Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #105002

Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/22/17, 1:34 PM, in article op.yy3520ivjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

...
>>> Nope.  Ink is ink.  The quality is all in the print heads.
>> 
>> I use third party ink and the quality varies greatly (which backs your claim
>> of it being the heads... they can be worn or damaged on some) but I suspect
>> there is also a difference in the ink.
> 
> I use printers which have the heads in the printer.  The quality remains
> constant no matter what ink is used.

I have read otherwise... and looking now see this:
  <http://www.pcworld.com/article/147267/ThirdPartyInk.html?page=5>
    -----
    Depending on your printer, you may be able to find cheaper,
    third-party inks that perform as well as or better than the
    brand-name stuff. In our study we found that third-party ink
    cartridges usually cost less and often yielded more prints than
    their manufacturer-made rivals. On the other hand, in most cases, we
    confirmed the printer manufacturers' claims that their own inks
    produce better-looking images.

    Deciding between brand-name and third-party alternatives depends in
    part on how you plan to use your prints. If you want high-quality
    color photos that future generations will be able to enjoy, then OEM
    inks are usually a better choice.

    Many of us, however, don't need the best ink supplies that money can
    buy. If your prints tend to be for one-time-only office
    presentations, text documents for school, or temporary color images
    (such as plain-paper photos), inks from third-party supplies may be
    a reasonable cost-saving option. And over the lifetime of your
    printer, cost savings from buying third-party inks can be
    considerable.  
    -----

That fits with what I have seen... but these are on printers with the heads
that get replaced.

... 
>>> In my experience, HP printers are absolutely terrible, constantly producing
>>> stripy images and needing cleaned several times.
>> 
>> Which ones would you suggest. I used to use Epson and they had higher
>> quality but died far faster. Ended up buying a bunch for a school and half
>> were dead by the end of the year (they did get high usage). Went the next
>> year with HP and had one die and the rest lasted for several years.
>> 
>> This was nearly a decade ago so things might have changed.
> 
> I use Epson and Brother.  Never found them to wear out any quicker than other
> makes.  They make cheap simple good quality printers, with the heads inside
> the machine. 

Going back into the 1990s I had problems with Epsons and gave up on them but
of course things can change. And it could have just been a run of bad luck
or, perhaps, Epsons do not handle something in the environment here (desert
so dusty).

> I'm currently using an Epson which I retrofitted with ink tanks
> on the desk to the side of it.  It seems stupid to me to pay 90% of my money
> for the tiny plastic box with only a few (well 13) ml of ink in it.

Would love to see how they did that.

>>> And their drivers are buggy.  I've actually seen a computer hang completely
>>> because an HP driver was looking for a printer which was not currently
>>> connected to the network.
>> 
>> I had a dying switch (just replaced yesterday) so my printer was often not
>> found. Never had an issue with any system hanging from it.
> 
> Not every HP printer seems to do it.  The last time I remember it fucking up
> was an HP laser on an office network with about 500 Windows computers.

I have Macs only... though one runs Linux. I do use Windows but in a VM and
the print driver merely sends info to the Mac drivers. Mine is also not a
laser.

It has has issues with not being found on the network but I think that was
from the dying switch. I shall find out soon enough if it keeps doing that.
Did have issues when it was wireless.

>>>> that's actually a big *advantage* of hp printers.
>>> 
>>> It isn't, because the quality of the head on a throwaway cartridge will be
>>> much much lower than one that comes with the printer and is designed to last
>>> the life of it.
>> 
>> Seems reasonable. For my needs inexpensive and easy take precedence over
>> high quality printing. HP has served me well with that EXCEPT when I have
>> lousy refilled cartridges.
> 
> HP cartridges, even refilled, are expensive.  If you want cheap, you should
> get an Epson or Brother where you just buy ink cartridges without heads. Or
> even better a continuous ink system like mine.  The continuous ink system
> should have been £25, but I bought a "possibly faulty, old new stock" one for
> £7.  All I had to do was replace the battery and clean the contacts.  It came
> with £5 of ink in it, so I would only have lost £2 if I couldn't get it to
> work.

I will look into it. Have worked with Brother but not much... and even Epson
has been some time. That is in the places I run... have seen clients with
those and more many times but not used them enough to have any real opinion.

>>> If you buy genuine HP ink in cartridges with heads on each time, maybe.  But
>>> you can't get cheap toner.
>>> 
>>> I used to work in a place where the management said that a colour inkjet
>>> cost 14p a page, and a colour laser photocopier/printer cost 6p a page.  I
>>> did my own calculations and came to the conclusion it was 1p a page for the
>>> inkjet, not 14p.  I found out that Xerox (the company selling us the
>>> photocopiers) were the ones that did the research, and deliberately found
>>> the most expensive inkjets you could use.  Our management weren't the
>>> sharpest knives in the drawer.  Needless to say I ignored their requirements
>>> for purchasing and bought whatever the hell I liked.
>> 
>> I did similar checking for the printers at schools
> 
> It was also a school I worked in at the time.
> 
>> and found the cost estimates the manufactures and reviews used were VERY
>> different than what we had in reality. Maybe they mean for pages where the
>> whole page is covered with ink?
> 
> More likely they were lying.  I based it on what was normally printed, a
> mixture of text with some diagrams and photos.  Even in the Art department
> where the whole page was used, it was still cheaper than a photocopier.  Toner
> is damn expensive.

We had a photocopier that was also a printer... and the cost was reasonably
inexpensive. It had ONLY Windows drivers that came with it, though. If you
wanted Mac drivers they had them but wanted to charge an arm and leg. It was
insane. Set up a print queue on a Windows machine and set up the Macs so
they could use PDF Services to connect to and send a PDF to a queue on that
system. Worked reasonably well AND I got to keep copies and see what the
students were printing.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 18:40 +0100
  Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-22 14:10 -0500
    Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 20:23 +0100
  Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 13:22 -0700
    Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 21:34 +0100
      Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:23 -0700
    Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-22 18:33 -0400
      Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:46 -0700
  Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-22 18:33 -0400

csiph-web