Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Printer choice - laser vs inkjet?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 9:55:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi,

Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
current info.

I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.

Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
a few diagrams etc.
Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
the thing guzzles ink.
I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.

So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
printing with laser vs inkjet?

Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
done on the inkjet.

Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?

Any advice gratefully received.

Thanks, John
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 9:55:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
will not be cost effective.
A Canon IP3000 will do it cheap and FAST, and also produce excellent photos.
If you want an edge for photos, the Canon IP4000 is worth the slightly
higher cost, but the IP5000 is not worth it compared to a IP4000.


"John Fryatt" <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3Az5e.1395$Bw.540@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
> for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
> a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
> the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
> printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
> laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
> aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
> Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
> done on the inkjet.
>
> Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
> years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
> Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
> How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
> Any advice gratefully received.
>
> Thanks, John
>
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 10:21:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If you are satisfied with your Epson for Photos you might want to
consider the HP 1200 series. It is a businesss printer that can print
in full duplex.

If you are not happy with the photos then consider the Canon IP5000. It
is significantly better than the IP4000 for business documents,
marginally inferior in photos and also a little slower than the IP4000
but it will still produce great results. It has twin paper feeds and
prints full duplex. I have an IP4000 and use the bottom cassette feed
for paper and the top auto sheet feeder for photos.

I also have an HP990CSE and use the draft mode for printing out computer
programs. It is a fast draft (not as fast as the Canon) but the draft
quality rivals the standard quality on many printers.

John Fryatt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use
> it for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a
> maybe a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical
> as the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a
> laser printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to
> buy the laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per
> page is the aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
> Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still
> be done on the inkjet.
>
> Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
> years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
> Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
> How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
> Any advice gratefully received.
>
> Thanks, John
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:37:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

John Fryatt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
> for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
> a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
> the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
> printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
> laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
> aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?

Yes. And research locally available models and local supoort first. The
cheapest to buy is _not_ the cheapest to own. I bought an office-class
printer-copier-scanner, and am very happy with it, even though it cost
three times as much as a consumer-class machine. I have a service
contract from the same supplier, based on my experience with a copier
leased from him, and urge you to do so too. In the long run, you'll pay
less.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:22:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ok, thanks. Does your reply mean that you don't think a laser is cost
effective for 200-ish pages/month? Could you say why you think that?

Being a photographer I would want to separate the photo printing from
business printing, so an HP 1200 might make sense.

A Konica-Minolta 1300W costs about the same as an HP 1200, in the UK, so
what makes the HP preferable? Lasers are cheaper to run, are they not?




measekite wrote:
> If you are satisfied with your Epson for Photos you might want to
> consider the HP 1200 series. It is a businesss printer that can print
> in full duplex.
>
> If you are not happy with the photos then consider the Canon IP5000. It
> is significantly better than the IP4000 for business documents,
> marginally inferior in photos and also a little slower than the IP4000
> but it will still produce great results. It has twin paper feeds and
> prints full duplex. I have an IP4000 and use the bottom cassette feed
> for paper and the top auto sheet feeder for photos.
>
> I also have an HP990CSE and use the draft mode for printing out computer
> programs. It is a fast draft (not as fast as the Canon) but the draft
> quality rivals the standard quality on many printers.
>
> John Fryatt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
>> current info.
>>
>> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use
>> it for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>>
>> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a
>> maybe a few diagrams etc.
>> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical
>> as the thing guzzles ink.
>> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
>> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
<snip>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:49:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Dan G wrote:
> For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
> will not be cost effective.

Ok, thanks. Could you say why you think that?
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:51:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Dan G wrote:

>For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
>will not be cost effective.
>A Canon IP3000 will do it cheap and FAST, and also produce excellent photos.
>If you want an edge for photos, the Canon IP4000 is worth the slightly
>higher cost, but the IP5000 is not worth it compared to a IP4000.
>
>

It is only if the emphasis is on business printing. Like I have been
saying; the IP5000 is significantly better for business documents and
marginally inferior when it comes to photos to the IP4000 and is also
somewhat slower.

