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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #70286 > unrolled thread

printer purchases

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  printer purchases Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2025-08-03 03:49 -0400
    Re: printer purchases c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-03 04:10 -0400
      Re: printer purchases Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-08-03 18:51 +0000
      Re: printer purchases Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-08-05 16:57 +1000
        Re: printer purchases Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 09:26 +0100
          Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 10:10 +0100
            Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-06 20:01 +0000
            Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 22:10 +0000
              Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 00:05 +0000
                Re: printer purchases c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-08 22:54 -0400
                  Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 04:27 +0000
                    Re: printer purchases c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-09 01:37 -0400
                      Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:00 +0000
                Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 11:03 +0100
                  Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:12 +0000
                    Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 10:19 +0100
                  Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-10 01:59 +0000
    Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-04 05:36 +0000
      Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-04 09:15 +0200
      Re: printer purchases Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 09:16 +0100
        Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 11:17 +0100
        Re: printer purchases Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2025-08-04 13:58 +0100
          Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 19:03 +0100
        Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-04 19:04 +0000
      Re: printer purchases "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-04 12:40 +0200
        Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 11:50 +0100
          Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-04 15:12 +0200
            Re: printer purchases "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-04 20:27 +0200
              Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-05 08:10 +0200
                Re: printer purchases "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-05 12:26 +0200
                Re: printer purchases Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2025-08-05 05:59 -0600
                  Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-05 15:12 +0200
                    Re: printer purchases "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-06 12:38 +0200
                Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:15 +0000
            Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-04 19:09 +0000
              Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-05 08:10 +0200
                Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:13 +0000
                  Re: printer purchases Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-08-09 03:49 +0000
                    Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 04:36 +0000
                    Re: printer purchases Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 09:12 +0100
                      Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 11:08 +0100
                      Re: printer purchases Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-08-10 03:19 +0000
                        Re: printer purchases Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 09:43 +0100
                          Re: printer purchases Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 09:45 +0100
                  Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-09 11:31 +0200
            Re: printer purchases not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-05 09:15 +1000
              Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-05 08:12 +0200
                Re: printer purchases c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-05 03:48 -0400
                  Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-05 11:23 +0200
                  Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 10:49 +0100
                    Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:19 +0000
                  Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-05 19:29 +0000
                Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 10:42 +0100
                  Re: printer purchases Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-05 15:14 +0200
                    Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 14:54 +0100
                  Re: printer purchases c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-05 19:38 -0400
              Re: printer purchases c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-05 03:45 -0400
                Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 10:54 +0100
                Re: printer purchases not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-06 08:20 +1000
                  Re: printer purchases Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 00:01 +0100
        Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 22:06 +0000
          Re: printer purchases Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:17 +0100
            Re: printer purchases Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:33 +0100
            Re: printer purchases The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 11:00 +0100
              Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:02 +0000
          Re: printer purchases Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 14:04 +0000
            Re: printer purchases rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:15 +0000
            Re: printer purchases Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-10 01:56 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#70660

On 09/08/2025 09:12, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Nowadays we seem to have “driverless” printing, but I’m not sure how
>>> that’s supposed to work? Maybe all the printers have standardized on
>>> accepting PDF files or something ...
>>
>> At least from what I have been able to determine, it means CUPS
>> rasterizes the images on the host and then sends the uncompressed
>> rasterized image to the printer.  Prior to "driverless", CUPs (or the
>> earlier system) would send PS to the printer (if the printer could
>> take PS or PCL).
> 
> https://openprinting.github.io/driverless/01-standards-and-their-pdls/
> 
> The defining characteristic of ‘driverless’ seems to be that there is no
> separately delivered driver, and instead the printer’s properties are
> advertized over the network. All the variants listed support client-side
> rasterization, but they all include PDF as well, so I don’t think
> client-side rasterization is a defining property of it.
> 
>> Around 2000-2003, I could print a page from a web browser, have
>> first page in my hand within a few seconds, and then have the
>> rest of the pages usually as fast as the printer's paper path
>> could shovel the paper.  Now with CUPS driverless, it's somewhere
>> around 15 seconds before I see the first page and another 15-20
>> seconds or so per duplexed pair of pages.  Printing a 30-page
>> credit report can take several minutes rather than one or two.
> 
> 20 seconds to render a single page sounds excessive, unless you’re
> printing something particularly complex. But I think that’s speculation
> at this point. Investigating which driverless variant is in use and
> whether the client is using much CPU during the delay might shed some
> light on it.
> 
AFAIK if your printer talks postcript then you can (for text) send the 
font to it, if the font is available on your system or is embedded in 
the document.
That is a significant speed up.

