge supplied was also £50 I went to ebay and bought a bottle of toner for £5.

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811459)

I was sorly tempted by those cheap Samsung machines, but I could have sworn the cheaper models were WinPrinters. Any idea if they'll work with CUPS?

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (1)

Zone-MR (631588) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811126)

We never really use our inkjet at home. Most stuff gets sent to the ageing (7 y/o) Panasonic b/w laser printer, which was only 200UKP new - probably 120UKP for today's equivalent - and is on only its third toner cartridge.
Laser rocks :) Even colour laser printers are quite cheap nowadays, at Digital photos are printed on proper photographic paper using a web-based service which returns the (non-fading, and remarkably cheap) prints in the post two days later.

What service are you using for this? I've always got digital photos printed at the local Boots/Tesco/whatever, but an online service would be a lot more convenient.

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (0)

Ewan (5533) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811222)

I've used jessops' online service and was very happy - first 10 photos are free if you want to try it out, then it's 20p a photo + £1.50 delivery. They also do mugs, t-shirts, coasters, etc.

jessops [jessopsphotoexpress.com]

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (1)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811454)

I've used foto.com [foto.com] a few times, and I'm very satisfied. Quality prints, fast delivery in a sturdy plastic box, and very cheap. I live in Belgium, but this are their prices for the U.K. [foto.com] :
6x4" £0.06 (0.09 EUR) incl. VAT
6x4.4" £0.07 (0.10 EUR) incl. VAT
8x6" £0.15 (0.25 EUR) incl. VAT
cost & delivery up to 30 photos: £0.99 (1.49 EUR) incl. VAT

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (5, Interesting)

squoozer (730327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811226)

<disclaimer>I used to work for one of the online digital printing service providers.</disclaimer>

The quality of the prints was, I have to admit, pretty damn good. When I first started there the service was quite expensive and it was touch and go whether it was worth sending off to have them printed. By the time I left though the price had dropped greatly and the quality remained (at least in the basic prints anyway).

It's worth shopping round, you can get some really good deals such as a second set for free. The cheapest always used to be (in the UK at least) Bonus Print but they were cheap because they only did a very limited number of print sizes. There are loads of other services out there that will print you photos onto just about anything you can think (we even did a toy bear for a while!). The quality of the other stuff though is questionable at best. A 2MPixel camera will produce a pretty good A4 sized print.

I'm sure I will get shouted at for promoting it but there is actually a fairly good digital printing client built into XP. You select a folder with images in it and then select print from the left hand menu (you need folder view tured off). It will give you a list with a number of printing service providers. I don't know if it still works though - since leaving the company I have stopped using Windows.

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (1)

Kredal (566494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811513)

Still works. They returned Fujifilm, Shutterfly, and Kodak EasyShare (pka OFoto) All three were between 25 and 29 cents for a 4x6 picture.

Who? (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811143)

Give us a link to this service!

TWW

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (1)

Zone-MR (631588) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811146)

Errr... I'll use the preview button this time.

We never really use our inkjet at home. Most stuff gets sent to the ageing (7 y/o) Panasonic b/w laser printer, which was only 200UKP new - probably 120UKP for today's equivalent - and is on only its third toner cartridge.

Laser rocks :) Even colour laser printers are quite cheap nowadays, at £300 GBP. Print quality is great, print speed makes it frustrating to go back to inkjet, and there's no more hassle with changing tiny ink cartridges every few weeks, cleaning print heads, etc.

Digital photos are printed on proper photographic paper using a web-based service which returns the (non-fading, and remarkably cheap) prints in the post two days later.

What service are you using for this? I've always got digital photos printed at the local Boots/Tesco/whatever, but an online service would be a lot more convenient.

