XPost: alt.computer, sci.electronics.design
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:51:17 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
"Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> wrote in >news:zavrhjmncnay.po5thp1.pminews@news.aioe.org:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 13:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
<snip>
You guys all claim to be so smart. The entire jet printer/ink >>>cartridge 'industry' is a fucking wallet suck scam.
Yet, even after they have become cheap, you are still using jet >>>printers instead of laser?
You guys ain't all that bright.
That is incorrect, inkjets are way cheaper.
This simply is not true. The printers are a mere couple hundred,
but the refills will get you and their longevity is the killer.
The test compared office printers, with copy/scan possibility. The
Epson is about 10 times cheaper on ink then the lasers on toner, per
ISO page test. I've given the number below, the refills are exactly
what the inkjets make much cheaper. Epson's ink refill is for 6000
pages, plus maintenances kit 30.000 pages. Costs 0,28 ct/page. Xerox
toner refill XXL cartridge is 15.000 pages, drum 30.000 pages. Costs
1,84 ct/page (with one of the smaller cartridges it gets more
expensive). The HP laser in the test (MFP-M148fdw) biggest cartridge
lasts 2800 pages, photodrum 23.000, costs total 3,55 ct/page. If you
claim otherwise, show me the (tested) numbers.
what do you think HP spends more time on? Their laser printer
line or their jet printer line?
Real businesses buy and use laser because it is more reliable more
color accurate and usually quicker on the job too. The colors
remain longer and the cartridges print more pages before requiring >replacement.
Color lasers are much more expensive. More reliable? Where do you get
that from? Details please. And lasers are a poor substitute for
printing color photos compares to inkjet. Laser simply cannot mix the
various colors so good as inkjets, quite apart from the much higher
photo resolution of inkjets.
They are somewhat quicker, in test a 100 page PDF took 5:15 on the
Xerox, and 5:42 on the Epson. The quickest laser was the Kyocera
Ecosys M2135dn in 3:00 minutes, but its photo print quality is
atrocious.
Recently german
magazine c't tested black-white multifunction (which can copy too)
printers for
the office.
(there are multi-function laser printers too)
Of course, these were the ones tested. They were all multifunction
devices.
7 less expensive laserprinters (185 to 410 euro) were
compared with one of the large tank inkjet printers, the Epson
ET-M2140 .
Oh boy! "Large tank" Wow! I am impressed! Does the box also
say "New and Improved!"?
Large tank = 6000 pages, more than 6 of the 7 lasers. Only the
Xerox's expensive XXL cartridge did more. Two other large tank
printers (in another c't test) also did 6000 pages/refill. You should
be impressed, they beat most lasers.
See
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Schwarzweissdruck-fuers->>
Bue
ro- Toner-oder-Tinte-4296937.html for a short announcement (in
German, use DeepL to translate).
The result:
Toner/ink coste per ISO page: Epson 0.28 eurocent, the cheapest
laser (Xerox Workplace 3335W/DW) 1.84 cent. all others 2.8 to 4.1
cents.
That is not the cheapest laser here. And sorry, but they fail to
weigh in time. If I have to publish a report to 200 hundred work
associates, the laser will floor the jet printer on getting the job
done, and yes, time is money, so without factoring that in, the
german magazine's experiment yields false cost numbers.
They tested multifunction devices, which allow copying too. I'm sure
there are cheaper lasers for just printing.
Printing is not much slower in the Epson, it slows a little more
compared to lasers when printing duplex. That the Epson does at 10
(duplex) pages/min, the HP (fastest in this test) at 16. The other
tested printers from 13.5 to 15.8 . The difference is there, but not
big.
Power consumption while printing: Epson 16W, all laser > 400W.
Power consumption in standby: Most around 5-6W, the Xerox 43W , a
Ricoh 34 W.
Power consumption in sleep mode: 1-2 W, exept the Xerox: 8 W.
Emissions: none for the Epson, all for the lasers.
Emissions? Big deal.
Come again? They are a big deal, if an office cares for its
personnel. Laser and laser/based copiers should be in rooms, well
ventilated, separate from where people work.
Idle current? I can leave my laser OFF
untill I need it, and the idle current on HPs are not the same as
their Xerox candidate. Points toward a jet biased article.
The idle current on the tested HP was 3.9 W, slightly less than the
Epson's 4.3 W.
In sleep mode the Epson wins from all 7 lasers.
Yes, you can leave you Xerox off, but then it takes 61 seconds to the
first page. The Epson 14. In the 47 seconds difference the Epson will
have printed 17 pages before the first pages comes out of the Xerox.
And because the Xerox is 4.3 pages/minute faster, it will take very
close to 4 minutes before it catches up. So for >102 pages the Xerox
is quicker. And needs 550 W for this, the Epson 16 W.
Photo print: no contest, the Epson is street lengths ahead.
Sure... five minutes later... different color.
A A4 photo copy on a laser takes 9-21 seconds, on the Epson 44.
Slower yes, but very much better quality.
Epson? Bwuahahahah! It uses half an ink cartridge clearing its
fixed on the printer jet nozzles. I'd go with HP's new jets with
each cartridge model.
Text print: the Canon, Hp and Xerox were very good, other lasers
less so, the Epson was comparable, one laser was worse than the
Epson.
Copy quality: most lasers were better than the Epson for text,
except the Xerox. For photos and graphic the Epson was far ahead.
\
Likely a setting on scan resolution that was overlooked. Many of
them use the same print engine still?
Nothing to do with scan settings. It is a limitation of the print
engine. The laser print engines cannot match resolution and ink drop
mixing of a inkjet.
Speed in pages/minute. normal quality: prettey much the same for
all. Time to first page: Epson fastest, Xerox slowest.
Nice job of using Xerox for the test when HP lasers win.
HP was also tested, when in standby mode the Epson was 1 seond faster
than the HP to the first page. Where do you see that the HP was
faster?
Recommended monthly print volume (the maximum is much higher):
Epson 800, lasers 2 to 5 times that.
Read "That should tell you something about the (false)print speed
claim."
What has print speed to do with recommended print volume? 800
recommended per month is to protect the print engine. If the Epson
printed full speed all month, it would do over 900.000 pages/month.
There are more things to consider, e.g. a laser printout is much
more resistant than most inkjets except Epson, might be an issue
for legal documents, but as far as costs is concerned, there is no
competition: high-volume inkjets are way ahead.
Yeah, those "big tank", large format drafting printers.
Home printers for the consumer market? Hardly.
These were not home printers, but for office use, as I stated in the
beginning of my first reply. Did you actually read that? Large tank
inkjet printers for A4. If you looked up some of the models numbers
I've given, you'd know it.
If color is
desired, Canon's G4511 is also a high-volume inkjet with very low
ink cost/page, but slow (although it copies black/white text pages
faster than the Epson). But it will do a decent color photo.
Sure... for the five minutes it will last... then it becomes a
lesson in slow fade.
You are way behind the times. Epson uses pigment (paint) based inks,
which last very long, even under UV testing. Canon on its consumer
printers uses pigment based ink only for single sided text, the rest
is dye ink.But even that does not fade much on proper paper, but more
than the Epson. I do not know what the black ink on Canon's large
tank A4 multifunction is. 3rd party ink is almost always much worse
in this fading aspect. I have many pages printed with inkjets more
than a decade ago, that are as new, and don't glue together or to the
binder which laser printed pages do.
I'm not saying inkjets are soon replacing lasers, but as far as
cost/page is concerned, there is no competition: inkjets are _much_
cheaper. And I've supported my arguments with verifiable data, which
you have not done, so far.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)