>
>"John Fryatt" <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:3Az5e.1395$Bw.540@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
>>current info.
>>
>>I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
>>for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>>
>>Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>>volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>>specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
>>a few diagrams etc.
>>Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
>>the thing guzzles ink.
>>I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
>>or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>>
>>So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
>>printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
>>laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
>>aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
>>What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
>>printing with laser vs inkjet?
>>
>>Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
>>done on the inkjet.
>>
>>Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
>>years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
>>Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
>>How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>>
>>Any advice gratefully received.
>>
>>Thanks, John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:51:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Dan G wrote:
>
>> For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
>> will not be cost effective.
>> A Canon IP3000 will do it cheap and FAST, and also produce excellent
>> photos.
>> If you want an edge for photos, the Canon IP4000 is worth the slightly
>> higher cost, but the IP5000 is not worth it compared to a IP4000.
>>
>>
>
> It is only if the emphasis is on business printing. Like I have been
> saying; the IP5000 is significantly better for business documents and
> marginally inferior when it comes to photos to the IP4000 and is also
> somewhat slower.
>

The iP5000 prints Highest Quality/Photo Paper Pro setting at 9600 dpi
vs. the iP4000's 4800. So yes, higher resolution will take longer to
print. Therefore, calling it "slower" is meaningless.

I do believe anything printed at "Standard" would be identical.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:56:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

John Fryatt wrote:

> Ok, thanks. Does your reply mean that you don't think a laser is cost
> effective for 200-ish pages/month? Could you say why you think that?
> Idid not say that but the that small a quantity I would take those
> costs out of the equation and decide on the remainder of the facts.
>
> Being a photographer I would want to separate the photo printing from
> business printing, so an HP 1200 might make sense.
>
> A Konica-Minolta 1300W costs about the same as an HP 1200, in the UK,
> so what makes the HP preferable? Lasers are cheaper to run, are they
> not? I am not sure of the color lasers.
>
>
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> If you are satisfied with your Epson for Photos you might want to
>> consider the HP 1200 series. It is a businesss printer that can
>> print in full duplex.
>>
>> If you are not happy with the photos then consider the Canon IP5000.
>> It is significantly better than the IP4000 for business documents,
>> marginally inferior in photos and also a little slower than the
>> IP4000 but it will still produce great results. It has twin paper
>> feeds and prints full duplex. I have an IP4000 and use the bottom
>> cassette feed for paper and the top auto sheet feeder for photos.
>>
>> I also have an HP990CSE and use the draft mode for printing out
>> computer programs. It is a fast draft (not as fast as the Canon) but
>> the draft quality rivals the standard quality on many printers.
>>
>> John Fryatt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find
>>> any current info.
>>>
>>> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use
>>> it for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>>>
>>> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>>> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>>> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a
>>> maybe a few diagrams etc.
>>> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical
>>> as the thing guzzles ink.
>>> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing
>>> business or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200
>>> pages/month.
>>
> <snip>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 11:53:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

John Fryatt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
> for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
> a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
> the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
> printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
> laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
> aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
> Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
> done on the inkjet.
>
> Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
> years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
> Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
> How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
> Any advice gratefully received.
>
> Thanks, John
>
I have a Canon I850 that satisfys my color printing needs nicely.

I also have a old IBM/Lexmark 4039 Laser printer that I absolutely love.
This printer was given to me, but I bought a spare for about $30.00 on
EBay (I think the shipping was about that much also). I added a
duplexer and envelope feeder, also from EBay. I hooked both printers up
to a D-Link print server so all machines on the network can get to all
the printers.

The Laser printer prints superb text pages, prints them fast and prints
them cheaply. Toner cartridges can be found on EBay so the price per
page is pretty reasonable.

I'd hate to give up either printer, but the laser has found a home here.

John
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:55:11 GMT, John Fryatt <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
>current info.
>
>I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
>for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
>Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
>a few diagrams etc.
>Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
>the thing guzzles ink.
>I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
>or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
>So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
>printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
>laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
>aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
>What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
>printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
>Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
>done on the inkjet.
>
>Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
>years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
>Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
>How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
>Any advice gratefully received.
>
>Thanks, John



The best buy here is the Brother, 30,000 pages out of one Toner, after 2
toners you dump the printers as the Drum cost more then a new printer.

Or go the HP Cannon way but only get some 3000 pages ..

I use a old HP 6L that I picked up for some $27us..
April 10, 2005 3:35:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I agree with how good HP6L is. I bought one new about six years ago,
and used it in business printing over 1000pp per day for three years
before it finally broke, never been able to find anything as good
since!

Following the questions about laser vs inkjet, does anyone have any
suggestions on when colour laser makes sense? I do about 100pp per
week double sided, plus a monthly run of about 500pp double sided,
not at photo quality but maybe 20% coverage. So far this has all
been on inkjets, but I'm starting to think we should get a colour
laser. The only ones that I've seen so far that offer significant
speed are the Xeroxs (24,30 ppm colour) but there solid ink seems
prohibitively expensive.

