Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lexmark any good?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:16:09 AM

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

I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
£35 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
: )
Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
Printing: very dismal.
If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
(Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
go for it.)
This was going a few years now.
Have they improved??

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks.


OM

More about : lexmark good

July 28, 2005 4:02:21 PM

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

> I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers. £35 for an all in one printer.

As a scanner... they are passable... in fact I prefer the lexmark
software to Canon by far. While they don't have a faxmodem on board
the software fully supports the PC fax modem and with just a few clicks
you can either send a document to a fax modem or to e-mail. Not all
scanners support this out of the box, hell my Canon mp760 I have to
scan to a PDF then print from Acrobat reader to microsoft Fax driver.
I see them used everywhere by the grandparent crowd as they are the
free Dell printer and photos get e-mailed to friends and family round
the world by people who have had only a few months of PC experence.
The voice warnings are damn helpful.

The drivers on many are rather tweeky... esp when it comes to
uninstalling or co-existing with other printers.

As a printer... forget it. In the states the cost of the ink is about
1/3 the price of gold or somewhere between £5000- £7000/gal.
Quality is soso even on photo paper, and really cheap dell printers
will NOT print on an entire pack of paper. Some of their higher end
multi-fuctional units are not too bad on cost per page and actually
have a reasonable cart volume and decent yield. But if you're talking
their sub £50 class of printers like the Lexmark X2250... we're
talking £19.85 (cartridgemonkey.com) for the black which is 16ml 410p
yield IIRC. and £21.85 for a 10ml*3/275p yeild color cart.

Something like the Canon IP3000/4000/5000 for example will run you
£10.00ish for a higher volume higher yield black. Colours are £11ish
each 50% more volume but i'm not sure on the yields.

Something like the HP deskjet 950x will run you £18.95 for a huge #45
42ml 833+page yield black.... and £33.95 for 38ml/450p color. not
sure about the current photosmart series.

But the point is this... cheap lexmarks cost more to print than other
printers.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:10:29 PM

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

OM,

As an previous owner of a Lexmark 1100 Jet Printer and a current owner of a Lexmark X73 All-in-One. I would not recommend that you purchase a Lexmark product, This includes a Dell rebadged Lexmark unit. I believe these are Dell's 7XX series.

My personal objection to my purchase of this particular brand is the cost of replacement ink cartridges. You said that you have found an all-in-one for £35.00 (approx. $61.52USD). If your unit contains two (2) cartridges, the cost for a replacement set of them will be approximately £34.13-£45.51 ($60.00-$80.00USD) plus tax and VAT charges. So the cost of replacement of the ink carts, is the equivalent to purchasing a new printer. Which is the reason that my all-in-one has been is only being used as a scanner. I have purchased a Canon jet printer for my printing jobs, because of the cost of replacement cartridges.

Now there are bulk ink refill kits for Lexmark, and seemed to be reasonably priced. I just have not been able to use them myself. It might be simply that I let the cartridge dry out, and the form inside won't properly absorb the new ink, to work right. Or I overfilled the color carts, causing cross contamination. But many others have been successful. But my understanding is that even with the best bulk ink, the cartridges themselves will wear out in time, so you will still have to buy the replacement carts, every once in a while.

If you are considering purchasing an all-in-one printer, and have a home/small business network, make sure that you get one that is capable of being used on a network. I know that Brother has some, that will work on a network. If not, you might need to purchase additional hardware, such as a print server.


--

Rich/rerat

(RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1122542169.483662.152980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
£35 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
: )
Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
Printing: very dismal.
If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
(Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
go for it.)
This was going a few years now.
Have they improved??

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks.


OM
Related resources
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 7:47:17 PM

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

THERE IS NO BIGGER PIECE OF TRASHY GARBAGE THEN THE UNRELIABLE LEXMARK
INKJETS. THEY ARE NOT EVEN NEAR THE SAME CLASS AS THE WORST INKJET
AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET TODAY.

OM wrote:

>I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
>£35 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
>: )
>Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
>Printing: very dismal.
>If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
>print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
>(Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
>go for it.)
>This was going a few years now.
>Have they improved??
>
>Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>OM
>
>
>
July 29, 2005 2:15:40 AM

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

> That's why I've never bought an Epson, despite some
> loving the monsters--you guys convinced me there had to be something less
> trouble-prone.

