Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:32:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Wes Peters <softweyr@xmission.com> To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Printer recommendation Message-ID: <199709170532.XAA01582@obie.softweyr.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970916211857.15834E-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970916214001.306F-100000@Journey2.mat.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.970916211857.15834E-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Fieber writes:
> How sensitive is it to paper quality? I know my 1990 vintage
> DeskJet output looks decent on premium quality paper, but pretty
> poor on anything else. This seems to be one area where lasers
> are more flexible.
All inkjets are fussier about paper quality than lasers. Most quality
paper manufacturers these days make inkjet papers that are reasonably
priced and fare much better than "laser xerography" paper. In the
western US, you can typically find these for $4.50 per ream at office
supply stores, and half that if you buy it by the box. (If you buy
paper by the box, you'll die of old age waiting for your inkjet to
print.)
> Also, after about 6 years, the paper feed mechanism becomes
> notably unreliable. This is something to keep in mind since the
> paper handling mechanism is essentially the same on most every
> member of the deskjet family I've seen. Presumably this is
> something that can be repaired with replacement parts, but I've
> never investigated.
My Epson Stylus 300 is now 3 years old and hasn't started anything like
this yet. The HP DeskJets seem to have much more paper handling
hardware, with the little arms that grip the side of the paper and
such. Simpler seems to me to be better in this case.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709170532.XAA01582>