Fully rastersing a page is not especially efficient.

-- 
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70723

On 2025-08-09, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Nowadays we seem to have “driverless” printing, but I’m not sure how
>>> that’s supposed to work? Maybe all the printers have standardized on
>>> accepting PDF files or something ...
>>
>> At least from what I have been able to determine, it means CUPS
>> rasterizes the images on the host and then sends the uncompressed
>> rasterized image to the printer.  Prior to "driverless", CUPs (or the
>> earlier system) would send PS to the printer (if the printer could
>> take PS or PCL).
>
> https://openprinting.github.io/driverless/01-standards-and-their-pdls/
>
> The defining characteristic of ‘driverless’ seems to be that there is no
> separately delivered driver, and instead the printer’s properties are
> advertized over the network. All the variants listed support client-side
> rasterization, but they all include PDF as well, so I don’t think
> client-side rasterization is a defining property of it.
>
>> Around 2000-2003, I could print a page from a web browser, have
>> first page in my hand within a few seconds, and then have the
>> rest of the pages usually as fast as the printer's paper path
>> could shovel the paper.  Now with CUPS driverless, it's somewhere
>> around 15 seconds before I see the first page and another 15-20
>> seconds or so per duplexed pair of pages.  Printing a 30-page
>> credit report can take several minutes rather than one or two.
>
> 20 seconds to render a single page sounds excessive, unless you’re
> printing something particularly complex. But I think that’s speculation
> at this point. Investigating which driverless variant is in use and
> whether the client is using much CPU during the delay might shed some
> light on it.

Most of what I'm printing is not complex.  I see the delay on
something as simple as a receipt for a payment on a utility
company's website.  The amount of delay does not seem to be
highly dependent on the complexity of the page in question.

I don't know which driverless variant is in use.  In fact, I
didn't know there were different variants.  When I installed
Daedalus, I set up the print queues via the CUPS port 631 web
GUI.

During the ~15 seconds waiting for the page, xload doesn't report
a noticeable jump in CPU use.  The Noctua fans usually ramp up
audibly in response to a few seconds of a single CPU-bound
process (but nothing like for 16 CPU-bound processes), and they
don't ramp up while waiting for a page to print.  The symptoms
seem to indicate that (most of) the delay is sending the
rasterized image over 100Mb/s ethernet to the printer.  In
2000-2003, a representative page might have 50KB of PS/PCL but
more than several MB (or tens/hundreds of MB depending on the
transfer format) of rasterized bits--especially if the printer's
network stack is sluggish.

Come to think of it, I could shed some light by running dstat
while waiting for a page to print.  I'll try to do that if I get
an opportunity.  Thanks for the idea.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70727

Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> https://openprinting.github.io/driverless/01-standards-and-their-pdls/
[...]
>> 20 seconds to render a single page sounds excessive, unless you’re
>> printing something particularly complex. But I think that’s
>> speculation at this point. Investigating which driverless variant is
>> in use and whether the client is using much CPU during the delay
>> might shed some light on it.
>
> Most of what I'm printing is not complex.  I see the delay on
> something as simple as a receipt for a payment on a utility
> company's website.  The amount of delay does not seem to be
> highly dependent on the complexity of the page in question.
>
> I don't know which driverless variant is in use.  In fact, I
> didn't know there were different variants.  When I installed
> Daedalus, I set up the print queues via the CUPS port 631 web
> GUI.