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (2, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811169)

We've got an HP laser of about the same vintage. I think it was over five years before we had to replace the toner cartridge. My wife told me there was something wrong with the printer, and looking at her printouts my first thought was, "do they even sell the cartridges for this thing anymore?" Of course they do. You can get toner cartridges for the original laserjets

We also recently got an inkjet printer for the odd color document and for photos. Now a photo takes a tremendous amount of ink, to be fair. But we dont' really print photos that often; we're actually more likely to look at them on the screen. I'd say say we print photos about as often as I print things like refernce manuals on the laser. So while things may not be exactly equal, it's still fairly safe to say that we spend more on ink in six months than we spend in toner in five years.

Re:Inkjets? Who needs them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811422)

Not to sound like an ignorant American, but what is UKP? UK Pounds? If so, can't you please just write £120?

What a horrible industry (3, Insightful)

hobotron (891379) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811093)


I mean really, If I had started out with a blank slate and the intention of making a true jem of the worst part of the consumer electronics industry I would not be able to top what modern printer manufactures have come up with.

The previous Lexmark debacle was just another symptom. I refuse to believe that Ink for something that prints out my TPS reports is worth more than its weight in gold.

"The price of ink per milliliter from the big printer shops such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Lexmark International Inc. has been steadily rising, at about 1% a year"

Excuse me, but wtf? It is supposed to be cheaper to produce a product as time goes on, and dont give me that "they are innovating the way things are printed". There hasnt been any corresponding 1% increase in quality over the years.

Now things are coming to a big market (refillers, do it yourself or walkin/internet retailers) and personally I cannot wait till they gut the entire industry down to a reasonable profit margin. The only complaints of the article were "not as sharp as the new HP cartrige", personally I can live with that if it means not being overcharged the next time I goatse my neighbors mailbox.

Re:What a horrible industry (-1, Troll)

seann (307009) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811237)

people want their ink to last in the sun

this costs money

live with it

if your printing documents your a moron

people have inkjets to print pictures from their digital camera

Sometimes the replacements are better (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811107)

I found that HP Deskjet black cartridges went way downhill in quality starting 1996ish. After then, they would gum up if you didn't use them every few days, and for all that they were billed as "double" cartridges, the amount of printing from one went down too.

The replacements work fine and keep going and going ...

Quality (2, Interesting)

turbofisk (602472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811111)

What is it exactly that makes the quality worse? Is the ink less good? You would think they could fix that and add a buck or two - and still slap the HP and Lexmark on their fingers...

Re:Quality (2, Informative)

judmarc (649183) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811264)

What is it exactly that makes the quality worse?

It's the little copper-colored thingy at the business end of the ink cartridge, which produces the electromagnetic field that shapes the ink jet into whatever you're printing - alphanumeric characters, photos, etc. There's wear to this part over time, so that's why a refilled cartridge's print output will deteriorate. And the remanufactured ones never quite get to the tolerances of the new.

Canon ink? (1)

Maddog Batty (112434) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811137)

I have three Canon printers - one i860 and two i865. I think they are great printers and have always used Canon ink as it is not that expensive. However, I would love to know what results people have had putting cheaper ink into it.

Comments please.

Re:Canon ink? (1)

hypnoticstoat (890677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811189)

My Parents have an 860i that they've been using 3rd party cartridges in for ages with no disernable loss in quality or damage to the printer. Saves them loads on the cost of cartidges as well because a full 3rd party set is only £9.

Re:Canon ink? (1)

ewisnor (870167) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811447)

I put Staples Brand ink into my Canon Photo Printer once and the pictures came out more greenish than anything. I can't recommend any cheaper alternative if you want to print decent quality photos, I sure as hell won't be using any from now on.

wsj is aperently a bunch of morons (4, Informative)

enigmatichmachine (214829) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811138)

I work in this business but the trick is really really really, i can't stress this enough, don't buy a cheap printer. I'm suprised how many geeks completely ignore this part of their system, they'd sooner put neon lights in the case than get a decent printing aperatus.

if you're looking to print anything, get a laser, they're built better, and cost less per page. if you must have ink jet, consider a draft printer or commercial quality high volume inkjet, i know HP sells an inkjet with a 60+ Ml black cartridge, that's a lot more than the 19 ml ones they give you in the cheapo consumer units. did a little research and here's a list of printers starting at 150 bucks that use 70 ML black cartridges.

