Printer choice - laser vs inkjet?

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
18 answers Last reply
More about printer choice laser inkjet
  1. 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
    >
  2. 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
    >
  3. 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.
  4. 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>
  5. 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?
  6. 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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  7. 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
  8. 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>
  9. 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
  10. 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..
  11. 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?
  12. 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
    >
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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>
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Inkjet Peripherals