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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70331 > unrolled thread

Re: Printer needed

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Re: Printer needed DaveC <invalid@invalid.net> - 2015-02-28 14:41 -0800
    Re: Printer needed Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-28 23:05 +0000
      Re: Printer needed Fester Bestertester <fbt@fbt.net> - 2015-02-28 21:50 -0800
        Re: Printer needed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-01 12:22 +0000
          Re: Printer needed dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-02 09:22 +1300
            Re: Printer needed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-01 20:29 +0000
            Re: Printer needed Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-01 23:36 +0000
      Re: Printer needed Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-02 15:09 -0500
        Re: Printer needed DaveC <invalid@invalid.net> - 2015-03-04 22:45 -0800
          Re: Printer needed Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-05 12:16 -0500
            Re: Printer needed DaveC <invalid@invalid.net> - 2015-03-05 11:45 -0800
              Re: Printer needed Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-06 13:39 +1300
                Re: Printer needed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-06 01:16 +0000
                Re: Printer needed Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-06 18:16 +1300
                  Re: Printer needed "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-03-07 22:38 +0000
                  Re: Printer needed Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-03-07 18:01 -0500
                Re: Printer needed Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-06 11:36 -0500
                  Re: Printer needed Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-07 09:53 +1300
    Re: Printer needed Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-03-01 07:57 -0500
      Re: Printer needed jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-02 04:01 +1300
        Re: Printer needed sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-03-01 18:09 +0000
    Re: Printer needed Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-03-02 20:12 -0800
    Re: Printer needed David Fritzinger <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-03 08:37 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#70331 — Re: Printer needed

>> Need advice!!
>> 
>> Need an inexpensive laser printer that can do the occasional large job -- 
>> couple hundred pages within a few hours -- without being overwhelmed or 
>> worse. Suggestions??
>> mitchell


> look at Brother laser printers‹I have one from 2006 which was recommended on 
> this site and is still chugging away after 70,000 copies‹Hank


for mac users it is important to give some thought to driver availability. hp 
has some history of discontinuing drivers after the OS has been updated a few 
times. in my experience brother has released new drivers for old models 
regularly for new OS revisions when hp¹s solution was ³buy a new printer². 

dave

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70332

Okay, so one time? In band camp? DaveC <invalid@invalid.net> was all, like:
>>> Need advice!!
>>> 
>>> Need an inexpensive laser printer that can do the occasional large job -- 
>>> couple hundred pages within a few hours -- without being overwhelmed or 
>>> worse. Suggestions??
>>> mitchell


>> look at Brother laser printers‹I have one from 2006 which was recommended on 
>> this site and is still chugging away after 70,000 copies‹Hank


> for mac users it is important to give some thought to driver availability. hp 
> has some history of discontinuing drivers after the OS has been updated a few 
> times. in my experience brother has released new drivers for old models 
> regularly for new OS revisions when hp¹s solution was ³buy a new printer². 

I've been very happy with Brother printers and their support and their
drivers. Brother is the brand I recommend to everyone over HP or Epson,
neither of which I've been much impressed with.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
(?i)\b((?:https?://|www\d{0,3}[.]|[a-z0-9.\-]+[.][a-z]{2,4}/)(?:[^\s()<>]+|\(([^\s()<>]+|(\([^\s()<>]+\)))*\))+(?:\(([^\s()<>]+|(\([^\s()<>]+\)))*\)|[^\s`!()\[\]{};:'".,<>?«»“”‘’]))

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

#70339

> http://2blog.kreme.com
> 
(?i)\b((?:https?://|www\d{0,3}[.]|[a-z0-9.\-]+[.][a-
z]{2,4}/)(?:[^\s()<>]+|\((
> 
[^\s()<>]+|(\([^\s()<>]+\)))*\))+(?:\(([^\s()<>]+|(\([^\s()<>]+\)))*\)|[^\s`!(

> )\[\]{};:'".,<>?«»“”‘’]))

waaa?

