Colour lazer??

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

Can someone please give me a bit more info on the
printing quality of a colour lazer printer compared to
inkjet??

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

Yeah, but I think in the long run a laser printer works
out cheaper per print, is it not?


>-----Original Message-----
>Laser printers generally produce better results than an
inkjet printer..
>they are also more expensive to buy and more expensive
to recharge.. modern
>inkjets produce very good stuff, but if you have the
funds to buy and run a
>color laser printer, then do it..
>
>
>"Adriaan" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:fb4e01c43e6f$60c39960$a001280a@phx.gbl...
>> Can someone please give me a bit more info on the
>> printing quality of a colour lazer printer compared to
>> inkjet??
>
>
>.
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

If you want to produce stuff like PowerPoint presentations, color brochures,
newsletters etc, in bulk, then look at a color laser printer. If you want
to print photos go photo inkjet. End of story.
--
Cari
MS-MVP Windows Technologies - Printing/Imaging/Hardware
www.coribright.com

"Adriaan" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:fb4e01c43e6f$60c39960$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> Can someone please give me a bit more info on the
> printing quality of a colour lazer printer compared to
> inkjet??

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

Wislu

Please note that I used the word 'generally' re printing quality.. there was
no mention of photos in the original post, so I didn't pre-empt that photos
would be the main output.. photos are a very small part of the output from
my color inkjet printer.. I also made reference to lasers being expensive to
recharge, that is to say that the toner cartridges are not cheap to replace,
and indeed they are not cheap.. I have no doubt that laser printers are
cheaper per page to run, but when it comes to replacing color toner, a
substantial outlay has to be made.. so what part of my original post was
BALONEY, or is that just a term that you use for the output of others that
you have misread and misunderstood?..


"WIslu Plethora" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:fd5501c43e90$d4f73500$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Laser printers generally produce better results than an
> inkjet printer..
> >they are also more expensive to buy and more expensive to
> recharge.. modern
> >inkjets produce very good stuff, but if you have the
> funds to buy and run a
> >color laser printer, then do it..
> >
>
> Baloney. An inkjet will outperform laser printers costing
> 10 times as much when it comes to photos. Lasers are great
> for text and simple graphics (charts, e.g.). Also, as far
> as being "...more expensive to recharge," also not true.
> The cost-per-page is usually much lower for lasers than it
> is for inkjets, although in general the purchase price of
> laser toner is greater than the price of ink cartridges.
> It's a question of "price" vs. "cost."`

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

"in some applications..." is a generalization in itself


"Wislu Plethora" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:106cd01c43f82$d0fbae70$a001280a@phx.gbl...
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Wislu
> >
> >Please note that I used the word 'generally' re printing
> quality.. there was
> >no mention of photos in the original post, so I didn't
> pre-empt that photos
> >would be the main output.. photos are a very small part
> of the output from
> >my color inkjet printer.. I also made reference to
> lasers being expensive to
> >recharge, that is to say that the toner cartridges are
> not cheap to replace,
> >and indeed they are not cheap.. I have no doubt that
> laser printers are
> >cheaper per page to run, but when it comes to replacing
> color toner, a
> >substantial outlay has to be made.. so what part of my
> original post was
> >BALONEY, or is that just a term that you use for the
> output of others that
> >you have misread and misunderstood?..
> >
>
> The part of it that was baloney was that "generally" color
> laser printers produce higher quality output. Just not
> true. If you had said, "in some applications..." that
> would be different. As a generalization it's just wrong.
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

Pisslu, in your case you're equally a fool whether you speak or not, you
useless parasite. Who cares about your long-winded logic BS anyway?

BTW it's "remain" not "remian" bozo.

"Wislu Plethora" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:10ad101c4401c$f5fa9ac0$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>
> You are a top-posting moron. Permit me to explain. When
> one states that an idea is true "generally," it means that
> it is not true in all cases, but is in most. "In some
> applications" is clearly *not* a generalization, because
> it means that there are *specific* cases where the
> statement is not true (i.e., the statement "Laser printers
> are better than inkjet printers" ). They are in fact *not*
> generally better than inkjet printers, which was *your*
> stupid statement.
>
> Because I'm disinclined to extend a battle of wits with
> an unarmed man, feel free to have the last word. You seem
> to be doing a much better job of arguing against yourself
> anyway. Remember, though: better to remian silent and be
> thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.