If it wasn’t CUPS I’d suggest trying to figure out what it was using,
but last time I tried to figure out what CUPS was doing internally was
not a happy experience, and I hesitate to recommend you inflict that
upon yourself.

> During the ~15 seconds waiting for the page, xload doesn't report a
> noticeable jump in CPU use.  The Noctua fans usually ramp up audibly
> in response to a few seconds of a single CPU-bound process (but
> nothing like for 16 CPU-bound processes), and they don't ramp up while
> waiting for a page to print.  The symptoms seem to indicate that (most
> of) the delay is sending the rasterized image over 100Mb/s ethernet to
> the printer.  In 2000-2003, a representative page might have 50KB of
> PS/PCL but more than several MB (or tens/hundreds of MB depending on
> the transfer format) of rasterized bits--especially if the printer's
> network stack is sluggish.

Some concrete numbers:

Rendering an A4 text-based PDF to JPEG with pdftoppm takes about
0.1s/page on my i5-10210U. The resulting JPEGs range between 300Kbyte
and 530Kbyte each, i.e. up to a little over 4Mbit. That should take a
fraction of a second per page to cross a 100Mbit/s network. Even with a
shoddy network stack on one endpoint you’d have to really work at it to
make it take 15 seconds.

If I ask for (uncompressed) PPMs instead I get 26Mbyte per page,
i.e. about 2Gbit. 15-20s to cross a 100Mbit/s network wouldn’t be
surprising. Even a gigabit network would need a couple of seconds.

However none of the driverless options listed on the CUPS website list
any formats that I recognize as uncompressed[1], so I think something
has gone quite badly wrong if this is the issue. (They do list JPEG
which is why I chose that.)

Using tcpdump or wireshark to monitor network traffic between client and
printer could give you some sense of whether we’re on the right track
here. If packets are streaming past at speed for 15 seconds then we’re
probably looking at a bad choice of transfer format, if the connection
is mostly idle then we’re looking at something else.

[1] it would be an absolutely bizarre design choice to using an
    uncompressed transfer format.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70728

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Some concrete numbers:
>
> Rendering an A4 text-based PDF to JPEG with pdftoppm takes about
> 0.1s/page on my i5-10210U. The resulting JPEGs range between 300Kbyte

...at 300DPI, to match a common printer resolution...

> and 530Kbyte each, i.e. up to a little over 4Mbit. That should take a
> fraction of a second per page to cross a 100Mbit/s network. Even with a
> shoddy network stack on one endpoint you’d have to really work at it to
> make it take 15 seconds.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70656

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Aug 2025 08:10:45 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> All those printers were postscript capable, only needing a PPD. And
>> those are compatible with Windows. Never had an issue with that.
>
>Nowadays we seem to have “driverless” printing, but I’m not sure how 
>that’s supposed to work? Maybe all the printers have standardized on 
>accepting PDF files or something ...

"Driverless Printing" is somehow related to Apple's AirPrint. As far
as I understand this, the printer uses mdns to announce its presence
and its capabilities, with the capabilities taken from a catalog that
is in the standard. the client is then expected to deliver the content
in one of those formats. I guess that in these days, PDF is the
dominant format.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70346

Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>I find older HP office machines reliable. Others swear by Brother.
>>
>>One thing tough, the chunkier and more solid is is the better. Don't go 
>>too cheap.
> 
> I had a used Lexmark Color 35-pages-a-minute laser from 2014 to 2023.
> Was happy with it until I found out that the toner cartridges (rated
> for 3500 pages, cost about 30 Euros per coloar) were empty after about
> 800 pages. My explanation is that the printer might move lots of toner
> to the waste bottle when turning it on,

I noticed that with my colour Lexmark laser printer, though it never
mattered much since I couldn't convince the Linux drivers to work
with colour printing enabled. While sitting on my to-do list to
revisit driver hell one day, the rollers have gone hard and it
hardly feeds paper now anyway. At least I got it for free so
nothing lost except the cost of a set of new toner carts. It can
still print a few pages in colour connected to a Windows laptop if
I really need that, but I've generally concluded that colour isn't
worth the effort.