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

#70340

On 2015-03-01, Fester Bestertester <fbt@fbt.net> wrote:

[blog spam deleted]

Couldn't resist, eh? Try more self control next time.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#70354

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-01, Fester Bestertester <fbt@fbt.net> wrote:
> 
> [blog spam deleted]
> 
> Couldn't resist, eh? Try more self control next time.

It wasn't blog spam. It was a quote from Lewis's signature in the
previous post, presumably expression confusion about the regular
expression. From a random sample, it looks like Lewis's signature
recently has been random quotes from that web site.
-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#70355

On 2015-03-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-03-01, Fester Bestertester <fbt@fbt.net> wrote:
>> 
>> [blog spam deleted]
>> 
>> Couldn't resist, eh? Try more self control next time.
>
> It wasn't blog spam. It was a quote from Lewis's signature in the
> previous post, presumably expression confusion about the regular
> expression. From a random sample, it looks like Lewis's signature
> recently has been random quotes from that web site.

Ah, okay. Thanks. I don't often pay much attention to signatures and
missed that. So I take it back then. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#70359

Okay, so one time? In band camp? David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> was all, like:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> On 2015-03-01, Fester Bestertester <fbt@fbt.net> wrote:
>> 
>> [blog spam deleted]
>> 
>> Couldn't resist, eh? Try more self control next time.

> It wasn't blog spam. It was a quote from Lewis's signature in the
> previous post, presumably expression confusion about the regular
> expression. From a random sample, it looks like Lewis's signature
> recently has been random quotes from that web site.

The signature includes the link to my blog and then a random signature
from my sigfile that I've been using and updating for years. That
particular signature was a regex for matching URLs.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
Take my hand and I'll show you what was and will be.

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

#70384

On 2/28/15 6:05 p, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? DaveC <invalid@invalid.net> was all, like:
>>>> Need advice!!
>>>>
>>>> Need an inexpensive laser printer that can do the occasional large job --
>>>> couple hundred pages within a few hours -- without being overwhelmed or
>>>> worse. Suggestions??
>>>> mitchell
>
>>> look at Brother laser printers‹I have one from 2006 which was recommended on
>>> this site and is still chugging away after 70,000 copies‹Hank
>
>> for mac users it is important to give some thought to driver availability. hp
>> has some history of discontinuing drivers after the OS has been updated a few
>> times. in my experience brother has released new drivers for old models
>> regularly for new OS revisions when hp¹s solution was ³buy a new printer².
>
> I've been very happy with Brother printers and their support and their
> drivers. Brother is the brand I recommend to everyone over HP or Epson,
> neither of which I've been much impressed with.

Well, I'd like to be pleased with Brother printers, but I recommended a 
HL-4070CDW a few years ago to a friend as a replacement for an aging HP 
4500 because the new HPs are not supposed to be nearly as good as the 
old ones were.

We have _never_ been able to get the Brother to reproduce the color on 
the paper as it is on the screen. This is a real PITA for proofing. Yet, 
the HP, ancient as it is, still produces nearly perfect renditions of 
the screen. We've taken the HP apart several times to clean and rehab 
the rollers and feed mechanisms to keep it going because the proofing is 
essential to the workflow.

Both are PostScript printers. I tried fooling with color profiles with 
the Brother, but none of my amateur efforts worked. It's like the 
printer needs to be 'calibrated' the way you would with a monitor or 
scanner, but I don't know how to do that. I looked at Brother's website 
but found no help. There were instructions for boosting/reducing the 
output of each of the toner cartridges, but that resulted in very crude 
changes in color at best. Anyone have any suggestions? TIA

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

#70490

.
> We have _never_ been able to get the Brother to reproduce the color on 
> the paper as it is on the screen. This is a real PITA for proofing. Yet, 
> the HP, ancient as it is, still produces nearly perfect renditions of 
> the screen. We've taken the HP apart several times to clean and rehab 
> the rollers and feed mechanisms to keep it going because the proofing is 
> essential to the workflow.

Don't blame the Brother. Color calibration is what you need, and it just 
happened that the HP's colors were--accidentally--closest to the colors of 
your friend's display. It could easily have been the other way 'round. 