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF02a/1897 2-236251-236261.html?jumpid=re_R295_prodexp/buspro ducts/printing/color-inkjet-printers [hp.com]

also worth noting, don't refill the cartridges for canon or epson printers unless you want to be replacing the printer shortly, it's like putting a bit of suger in the gas tank at every fill up.(hp's the print heads are disposable so it doesn't matter as much, and lexmarks aren't even worth mentioning)

Re:wsj is aperently a bunch of morons (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811229)

if you're looking to print anything, get a laser, they're built better, and cost less per page.
It all depends on the volume. I imagine many home users of printers are like me, and print stuff out only very, very rarely. I print out the occasional map/route description, short articles, stickers, photo's and CD sleeves. My volume is low but I want color and good quality printing. I got the cheapy HP OfficeJet, which also scans and copies; a really handy feature. With the amount of stuff I print, I'd need decades to recoup the higher initial purchase price of a laser (although... prices on them have dropped quite a bit. I imagine cheap lasers require more expensive toner though).

There's one good thing about the newer genuine HP cartridges. Sure, they cost more than my DVD player, but at least they stay good forever. The old ones used to dry up quite fast, but my current cartridge is about 2 years old now and still printing just fine. Again, a boon to people like me who only print stuff ocasionally.

Re:wsj is aperently a bunch of morons (1)

fr0dicus (641320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811451)

Hear hear, I'm still on the original cartridges in my Deskjet 960C - it's a pretty old printer, probably about four years I think. We probably average three pages a week. The diagnostics say it's still half full. I only bought it because it was end of line and half price.

Re:wsj is aperently a bunch of morons (1)

KowShak (470768) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811240)

I've been refilling my Epson Stylus 660 for years now without problems. I've been through a few refill kits.

I did get to the stage where the cartridge was full of dry ink and would keep drying up soon after a refill (i.e. they became non-refillable) but a new cartridge sorted that out and the refilling continued.

These days I can get generic cartridges cheaper than the refill kits so thats the way I've been going.

Re:wsj is aperently a bunch of morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811350)

I use generic cartridges for my Epson C84, and it works perfectly. They seem to disapear quicker than I expected, but at $2 a pop, its so much cheaper. I haven't noticed any change in quality or performance, just a big savings.

Re:wsj is aperently a bunch of morons (1)

halleluja (715870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811354)

... don't refill the cartridges for canon or epson printers unless you want to be replacing the printer shortly, it's like putting a bit of suger in the gas tank at every fill up.

According to Myth Busters, I can savely put a jar of sugar in my tank. In fact, engines are capable of handling enormous amounts of abuse before breaking down.

The irony of course is that electronics are supposed to be a lot more fault-proof (bath-tub curve) than mechanics, thus it is obviously lack of design or purpose to design weak printers.

I think the latter applies, since the only real problem in printers always was the paper feed. Matrix- and old laser printers keep churning out paper without replacement of components.

The fact that ink prints prices reach ye olde thermal prints is simply outrageous and obviously used as a milking cow.

So yes, stay away from cheap inkjet printers, but, stay away from inkjet printers altogether if possible.

Can anyone give a reason why to choose inkjet over laserprinters apart from the initial purchase costs?

Get a cheap laser (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811139)

Thousands of pages vs a few hundred and that's assuming the inkjets don't clog. Better quality output too. Then get a cheap inkjet for the occasional colour page.

Warranty being void and other 99 tactics (1)

shashark (836922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811140)

What HP says about refills and warranties:

"Using refilled print cartridges alone does not affect either the warranty or any maintenance contract purchased from HP for its HP Inkjet printers. However, if an HP Inkjet printer fails or is damaged because you used a modified or refilled HP Inkjet print cartridge, the repair will not be covered under the warranty or by the maintenance contract. Instead, standard time and material charges will be applied to service the printer for that particular failure or damage."