I have to admit... I believe the lexmark while very spendy per page...
seems to operate longer than at least the epson r200 and the r320.
Which makes me sad as I loved the output of the Epson, but it's gotta
be bad when you find them under a year old in 2nd hand stores..the c68
more than the r200/r320.

But your statement is correct, the cheepo cheepo Canon ip1500 / ip2000
which uses a 9.5ml black and I don't know what color costs more per
page to operate than the ip3000/ip4000. But I rather considered the
ip3000 to be the cheap printer as it was on sale in various places for
about $65... but this has since changed. The last time I worked it out
it was still cheaper to operate than the Lexmark X2250.
July 29, 2005 3:03:06 AM

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

Cheap and cheerful, at this price your are not getting an Epson R1800, what
else can one say.

"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122542169.483662.152980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
£35 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
: )
Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
Printing: very dismal.
If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
(Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
go for it.)
This was going a few years now.
Have they improved??

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks.


OM
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 3:35:23 AM

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

On 28 Jul 2005 02:16:09 -0700, "OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
>£35 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
>: )
>Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
>Printing: very dismal.
>If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
>print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
>(Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
>go for it.)
>This was going a few years now.
>Have they improved??
>
No.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 3:51:32 AM

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

RRR_News wrote:

>OM,
>
>As an previous owner of a Lexmark 1100 Jet Printer and a current owner of a Lexmark X73 All-in-One. I would not recommend that you purchase a Lexmark product, This includes a Dell rebadged Lexmark unit. I believe these are Dell's 7XX series.
>
>My personal objection to my purchase of this particular brand is the cost of replacement ink cartridges. You said that you have found an all-in-one for £35.00 (approx. $61.52USD). If your unit contains two (2) cartridges, the cost for a replacement set of them will be approximately £34.13-£45.51 ($60.00-$80.00USD) plus tax and VAT charges. So the cost of replacement of the ink carts, is the equivalent to purchasing a new printer. Which is the reason that my all-in-one has been is only being used as a scanner. I have purchased a Canon jet printer for my printing jobs, because of the cost of replacement cartridges.
>
>

JUST LIKE I SAID. A GREAT BIG GIGANTIC MESSY PAIN IN THE ASS.

>Now there are bulk ink refill kits for Lexmark, and seemed to be reasonably priced. I just have not been able to use them myself. It might be simply that I let the cartridge dry out, and the form inside won't properly absorb the new ink, to work right. Or I overfilled the color carts, causing cross contamination. But many others have been successful. But my understanding is that even with the best bulk ink, the cartridges themselves will wear out in time, so you will still have to buy the replacement carts, every once in a while.
>
>If you are considering purchasing an all-in-one printer, and have a home/small business network, make sure that you get one that is capable of being used on a network. I know that Brother has some, that will work on a network. If not, you might need to purchase additional hardware, such as a print server.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:33:00 AM

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

In article <8ceGe.2030$kk6.535@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
inkystinky@oem.com (measekite the troll) wrote:

Nothing worth reading, as usual.

Jon.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 8:55:47 AM

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

"OM" (om.newsgroup@gmail.com) writes:
> I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
> =A335 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
> : )
> Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
> Printing: very dismal.
> If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
> print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
> (Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
> go for it.)
> This was going a few years now.
> Have they improved??
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> OM
>


Funny you should write at all since you have decided against the brand.
My prints have been good, not outstanding, but I don't usually use photo
paper. I have working Z52 and Z65 models, so the older ones hold up, and
construction quality of newer ones I've looked at in stores seem no worse.
Ink carts remain expensive unless you watch for a sale at Target, in which
case they are about the same as most three-color ones. I'm interested in
Canon because of being able to replace individual colors, but you'll note
that there have been lots more Caono complaints lately and nary a Lexmark
aside from the knee-jerk nay-sayers. A salesman told me that "Canon has
started to get better again" so I'de guess they've had their share of
junkers, as does any line it seems.

Really, there is less junk on the market than in a long time, because it
is so competative and boards like these will hoot anything really bad to
death.