The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
average page coverage.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70352

not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>average page coverage.

Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
emptied very quickly.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70355

On 8/5/25 2:12 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>> average page coverage.
> 
> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
> emptied very quickly.

   They ARE out to get you - $$$

   The old razor manufacturers had a vision - sell
   the razor CHEAP ... and then clean up on years
   of selling the BLADES  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70360

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>On 8/5/25 2:12 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>>> average page coverage.
>> 
>> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
>> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
>> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
>> emptied very quickly.
>
>   They ARE out to get you - $$$
>
>   The old razor manufacturers had a vision - sell
>   the razor CHEAP ... and then clean up on years
>   of selling the BLADES  :-)

Kindly read the entire thread before spreading wisdom everybody here
already has.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70367

On 05/08/2025 08:48, c186282 wrote:
> On 8/5/25 2:12 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>>> average page coverage.
>>
>> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
>> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
>> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
>> emptied very quickly.
> 
>    They ARE out to get you - $$$
> 
>    The old razor manufacturers had a vision - sell
>    the razor CHEAP ... and then clean up on years
>    of selling the BLADES  :-)
Or these days, sell the blades with a free handle... And sell em 5 at a 
time, per razor, in a 5 pack

I once talked to two 'entrepreneurs' who explained the profitability 
matrix foir alcopops.
"Its 2p of grain alcohol, 3p of flavouring, 0.5p of CO2 in a aluminium 
can that cost us 5p. The rest we spent on marketing".
It was the same with BodyShop, purveyors of allegedly 'organic' and 
'sustainable' perfumes and soaps etc. The whole organisation was a 
marketing operation. I asked the only guy in the company (it was 
profoundly sexist in a way only a company run by a woman can be)  'where 
are the products made?' and he said 'Oh, there's some shed up North 
somewhere where they cook it all up'.



-- 
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that 
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is 
fully understood.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70639

On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 10:49:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I asked the only guy in the company (it was profoundly sexist in a
> way only a company run by a woman can be) ...

Or at least, you assumed that was a “guy” you were talking to, addicted to 
binary assumptions as you are ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70399

On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 03:48:41 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 8/5/25 2:12 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>>> average page coverage.
>> 
>> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
>> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
>> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
>> emptied very quickly.
> 
>    They ARE out to get you - $$$
> 
>    The old razor manufacturers had a vision - sell the razor CHEAP ...
>    and then clean up on years of selling the BLADES  :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Brownie

It isn't clear who came up with the business model first. Gillette's razor 
came out a couple of years after the Brownie and was a relatively 
expensive purchase. The Brownie came preloaded with film good for 6 shots. 
You sent the whole thing back for processing and a new roll of film. The 
camera was $1, processing was $0.40, and the film was $0.15. 

I had the ubiquitous bakelite Brownie as a kid but Somehow got one of the 
original #2 Brownies from somebody's dusty attic, I forget where. It 
worked but by then the film was an oddity. I also had the developing kit 
with a small canister that you poured the chemicals in that removed the 
need for a darkroom. I don't know if turning a kid loose with a bunch of 
chemicals would trigger a visit by CPS in today's nanny state.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70366

On 05/08/2025 07:12, Marc Haber wrote:
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>> average page coverage.
> 
> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
> emptied very quickly.
> 
> Greetings
> Marc
How strange.  I dint find that at all.

My biggest beef is that a replacement set of CMYK cartridges cost twice 
as much as a new printer, from Hewlett Packard.

What a come down from when they made the greatest spectrum analysers in 
the whole world

That's what happens when you put an MBA bitch in charge of a technology 
company.