If your cartridges damages the printer -- which the HP service staff will readily claim -- you might have to payup for the damage done.

So who decides the cartridges are good or bad for the printer ?

Re:Warranty being void and other 99 tactics (1)

hypnoticstoat (890677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811199)

The only reason they say this is to scare people into forking out for their horrendously overprice own brand cartridges.

the history of this warranty issue is interesting! (2, Interesting)

ecalkin (468811) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811288)

for a while (mid '80s), hp was starting to feel pressure on refilled toner cartridges and started making statements about refilled and/or third party toners breaking the warranty. i'm not sure that this was ever 'official' hp policy.
however, one day this stopped very suddenly. it turns out that there is federal law that says that if replaceable/consumable parts/materials by third parties will void the warranty, then those parts/materieals have to be provided free under the warranty. apparently, someone called hp on this and they have taken great care to note that the use of this stuff will *not* void the warranty. if it leaks, breaks, etc is a diffenty story.

eric

If you use Inkjets then you need to rethink. (4, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811149)

Honestly InkJets printers have the highest costs per print vs. Laser or Solid Ink. And the cost of these printers have dropped Rapidly.
Samsung Makes a Color Laser Printer for $600 that comes with full cartridges, which covers about 10,000 prints. vs Paying $80 for an Ink Jet and $70 for ink every 500 prints. If you do the math you find you are saving a lot of money in the long run. Also Solid Ink is really good too, just as good if not better then Laser for Cost/Page. (And for those you probably said they heat their old TekSolid ink, Solid ink has improved greatly in the past 5 years and are just as reliable as a good laser printer)

Re:If you use Inkjets then you need to rethink. (0)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811399)

Depends what you use the printer for. I doubt I print 500 pages per year...

Go for *some* brand names (3, Interesting)

benk (93688) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811151)

I remember searching this out extensively when I took on a colour Epson printer from my brother. I don't have links to the sources, but I recall that the nutshell answer was that some manufacturers' prices were better or comperable to the generics, and some were worse.

Apart from factoring in cost of replacing print heads more often, and potential problems with DRM or voiding your warranty if they allege damage was caused by use of non-original ink (which I think in the US is in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, but I don't think is so here in Oz, tho I haven't checked) I recall there were two main factors:

One was capacity of generic cartridges - some have a smaller volume than the original, and hence this has to be factored in against their cheaper cost. Off the bat, this made the generics only marginally cheaper than the original for my printer. (I'm talking new cartridges, not refills).

The other was the quality of the print job. I was looking for a colour printer for photos, and it matters to me that the printouts would last perhaps 1-2 yrs before fading for the generics, versus a much longer (supposed) lifestyle for the Epson ink. Why save a couple of bucks if the photo will fade in its frame?

For me the answer was simple, and the Epson was much better value than the generic stuff. I recall finding material that suggested that it wasn't so clear cut for ink from other manufacturers, in particular HP. But I didn't chase that down.

fwiw, reading other peoples' experiences that it took a number of printouts before the generic ink replaced the original in the printer heads, and to expect smearing and poor quality until then, didn't exactly engender confidence that the inks were of comparable makeup.

Re:Go for *some* brand names (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811312)

fwiw, reading other peoples' experiences that it took a number of printouts before the generic ink replaced the original in the printer heads, and to expect smearing and poor quality until then, didn't exactly engender confidence that the inks were of comparable makeup.
Even on our orginal HP ink it says to run some test copies and to expect some initial smearing.
For most people purchasing refilled cartridges are well worth it, vendors that resell cartridges do a really good job indicating the amount of ink, that is one of thier selling points. Purchase our 40 millliters for $15.00 verses the 19 millliters you get from vendor for $29.95.
Since printing pictures that last a long time, you really should check the 3rd party ink makers, some of them sell special manufactured inks just for this purpose that are suppose to last even longer then the original manufacturers inks. Granted the y charge more then they do for the normal ink but for you that is something you want.