Brendan

--
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 9:03:53 AM

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

"zakezuke" (zakezuke_us@yahoo.com) writes:
[snip]
>
> But the point is this... cheap lexmarks cost more to print than other
> printers.
>

The point is, don't consider a cheap anything, which is designed to sell
you small, underfilled ink carts. I was looking at the new Samsung
ML-2010 before I bought a second ML-1740 (both mono lasers). A talk with
Samsung turned up the that former is designed to be sold as part of
computer bundles and a look at the specs confirmes it going to be more
expesive to run than the latter: 2/3 smaller monthly duty cycle and each
cart putting out less total pages. They are playing a game with us and
the only way to win is to be patient for a sale on mid-or top-level
printers. The best bet is to buy the brand of your choice just as it is
being replaced, when they give good markdowns and all the nasty comments
here have digested. That's why I've never bought an Epson, despite some
loving the monsters--you guys convinced me there had to be something less
trouble-prone.

Brendan


--
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:45:25 PM

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

Brendan R. Wehrung wrote:

>"OM" (om.newsgroup@gmail.com) writes:
>
>
>>I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
>>=A335 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
>>: )
>>Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
>>Printing: very dismal.
>>If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
>>print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
>>(Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
>>go for it.)
>>This was going a few years now.
>>Have they improved??
>>
>>Any feedback would be appreciated.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>OM
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Funny you should write at all since you have decided against the brand.
>My prints have been good, not outstanding, but I don't usually use photo
>paper.
>

THAT FIGURES YOU ARE A LEXMARK USER

>I have working Z52 and Z65 models, so the older ones hold up, and
>construction quality of newer ones I've looked at in stores seem no worse.
>Ink carts remain expensive unless you watch for a sale at Target, in which
>case they are about the same as most three-color ones. I'm interested in
>Canon because of being able to replace individual colors, but you'll note
>that there have been lots more Caono complaints lately and nary a Lexmark
>aside from the knee-jerk nay-sayers. A salesman told me that "Canon has
>started to get better again" so I'de guess they've had their share of
>junkers, as does any line it seems.
>
>Really, there is less junk on the market than in a long time, because it
>is so competative and boards like these will hoot anything really bad to
>death.
>
>Brendan
>
>--
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 9:05:56 AM

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

measekite (inkystinky@oem.com) writes:
> Brendan R. Wehrung wrote:
>
>>"OM" (om.newsgroup@gmail.com) writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'd like a few comments about Lexmark printers.
>>>=A335 for an all in one printer. Yikes, I'll go and buy 500 of them.
>>>: )
>>>Erm... hold on... I have bad memories of Lexmark.
>>>Printing: very dismal.
>>>If you're patient though and are willing to wait 5 hours between each
>>>print to allow for drying... then it's OK.
>>>(Also... printing at best quality, if you've got 20 hours... then fine,
>>>go for it.)
>>>This was going a few years now.
>>>Have they improved??
>>>
>>>Any feedback would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>OM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Funny you should write at all since you have decided against the brand.
>>My prints have been good, not outstanding, but I don't usually use photo
>>paper.
>>
>
> THAT FIGURES YOU ARE A LEXMARK USER

Ah, I see you are drivelling again. Would you like me to wipe your chin?

Brendan


>
>>I have working Z52 and Z65 models, so the older ones hold up, and
>>construction quality of newer ones I've looked at in stores seem no worse.
>>Ink carts remain expensive unless you watch for a sale at Target, in which
>>case they are about the same as most three-color ones. I'm interested in
>>Canon because of being able to replace individual colors, but you'll note
>>that there have been lots more Caono complaints lately and nary a Lexmark
>>aside from the knee-jerk nay-sayers. A salesman told me that "Canon has
>>started to get better again" so I'de guess they've had their share of
>>junkers, as does any line it seems.
>>
>>Really, there is less junk on the market than in a long time, because it
>>is so competative and boards like these will hoot anything really bad to
>>death.
>>
>>Brendan
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
August 5, 2005 5:58:11 AM

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

> Are you sure you don't have the only Epson iP4000 ever made?

The CD tray I stick in my IP3000 is made by epson. Does that count :p 
!