Now Printer and scanner

[busterb]

Am look for new printer. I’ve had it with HP’s. Last one I got at bigbox is an hp c3100 all-in-one. If you set up to print something from word, then have to change the setting on printer. I have about a week to return.
Looking at this one http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?...5878&An=browse
I don’t print much, and little in color. With my new camera that might change.

Also looking at FB scanners.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1149208602889 and this one.

http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?...5893&An=browse
Any tips?


Thanks bb

[xoxoxoBruce]

I've got a couple of HP flatbeds. The up side is they can scan printed material into editable text which is wonderful. I don't know if any other scanner does that. The downside is the software is huge, bigger than huge, and bundled up with a lot of crap I don't want.
The people grumbling on the web claim there's no stripped down versions of the software like many scanners have, for commercial applications.

I am still using my original printer, an HP895Cse, and was figuring out last week, I've put at least 20,000 sheets of paper through it. That's not a typo.

[Clodfobble]

Sorry to hear the HPs didn't work out for you, buster... I've had the same little 722C since 1996 and it's never failed me.

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by busterb

I don’t print much, and little in color. With my new camera that might change.

Hmmm I guess it depends on how little "little" is. Have you considered a low-end monochrome laser? They'll beat an inkjet on cost per page any day. Also YMMV but I personally found with everybody offering 4x6 prints for 19 cents each, I can't make one at home for that little--by the time you consider the ink, paper, time, redos from screwups, etc., and also the fact that I'm just not convinced consumer inkjet prints are going to last as much as good Fuji or Kodak photo-process prints. So now I don't do hardly any photo printing at home, and if/when I buy another printer I'm not sure I'll bother to get color.

My only advice is take a hard look at your ink costs before buying anything. Epsons have a great rep with photographers, at least the higher end ones do, but Canon makes some very nice ones too.

[mbpark]

You really want a monochrome laser printer. You do. The cost per page is so much less than an inkjet that it's not even comparable. We're running an HP Laserjet at home that has needed toner once. It was $50.

The scanner...I'd recommend a Canon flatbed that's powered by USB. They have excellent build quality, and since they're powered off the USB port, they have one less cable.

You can use the money you'll save on toner on OmniPage Pro 15 and get everything looking right and be able to convert PDFs to editable text at the same time .

Thanks,

Mitch

[WabUfvot5]

B+W laser is only feasible if you print a lot or you print tiny text. If busterb wants to do photos I'd stick with inkjet despite how shoddily and poorly they are made.

[busterb]

I have an old HP 832C that was working when I stored it, will see if I can dust it off. Hate to buy ink and not work.

[Bullitt]

My Dell printer has pretty much sucked at life since I got it.. I would lean towards Canon when this thing finally burns out just because they build quality products and don't make you give blood to pay for em.

[Elspode]

I've worked with HP inkjets almost exclusively both personal and at work for 15 years now, and the malfunction rate is vastly below that of almost every other computer product I've ever used.

[dar512]

I bought a low-end laser printer last year after I read on a website the difference in cost-per-page for laser over inkjet. At the time, they were saying 11-13 cents per page for inkjet as opposed to 2-3 cents per page for laser.

So I've trained wife-of-dar and daughters-of-dar to use the laser unless they really need color.

I got a reconditioned Brother from buy.com for $115.

[BigV]

Two thumbs up for HP as well.

Their stuff works.

However. xoB's observation that the software suffers from... bloat. Yeah, well, understatement is all I can say. And the install routine can be picky. Short answer: install the software first. FIRST. Then cable and power the printer. Much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair will be avoided.

Point of order: You should let your intended use of the printer drive your choices more than any other single factor. And the recent addition of the digicam makes me think that a monochrome laser, while superior in all the respect listed above, would not be suitable for printing pictures. Quality, ok, color, no.

Anyway, it's truetruetrue that you'll pay far more for ink over the life of the printer than you will for everything else combined, including the cost of the printer. That's an important consideration. I'm happy with our HP officejet d145 at home and I refill the ink tanks myself, cause I'm cheap. But the new cartridges are not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Big V, when you refill the cartriges, do you fill them or just put a small amount in? Like the equivalent of what they were suppose to come with.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

You really want a monochrome laser printer. You do. The cost per page is so much less than an inkjet that it's not even comparable. We're running an HP Laserjet at home that has needed toner once. It was $50.

Long ago, we did an estimate of cost for a laser printer. It came to something like 1.x cents per page (plus cost of paper)? Do you have a better (current) number?

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Big V, when you refill the cartriges, do you fill them or just put a small amount in? Like the equivalent of what they were suppose to come with.

The first time I tried refilling my black cartridge, it worked fabulously well. The second time, it was an unmitigated disaster.

I have yet to successfully refill a single color cartridge despite multiple attempts.

[Elspode]

I will also second the utility and cost-effectiveness of our Brother multifunction device. To keep it as cheap as absolutely possible, we refill the toner and use the drum/toner cartridge at least thrice, without noticable deterioration in print quality...FWIW.