Refill Kits & The Evil Of Chips (2, Informative)

hypnoticstoat (890677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811154)

I used to use refill kits for my old canon bubblejet. I then changed it for an Epson C62 because I needed a colour printer. Lo and behold they'd fitted "smart" cartridges with chips that knew when the where empty and resisted all efforts to refill them. After a quick trip to the shops to buy replacements and finding out that they were £40 for the colour one and £29 for the black one, I said "fck that" and and just went back to the shop where I bought the printer and bought another one as the printer itself (which came with a set of cartridges) was only £60. Fortunatly I've now got a friend who runs a cheap cartridge website who supplies me with a full set for £6. Probably not as good as the official ones but for a differance in price of £63, I dont give a damn.

This whole thing is ****ed up (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811327)

After a quick trip to the shops to buy replacements and finding out that they were £40 for the colour one and £29 for the black one, I said "fck that" and and just went back to the shop where I bought the printer and bought another one as the printer itself (which came with a set of cartridges) was only £60.

You really put one over on The Man there... *cough*

Let's see; you bought a printer with overpriced cartridges. Rather than replace it with one that took more sensibly priced carts, you bought the exact same model again.

Assuming that the carts that came with the printer were full (which I wouldn't assume, because it's often not the case), you're still going to have to shell out £60 every time you want to replace the ink tanks.

If buying a replacement printer to get new ink is cheaper, it only emphasises how overpriced the ink was in the first place. You're only getting £60 "worth" of ink with the new printer because the ink is horrifically expensive.

On the other hand, if you'd bought (e.g.) one of the new Canons, you wouldn't get as much as £60 "worth" of free ink with the printer- because the Canon ink isn't as expensive. You could, however, replace the ink with reasonably priced originals or no-nonsense replacements that don't come with ******* stupid chips. It would work out *way* cheaper in the long run.

Now, before you point out that you eventually got a full set of replacements for £6, that wasn't what I was arguing with. Fact is, your first move (before you found out about the cheap replacements) was to get a new printer, which is symptomatic of the short-termist "logic" of 3/4 of printer-buying consumers (though _they_ usually go for Lexmark because they're "cheapest" *cough*cough*). And when that lot runs out, you're back to square one; horribly expensive in the long, medium, and arguably even short run.

And that's not even considering the level of waste this "solution" produces. I can't believe we're wasting this planet's resources and filling up landfill sites simply to support some ******* stupid printer market that deludes us into buying new printers to "save money". It's not even remotely convenient. What a load of ****.

Damn, I think the expletive-bleeping machine just wore out.

Re:Refill Kits & The Evil Of Chips (1)

mks113 (208282) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811337)

My Epson C42UX cost $69. Both cartridges ran out at once. Cost for new pair of cartridges: $69 (tax included).

Since then printer prices have gone up to discourage people from buying a new printer every time they ran out of ink.

And I snagged a discarded Laserjet IV, replaced the rollers for $20 and no longer think about the cost of ink -- a replacement cartridge for it costs the same a load of ink for the epson.

Refills Kill a Printer (3, Interesting)

duffer_01 (184844) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811171)

I have used refill kits in the past and although they are cheap I find they tend to mess up your printer heads. I have lost two printers in the past to these refills. Now, I just use new cartridges.

Re:Refills Kill a Printer (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811445)

... and the new printer costs just as much as a set of cartridges.

I hand fill my R200, and I save 90% on the price of cartridges. Sure, occasionnally I spill ink all over the printer ... so I go get another one for 109, compared to 15*6 for a full set of cartridges.

It just sucks for the environment, though.

I'll only buy laser printers (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811184)

With the costs of laser printers dropping, I've taken the stand that I'll never buy another inkjet printer. Recently I bought a HP Laserjet 1012, which is not that much bigger than a good inkjet printer and reasonably fast (14 ppm I think). Toner is about $90 for a 2000 page cartridge.

If printing in color is ever really that important, I'll either get a color laser printer or print at work/school/Kinko's/etc.