-- 
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of 
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    -  John K Galbraith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70378

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 05/08/2025 07:12, Marc Haber wrote:
>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>>> average page coverage.
>> 
>> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
>> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
>> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
>> emptied very quickly.
>> 
>How strange.  I dint find that at all.

I think that depends from the target audience. My Lexmarks were so
big, they use case was probably "turn 'em on in the morning and then
print basically all day, probably not even turning 'em off at night".
That is quite different from the use case of a home printer "turn on,
print a single page, turn off".

I probably didn't make that better by having an automatism in CUPS to
trigger another 30 minutes of power to the printer with every inocming
print job. The big Lexmark was just the wrong printer for my use case.
Took me fifteen years to notice, though.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70385

On 05/08/2025 14:14, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/08/2025 07:12, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>>>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>>>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>>>> average page coverage.
>>>
>>> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
>>> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
>>> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
>>> emptied very quickly.
>>>
>> How strange.  I dint find that at all.
> 
> I think that depends from the target audience. My Lexmarks were so
> big, they use case was probably "turn 'em on in the morning and then
> print basically all day, probably not even turning 'em off at night".
> That is quite different from the use case of a home printer "turn on,
> print a single page, turn off".
> 
> I probably didn't make that better by having an automatism in CUPS to
> trigger another 30 minutes of power to the printer with every inocming
> print job. The big Lexmark was just the wrong printer for my use case.
> Took me fifteen years to notice, though.
> 
> Greetings
> Marc
LOL!
  I have an HP soho printer. it is on 24x7 in sleep mode. Occasionally 
it wakes up to self calibrate or I print a page.

But as time goes by more and more people are able to receive PDFS rather 
than paper &
TBH I often print stuff out as a substitute for a second monitor, but 
that;s a rare use case



-- 
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them, 
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them. 
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s 
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of 
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70412

On 8/5/25 5:42 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/08/2025 07:12, Marc Haber wrote:
>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>>> average page coverage.
>>
>> Thank you, I am familiar with laser printers since the late 1980ies.
>> Most things I print is correspondence and tables with numbers. And I
>> hardly printed anything in color, and still the color cartridges
>> emptied very quickly.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Marc
> How strange.  I dint find that at all.
> 
> My biggest beef is that a replacement set of CMYK cartridges cost twice 
> as much as a new printer, from Hewlett Packard.
> 
> What a come down from when they made the greatest spectrum analysers in 
> the whole world
> 
> That's what happens when you put an MBA bitch in charge of a technology 
> company.

   Most printers have a setting to use only black toner
   for blacks/greys. Otherwise some units mix the colors
   to create a black and then tweak it with black toner.
   Thus your black-n-white page is actually an every-color
   page.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70354

On 8/4/25 7:15 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> I find older HP office machines reliable. Others swear by Brother.
>>>
>>> One thing tough, the chunkier and more solid is is the better. Don't go
>>> too cheap.
>>
>> I had a used Lexmark Color 35-pages-a-minute laser from 2014 to 2023.
>> Was happy with it until I found out that the toner cartridges (rated
>> for 3500 pages, cost about 30 Euros per coloar) were empty after about
>> 800 pages. My explanation is that the printer might move lots of toner
>> to the waste bottle when turning it on,
> 
> I noticed that with my colour Lexmark laser printer, though it never
> mattered much since I couldn't convince the Linux drivers to work
> with colour printing enabled. While sitting on my to-do list to
> revisit driver hell one day, the rollers have gone hard and it
> hardly feeds paper now anyway. At least I got it for free so
> nothing lost except the cost of a set of new toner carts. It can
> still print a few pages in colour connected to a Windows laptop if
> I really need that, but I've generally concluded that colour isn't
> worth the effort.
> 
> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
> average page coverage.

   Do not rec LexMark OR Brother. There's a REASON the
   initial price is kinda low.

   HP, Canon, you're better off there.

   Yea, they WILL try to rip you off on the cartridges.