Any comments, suggestions?
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:38:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Laser printers are definitely the better deal when printing exclusively
B&W. They are faster, the output is permanent and waterproof, the cost
per copy cheaper, because black toner is cheaper and the paper type is
not demanding, there is little startup waste of the toner, as well.

I use a laser printer for almost all my correspondence and all my
internet/ hardcopy/web.

The older models tended to be much more robust and solidly built. I
think if you can score a HP 4 in general you will be happy, fairly
reliable, built well, parts available, and cheap cartridges as rebuilds.


Art

John Fryatt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
> for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
> a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
> the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
> printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
> laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
> aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
> Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
> done on the inkjet.
>
> Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
> years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
> Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
> How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
> Any advice gratefully received.
>
> Thanks, John
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:38:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:

>The older models tended to be much more robust and solidly built. I
>think if you can score a HP 4 in general you will be happy, fairly
>reliable, built well, parts available, and cheap cartridges as rebuilds.

But when you can buy a new Brother laser for $99, longevity and rebuildability
isn't really an issue.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:13:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:
> Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The older models tended to be much more robust and solidly built. I
>>think if you can score a HP 4 in general you will be happy, fairly
>>reliable, built well, parts available, and cheap cartridges as rebuilds.
>
>
> But when you can buy a new Brother laser for $99, longevity and rebuildability
> isn't really an issue.

Someone else has recommended Brother to me. Do you have experience of
their printers? Are they good?
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:10:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi John,

At the risk of sounding a little like a spammer you should consider the
program offered at www.FreePrinters.com.

Since you mention that your volume is growing this might be a great
solution. The program currently uses the Xerox Phaser printers and
will soon add Wide Format Color Laser printers.

You will gain in speed and lower your cost per page considerably. Your
printer cost is zero and you also get free on-site service. You
purchase the supplies monthly at a 35% discount.

Just a thought.

Dennis Walthers
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Free Printer Guy wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> At the risk of sounding a little like a spammer you should consider the
> program offered at www.FreePrinters.com.
>
> Since you mention that your volume is growing this might be a great
> solution. The program currently uses the Xerox Phaser printers and
> will soon add Wide Format Color Laser printers.
>
> You will gain in speed and lower your cost per page considerably. Your
> printer cost is zero and you also get free on-site service. You
> purchase the supplies monthly at a 35% discount.

As I am in Europe it isn't going to work.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 3:38:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Yes it is. It is because older printers often have inexpensive rebuilt
cartridges available or allow for refilling that many newer ones do not.
And much more importantly, I am suggesting a way to REDUCE the load on
the planet, not INCREASE it. By taking a printer that is unwanted or
discarded and using it, getting more "life" from it, that lessens the
demand for raw materials and manufacturing stresses.

Your approach does just the opposite. By purchasing a product low on
longevity and reliability, and replacing it regularly, you are placing a
greater demand on the raw material and manufacturing of more junk that
will ultimately end up back in the environment as waste, after it
already did damage in being created to begin with.

One really does need to look a bit beyond their belly button sometimes
to understand and appreciate the impact different consumer decisions can
have.

Art


Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:

> Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The older models tended to be much more robust and solidly built. I
>>think if you can score a HP 4 in general you will be happy, fairly
>>reliable, built well, parts available, and cheap cartridges as rebuilds.
>
>
> But when you can buy a new Brother laser for $99, longevity and rebuildability
> isn't really an issue.
April 15, 2005 5:21:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

John Fryatt <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:
> > Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The older models tended to be much more robust and solidly built. I
> >>think if you can score a HP 4 in general you will be happy, fairly
> >>reliable, built well, parts available, and cheap cartridges as rebuilds.
> >
> >
> > But when you can buy a new Brother laser for $99, longevity and rebuildability
> > isn't really an issue.
>
> Someone else has recommended Brother to me. Do you have experience of
> their printers? Are they good?

I really don't know what kind of Good/Bad you want to know about the
printer that costs under $100, it prints laser quality, print much faster
than inkjet, and should last through few boxes of 5,000 sheet of papers.

Most laser printer would last an average user a life time (or at least
3-5+ years), and just like inkjet, when it breaks down then they will go
screaming online, swearing will not buy from the same company again <g>
!