Re:I'll only buy laser printers (0)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811208)

amen. Someone mod this up please...

you know pricing has gone wonky when... (1)

rc3105-Riley (826296) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811223)

you have NINE lexmark color print/scan/copy/fax units (42xx) because the whole thing (with carts) is cheaper than a new black cart

otoh

gotta love Target's electronic's department. when they clearance they don't fsck around. not crazy 'bout lexmark but a standalone color/fax/copier for $25 is hard to pass up

Re:you know pricing has gone wonky when... (1)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811391)

Aren't the carts supplied with printers normally of smaller capacity?

Re:you know pricing has gone wonky when... (1)

doppleganger871 (303020) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811482)

Yea, usually. But if you're buying a cheapass printer, just buy aftermarket ink or refill the carts that came with it. Obviously you're not looking for stellar output from a $25 device.

Color Laser as good as color inkjet? (1)

StateOfTheUnion (762194) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811232)

I'm seeing a lot of recommendations on this thread pushing color laser printers . . .

However, my understanding has been that color lasers are worse that color injets for photo printing. Additionally, it is my understanding that most pros use inkjets, not lasers to print their photos (Even in the not so large format 13" wide Epson 2100/2200 realm). Is this still true, or has color laser printing taken some siginficant leaps forward in the realm of digital photos?

But will you... (1)

sharpestmarble (875443) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811244)

...get 2/3 the price worth of use out of them.

In short, look at quality vs price. Then use the one that gives you the best ratio.

Do ya know what ink costs? (2, Insightful)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811274)

Not much.

A drum of ink, if memory serves, was around a couple of hundred dollars to synthesize. 55 gallons of purified, strained dye ink.

Now pigmented ink- thats far more expensive. The good ones are nano-milled which add (if memory serves) 300$ per kg to the production cost.

Ink is cheap.

The research, however, is very very expensive.

Buying New Printers Cheaper than Buying New Ink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12811299)

I keep buying new refurb printers from Fry's when I run out of ink.

I get a new printer each time that's more DPI.

Always go for the refurbs. They are the best deal.

If you buy ink replacements, WAYSA?

Depends on the quality of the ink, I guess (2, Interesting)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811302)

I bought a refill kit at Costco as it was the first one I'd found that had Photo Cyan, and Photo Magenta (for 6 color prints)

Aside from the hassle, I couldn't see a noticible difference in the prints after refilling. The _second_ refill however had a color drop out and I was too lazy to troubleshoot it. That's the nice thing about the HP printers - new cart = new print nozzles.

So, I'm pretty happy with at least one refill per cartridge...I also don't really mind the cost of the ink...you either pay now or pay later, I don't see why folks haven't figured that out.

Now, when my Laser Printer finally kicks off (May be soon, I doubt I'll replace the photo drum on a, geeze, 8 year old printer), I may seriously investigate a color Laser printer with an ethernet port on it...I've seen them as low as $350 w/o NIC and $450 with one.

I'd rather pay now (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811428)

you either pay now or pay later

I'd rather pay now. I'm one of those people who likes to buy stuff like printers to keep for ten or fifteen years. The problem with cheap printers and expensive supplies is that people like me end up paying a couple of grand for stupid $200 printer over the course of its lifetime. I would much rather pay a few hundred bucks extra and buy ink that's dirt cheap, something a lot closer to what the actual cost of producing it. In the long run, we'd save a LOT of money.

Another Major Finding: (1)

SoulMaster (717007) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811338)

Most users have no reason to take thier own fingerprints. My ma has a nice set of hers decorating her printer.

Sometimes better. (1)

frostman (302143) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811340)

I have a Canon S300 ink(bubble?)jet printer, and I buy ink cartridges made by Pelikan [pelikanhardcopy.com] , a company that knows a thing or two about ink.

I get *more* ink per cartridge, the black ink is *much* better than what Canon sells, and it costs *half* as much.

If Pelikan makes cartridges you can use, and you don't want to go through the hassle of refilling your own, I highly recommend them.