   Plus, unless you're a fanatic the cartridges will
   last a long time.

   Ink-jet however, a MUCH worse rip-off unless you
   are heavily heavily into high-rez photos. No
   matter what, the damned ink dries/clogs unless
   you're printing MANY pages a day.

   For BEST photos though, find diffusion printer.

   I only need occasional color - and not 1200+ dpi.
   MY 'printer' is a Canon copier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70368

On 05/08/2025 08:45, c186282 wrote:
> On 8/4/25 7:15 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I find older HP office machines reliable. Others swear by Brother.
>>>>
>>>> One thing tough, the chunkier and more solid is is the better. Don't go
>>>> too cheap.
>>>
>>> I had a used Lexmark Color 35-pages-a-minute laser from 2014 to 2023.
>>> Was happy with it until I found out that the toner cartridges (rated
>>> for 3500 pages, cost about 30 Euros per coloar) were empty after about
>>> 800 pages. My explanation is that the printer might move lots of toner
>>> to the waste bottle when turning it on,
>>
>> I noticed that with my colour Lexmark laser printer, though it never
>> mattered much since I couldn't convince the Linux drivers to work
>> with colour printing enabled. While sitting on my to-do list to
>> revisit driver hell one day, the rollers have gone hard and it
>> hardly feeds paper now anyway. At least I got it for free so
>> nothing lost except the cost of a set of new toner carts. It can
>> still print a few pages in colour connected to a Windows laptop if
>> I really need that, but I've generally concluded that colour isn't
>> worth the effort.
>>
>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>> average page coverage.
> 
>    Do not rec LexMark OR Brother. There's a REASON the
>    initial price is kinda low.
> 
>    HP, Canon, you're better off there.
> 
>    Yea, they WILL try to rip you off on the cartridges.
> 
HP will. Printer £160, Set of new HP cartridges £340.


>    Plus, unless you're a fanatic the cartridges will
>    last a long time.
> 
>    Ink-jet however, a MUCH worse rip-off unless you
>    are heavily heavily into high-rez photos. No
>    matter what, the damned ink dries/clogs unless
>    you're printing MANY pages a day.

Yup.

>    For BEST photos though, find diffusion printer.
> 
>    I only need occasional color - and not 1200+ dpi.
>    MY 'printer' is a Canon copier.

If I want high grade photos I take em to the digital photo lab

-- 
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and 
all women"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70406

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 8/4/25 7:15 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>> average page coverage.
> 
>   Do not rec LexMark OR Brother. There's a REASON the
>   initial price is kinda low.
> 
>   HP, Canon, you're better off there.
> 
>   Yea, they WILL try to rip you off on the cartridges.

I never buy the branded carts. The cheapest ones from Ebay work
and last fine (minus an occasional dud which I've been able to get
refunded) and cost less than most branded ink-jet carts. My Brother
mono laser printer has served me well and the carts don't have
chips so it doesn't complain about using the knock-off toner carts
and it's easy to override the mechanical "toner empty" indicator by
forcing the lever back so you can get lots more pages out of them.
I'm not sure if that all applies to their current models though.

Its built-in scanner is also the fastest I've encountered besides
on photocopiers. It doesn't scan photos very well though.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70408

On 2025-08-05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 8/4/25 7:15 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> The other factor with extra toner use is whether your usage matched
>>> the page coverage spec on those "3500 pages". That's usually at 5%
>>> page coverage, which is probably significantly lower than your own
>>> average page coverage.
>> 
>>   Do not rec LexMark OR Brother. There's a REASON the
>>   initial price is kinda low.

Brother seems to be consistently recommended as a suitable choise for
b&w LASER, including in this thread.

>>   HP, Canon, you're better off there.
>>
>>   Yea, they WILL try to rip you off on the cartridges.

In my experience, at least with Inkjet (which is where they rip off
more?), with HP you get... brittle parts.

Paper stops being fed because one or another plastic gear gets worn out
or breaks or something...

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web