Displays, printers, scanners, cameras: they all have their own rendition of 
"blue", "red", and "green"'; none is absolutely spot-on to the "official" 
Pantone-like standards. Calibrating each of these devices to standards is 
mandatory if you're in the business of reproducing critical colors. 

Here's a guide that lays it all out for you:

http://www.xrite.com/documents/literature/en/L11-176_Guide_to_CM_en.pdf

There are other equally good descriptions, just search. 

Of course you're using paper and ink from the same manufacturer as the 
printer, yes? They don't guarantee any accuracy at all if these variables are 
changed. Most users they won't be very picky about color accuracy, but if 
it's important to you stick with the same brand paper & ink. 

Good luck. 

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

#70525

On 3/5/15 1:45 a, DaveC wrote:
> .
>> We have _never_ been able to get the Brother to reproduce the color on
>> the paper as it is on the screen. This is a real PITA for proofing. Yet,
>> the HP, ancient as it is, still produces nearly perfect renditions of
>> the screen. We've taken the HP apart several times to clean and rehab
>> the rollers and feed mechanisms to keep it going because the proofing is
>> essential to the workflow.
>
> Don't blame the Brother. Color calibration is what you need, and it just
> happened that the HP's colors were--accidentally--closest to the colors of
> your friend's display. It could easily have been the other way 'round.
>
> Displays, printers, scanners, cameras: they all have their own rendition of
> "blue", "red", and "green"'; none is absolutely spot-on to the "official"
> Pantone-like standards. Calibrating each of these devices to standards is
> mandatory if you're in the business of reproducing critical colors.
>
> Here's a guide that lays it all out for you:
>
> http://www.xrite.com/documents/literature/en/L11-176_Guide_to_CM_en.pdf
>
> There are other equally good descriptions, just search.
>
> Of course you're using paper and ink from the same manufacturer as the
> printer, yes? They don't guarantee any accuracy at all if these variables are
> changed. Most users they won't be very picky about color accuracy, but if
> it's important to you stick with the same brand paper & ink.
>
> Good luck.

Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long 
time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the 
relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.

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

#70546

> Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long 
> time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the 
> relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.

One part of the calibration process is of course calibrating the monitor. 
This requires a piece of additional hardware, a small camera, or "eye". You 
stick it to the face of the display and it reads the colors put up on the 
display by the calibration software. 

One process:

http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=2

There are others.

Good luck.

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

#70555

In article
<0001HW.D11DF24C05C05970B01029BF@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
<invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long 
> > time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the 
> > relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.
> 
> One part of the calibration process is of course calibrating the monitor. 
> This requires a piece of additional hardware, a small camera, or "eye". You 
> stick it to the face of the display and it reads the colors put up on the 
> display by the calibration software. 
> 
> One process:
> 
> http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=2
> 
> There are others.
> 
> Good luck.

I haven't checked recent version, but Apple used to include a utility
to calibrate the display ... although it relied on your own eyes, so
was 100% accurate.

Colour issues can also be caused by whatever software your using. For
example, my ancient version of Acrobat (or could be Preview) doesn't
seem to understand CYMK colours in PDFs properly. Whenever you try to
save the PDF pages as images, it uses horrible RGB-ised versions
instead (they display fine, so the workaround is to take screen grabs).

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

#70556

On 2015-03-06, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article
><0001HW.D11DF24C05C05970B01029BF@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
><invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long 
>> > time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the 
>> > relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.
>> 
>> One part of the calibration process is of course calibrating the monitor. 
>> This requires a piece of additional hardware, a small camera, or "eye". You 
>> stick it to the face of the display and it reads the colors put up on the 
>> display by the calibration software. 
>> 
>> One process:
>> 
>> http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=2
>> 
>> There are others.
>> 
>> Good luck.
>
> I haven't checked recent version, but Apple used to include a utility
> to calibrate the display ... although it relied on your own eyes, so
> was 100% accurate.