It's not the cheapest way to go, but hey - half price, more product, better quality. Not bad.

Kill your Inkjet Printer! (1)

jcostom (14735) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811356)

We did.

I got tired of spending $50 to replace ink just because HP couldn't make a cartridge that wouldn't dry up after a few months or would just flat out expire (see previous /. stories if you don't believe...). Besides, now that HP has a $39 inkjet printer - we now live in the age of disposable printers. That's bound to be great for the environment, eh?

We've had a networked laser printer for quite some time, for a long time, an HP LJ 2300M with a Jetdirect card, and more recently an HP LJ 2420d. I moved the JetDirect card to it. The 2300M needed a lot of repairs after it got dropped. :(

The only, and I do mean only thing we ever used the Inkjet for was to print pictures on photo paper. I sold the printer with the remaining ink we had left for $100, sold the Wifi JetDirect box I had for the printer for another $250, and took my wife out for a nice dinner, and still had $200 in my pocket.

Our local CVS does digital prints that look tremendous, and cost a whole $0.29 each. If I don't have the time to mess with preparing the photos to be transported to CVS and all that, I just use iPhoto to order prints. I think next time I'm going to try to use the Kodak Bluetooth machines there in CVS. I'll just xfer the pics I want to print to my phone before I head over.

Quality is Required (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811366)

The quality often wasn't as good as with the name-brand cartdriges.

I've observed this as well. Where I used to work, we had a laser printer that got totally screwed up. We had an independent repair company come out, and they told us that it was because of the refurbished toner catridge we were using. We didn't think it made that much of a difference, so management kept buying them. Well, guess what, the printer screwed up again. By that time, we had switched to a different independent repair company, and they came out and said the same thing. All the while, when the printer did work, it was awful at producing broken letters and such; sometimes the output was nearly unreadable. After that, we only bought manufacturer-branded toner and ink supplies, and we never had any more problems with that printer.

I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that printer manufacturers are the only people capable of producing high-quality toner and ink supplies. And these supplies must be really, really cheap to produce; they make a killing off of selling them. I don't understand why a company doesn't come along that specializes in making super high-quality ink and toner products--even better than printer manufacturer supplies--and selling them for more than the crap refurbished cartridges and kits (to account for the added expense in producing quality) but less than printer manufacturer-branded products (since the production costs are still relatively cheap).

If I could find a company like that, I'd buy from them. Maybe there is one, but all the companies that I know of that sell off-brand supplies are notorious for selling crap that, at best, is inferior and, at worst, will actually screw up your printer.

Consumer Reports found the same thing (3, Informative)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811382)

Consumer Reports did a side-by-side test, as well as simulated UV exposure age tests. They found the same story -- refill ink was OK for drafts, but name brand ink looked and lasted much better.
You get what you pay for, anyone?

Shameless plug (1)

jalet (36114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811416)

To save ink and paper, or recover your printing costs, just install a GPLed Print Quota and Accounting solution [librelogiciel.com] .

Works better for laser printers, but contributions are welcome.

bah (2, Interesting)

chrish (4714) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811461)

I gave up on inkjets and bought a decent but inexpensive laser (Lexmark E232). It cost me less than my first inkjet (an HP Deskjet 500 back in the day), and I've found that I really don't need to print in colour that often.

The E232 is ridiculously fast, too, which is great.

I've still got my inkjet (a crappy Lexmark Z32) on the off chance that I really do need to print colour some day, although I'm more likely to drop a PDF onto a CD and take it to a print shop... it'll be much cheaper than investing in new ink.

cartridge world (1)

Exter-C (310390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811472)

I have used cartridge world in australia, UK and the US and never had any problems with printing out documents or photos. I have recommended them to everyone as Ive been so happy with the end product.

wrong problem (1)

brickballs (839527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12811490)

I donth think the problem is that ink costs so much.
I think the problem is more that the printer manufacturers want to grosly overcharg for the ink.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?