Exactly. That's not the same thing.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#70566

In article <060320151339380888%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article
> <0001HW.D11DF24C05C05970B01029BF@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
> <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long 
> > > time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the 
> > > relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.
> > 
> > One part of the calibration process is of course calibrating the monitor. 
> > This requires a piece of additional hardware, a small camera, or "eye". You 
> > stick it to the face of the display and it reads the colors put up on the 
> > display by the calibration software. 
> > 
> > One process:
> > 
> > http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=2
> > 
> > There are others.
> > 
> > Good luck.
> 
> I haven't checked recent version, but Apple used to include a utility
> to calibrate the display ... although it relied on your own eyes, so
> was 100% accurate.
<snip>

Rats! That was a typo - it should have said "it relied on your own
eyes, so was*n't* 100% accurate".  :-\

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

#70628

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:16:47 UTC, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 
wrote:

> In article <060320151339380888%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0001HW.D11DF24C05C05970B01029BF@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
> > <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long 
> > > > time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the 
> > > > relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.
> > > 
> > > One part of the calibration process is of course calibrating the monitor. 
> > > This requires a piece of additional hardware, a small camera, or "eye". You 
> > > stick it to the face of the display and it reads the colors put up on the 
> > > display by the calibration software. 
> > > 
> > > One process:
> > > 
> > > http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=2
> > > 
> > > There are others.
> > > 
> > > Good luck.
> > 
> > I haven't checked recent version, but Apple used to include a utility
> > to calibrate the display ... although it relied on your own eyes, so
> > was 100% accurate.
> <snip>
> 
> Rats! That was a typo - it should have said "it relied on your own
> eyes, so was*n't* 100% accurate".  :-\

Correction was unnecessary. I, at least, read the original as 
sarcasm.

-- 
John Varela

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

#70631

On 2015.03.06 00:16 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <060320151339380888%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <0001HW.D11DF24C05C05970B01029BF@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
>> <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long
>>>> time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the
>>>> relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.
>>>
>>> One part of the calibration process is of course calibrating the monitor.
>>> This requires a piece of additional hardware, a small camera, or "eye". You
>>> stick it to the face of the display and it reads the colors put up on the
>>> display by the calibration software.
>>>
>>> One process:
>>>
>>> http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=2
>>>
>>> There are others.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>
>> I haven't checked recent version, but Apple used to include a utility
>> to calibrate the display ... although it relied on your own eyes, so
>> was 100% accurate.
> <snip>
>
> Rats! That was a typo - it should have said "it relied on your own
> eyes, so was*n't* 100% accurate".  :-\

Correction not necessary, was clear what you meant to say.

(Says he who has made the same mistake at *least* once before).

-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

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

#70570

On 3/5/15 7:39 p, Your Name wrote:
> In article
> <0001HW.D11DF24C05C05970B01029BF@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
> <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the response, DaveC. I read the guide you reference a long
>>> time ago and never had good luck calibrating printers or generating the
>>> relevant color profiles, but I'll give it another go.
>>
>> One part of the calibration process is of course calibrating the monitor.
>> This requires a piece of additional hardware, a small camera, or "eye". You
>> stick it to the face of the display and it reads the colors put up on the
>> display by the calibration software.
>>
>> One process:
>>
>> http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=2
>>
>> There are others.

Yes, the user has a very nice NEC monitor which came with a dongle. We 
keep the monitor regularly calibrated.

> I haven't checked recent version, but Apple used to include a utility
> to calibrate the display ... although it relied on your own eyes, so
> was[n't] 100% accurate.

Yes, there is a facility in the Displays prefs pane 
(Displays->Color->Calibrate...).

> Colour issues can also be caused by whatever software your using. For
> example, my ancient version of Acrobat (or could be Preview) doesn't
> seem to understand CYMK colours in PDFs properly. Whenever you try to
> save the PDF pages as images, it uses horrible RGB-ised versions
> instead (they display fine, so the workaround is to take screen grabs).

Color matching on the Brother went downhill with 10.8 (followed by 10.9) 
on a 2012 Mini (upgrade from 10.5 on a Mac Pro G5). Most of the 
important software is Adobe. I have wondered if the problem didn't have 
something to do with the switch by Adobe to emphasize RGB instead of the 
traditional print CMYK.

Anyway, the colors on the old HP 4500 are very close to the screen; but 
the colors on the Brother HL-4070CDW are significantly off, which makes 
color proofing difficult. I'd recommend buying another HP 4500 
equivalent in a heartbeat if they still existed; but from everything I 
have read HP printers have really gone down the tubes in the last 5 or 
more years--bad drivers, bad durability. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

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

#70575

In article <mdcl1a$qvo$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
wrote:
> 
> Anyway, the colors on the old HP 4500 are very close to the screen; but 
> the colors on the Brother HL-4070CDW are significantly off, which makes 
> color proofing difficult. I'd recommend buying another HP 4500 
> equivalent in a heartbeat if they still existed; but from everything I 
> have read HP printers have really gone down the tubes in the last 5 or 
> more years--bad drivers, bad durability. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My ancient Epson inkjet which I bought new about 16 years ago finally
gave up a year or two ago. That was a great printer, but I think
finally succumbed to crappy third-party inks completely blocking it's
nozzles (Epson stopped making the ink cartridges years ago).

Hunting around for a cheapish inkjet printer that worked with our old
versions of Mac OS, the only one I could find was the HPDeskjet 1050.
That seems to be fine using the 10.5 G4 laptop which it officially
supports as a minimum. I did manage to use hacks to get it to print via
my 10.2 G3 PowerMac and the printing seems to work fine from there too.

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

#70341

On 2015.02.28 17:41 , DaveC wrote:
>>> Need advice!!
>>>
>>> Need an inexpensive laser printer that can do the occasional large job --
>>> couple hundred pages within a few hours -- without being overwhelmed or
>>> worse. Suggestions??
>>> mitchell
>
>
>> look at Brother laser printers‹I have one from 2006 which was recommended on
>> this site and is still chugging away after 70,000 copies‹Hank
>
>
> for mac users it is important to give some thought to driver availability. hp
> has some history of discontinuing drivers after the OS has been updated a few
> times. in my experience brother has released new drivers for old models
> regularly for new OS revisions when hp¹s solution was ³buy a new printer².

I have all sorts of printers and no issues with support for Mac - even 
my getting ancient Epson 3800 has an up to date Yosemite driver.

I avoid HP like the plague.  Mainly because you can't install any of 
their crap without dealing with a pile of poorly executed bolt on ware 
that is cartoonish crap that never quite works as promised.

I agree that Brother laser printers just do the job with no fuss.  I 
have one here at home.

-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

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

#70342

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2015.02.28 17:41 , DaveC wrote:
> >>> Need advice!!
> >>>
> >>> Need an inexpensive laser printer that can do the occasional large job --
> >>> couple hundred pages within a few hours -- without being overwhelmed or
> >>> worse. Suggestions??
> >>> mitchell
> >
> >
> >> look at Brother laser printers?I have one from 2006 which was
> >> recommended on this site and is still chugging away after 70,000
> >> copies?Hank
> >
> >
> > for mac users it is important to give some thought to driver
> > availability. hp has some history of discontinuing drivers after the OS
> > has been updated a few times. in my experience brother has released new
> > drivers for old models regularly for new OS revisions when hp?s solution
> > was ?buy a new printer?.
> 
> I have all sorts of printers and no issues with support for Mac - even
> my getting ancient Epson 3800 has an up to date Yosemite driver.
> 
> I avoid HP like the plague.  Mainly because you can't install any of 
> their crap without dealing with a pile of poorly executed bolt on ware
> that is cartoonish crap that never quite works as promised.
> 
> I agree that Brother laser printers just do the job with no fuss.  I 
> have one here at home.

I like Brother lasers for home and small offices. They're not very
ruggedly built, but for modest use they go the distance and give great
value. Their software has been trouble-free IME.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web