What inkjet printer prints the best text?

TJ wrote:
measekite wrote:


TJ wrote:
Duff wrote:


I do not think there are enough idiots out there who are in love
with Microsoft Windows even though they need to use it for various
reasons.

Yeah, like only 92 percent of the market is totally sold with
Microsoft. And the number is growing daily.






You want to use Microsoft products because they're the best for you?
Fine, go ahead. But don't do it because everybody else is doing it.
That argument didn't work when you were a kid, did it?

If 92% of all lemmings follow others over a cliff, it is the 8% that
don't that survive to continue the species.

ha ha ha

"Market share" is a function of marketing prowess, and not
necessarily the quality of the product.
Oh Yeah the MS babies just like to sit on their Duff. ah ha ha ha

Sometimes, breaking away from the masses is the best thing to do.

It was for me. For business I have to use Windows but for personal
use I did have to put up with some driver difficulties and find
replacements form some lousy Windows software that did do the job but
I do not get the crash of the day and have to worry about a deluge of
viruses.

Oh...My...Gawd. You've become a Linux advocate! Excuse me while I
check the news...Hell freezing over like that must be creating quite a
stir!

Not really. I recommend Windows for 95% of my customers and friends
because of the market penetration and Windows as lousey as it is is good
enough for what they want to do and the ease of them purchasing hardware
has a lot to do with that. However, I do recommend firefox,
thunderbird, open office, picasa and a few other basic applications that
are the same in Windows as Linux. Then from an application point of
view it will be easier to go to Linux should the need and timing arise.

But for printers I still recommend Canon unless they just want business
documents and them I offer them a choice between HP or Canon.
Personally I like Canon, Epson and HP in that order. For Linux if they
just need business documents and will most likely never or rarely do
photos then HP is the one to get.

For me,however it is Canon. However for a wide format printer for
photos in Linux I still do not know except I do favor the Canon Pro 9000.

TJ

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:34:52 -0500, CBFalconer
wrote:

kony wrote:
Tony wrote:

... snip ...
Not sure I should have bothered however, it seems to me that once
some people have established a view they are completely immovable;
?? hardly a path to enlightenment!

First of all, if you can't respecty usenet conventions of
not top-posting, you shouldn't be allowed on usenet at all.

Tony appears to be a reasonable person, and doesn't deserve this
sort of treatment. I suspect he will respond quite nicely to
convincing arguments.



You may be right, but at some point you have to look at both
sides of the coin. Anyone can start doing the right thing
after having done wrong... and be given some patience for
that, but the flipside is anyone can also start doing the
wrong thing after having done right.

In the end, it's just text. If someone doesn't have thick
skin then I apologize for offense, but I'd have to also feel
that handling people with kid-gloves only works to a certain
point, and thick skin doesn't grow all by itself.

Kony - My responses to you have less to do with Tony than they have with
you. I have respect for those who "handle" (relate to) others in a kind,
non-abusive, civil manner. I certainly understand escalating your response
if the person with whom you are discussing an issue lacks civility or
becomes abusive. Your tone, from the start, was combative and accusative.
No need for someone to be "thick skinned" and experience offensive
responses.

All of us who participate in usenet and other internet-based forums realize
that some respondants are less civil than others. In part, this is a
product of the anonymity of the medium. Face-to-face, less of the dialogue
would be abrasive. Why not imagine that when you enter into a usenet
dialogue you are actually speaking directly to an individual or group of
people. That is not "handling" people with kid gloves - it is just common
courtesy.

Burt wrote:
"kony"

If someone doesn't have thick
skin then I apologize for offense, but I'd have to also feel
that handling people with kid-gloves only works to a certain
point, and thick skin doesn't grow all by itself.

Kony -


...
Your tone, from the start, was combative and accusative.
No need for someone to be "thick skinned" and experience offensive
responses.

All of us who participate in usenet and other internet-based forums realize
that some respondants are less civil than others. In part, this is a
product of the anonymity of the medium. Face-to-face, less of the dialogue
would be abrasive. Why not imagine that when you enter into a usenet
dialogue you are actually speaking directly to an individual or group of
people. That is not "handling" people with kid gloves - it is just common
courtesy.


Burt,

You're correct, of course. However, I think that we've wasted enough
"ink" reasoning with this combative troll. He has to fight; he has to
win. Period. Disengage.

I've killfiled him, and submit that the rest of us do likewise.

Richard

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:18:37 GMT, "Burt"
wrote:


You may be right, but at some point you have to look at both
sides of the coin. Anyone can start doing the right thing
after having done wrong... and be given some patience for
that, but the flipside is anyone can also start doing the
wrong thing after having done right.

In the end, it's just text. If someone doesn't have thick
skin then I apologize for offense, but I'd have to also feel
that handling people with kid-gloves only works to a certain
point, and thick skin doesn't grow all by itself.

Kony - My responses to you have less to do with Tony than they have with
you. I have respect for those who "handle" (relate to) others in a kind,
non-abusive, civil manner.

I certainly understand escalating your response
if the person with whom you are discussing an issue lacks civility or
becomes abusive. Your tone, from the start, was combative and accusative.
No need for someone to be "thick skinned" and experience offensive
responses.

It seems you are a little beyond reason here, thinking that
ultimately you are going to judge the way another replies.

I hope that was a kind, non-abusive, civil manner. If you
persist in trying to judge the way another replies, it is
not surprising that people wouldn't be as kind, non-abusive,
and civil.

Sometimes, it is wrong to try to sugar coat something that
shouldn't taste sweet.


All of us who participate in usenet and other internet-based forums realize
that some respondants are less civil than others. In part, this is a
product of the anonymity of the medium. Face-to-face, less of the dialogue
would be abrasive.

True, face to face the conversation would often turn out
differently. You'd be mistaken if you feel only my exchange
in the conversation would have been different. I will in
fact clearly tell someone when they are irresponsible, when
their actions have a potential to negatively effect others.
THAT is far more significant, IMO, than some text on usenet.

Why not imagine that when you enter into a usenet
dialogue you are actually speaking directly to an individual or group of
people. That is not "handling" people with kid gloves - it is just common
courtesy.

Why not imagine that courtesy is a two way street. When
someone selectively, probably deceptively brushes aside
facts, the entire conversation may need to stop and refocus
until that is addressed. It is equally discourteous in a
face to face conversation to completely ignore what the
other person said and disagree with no justification or
counter evidence. When doing so promotes something that can
cause problems for others as well, the dialog has already
sunk below a courteous level.

Why just imagine, instead of actually looking at the history
of mankind. Truth, justice, all those grand ideals we
humans have seldom come nor are maintained with only
courtesy. Your ideas, when taken out of context, conflict
with reality.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:16:40 -0800, Richard Steinfeld
wrote:

Burt wrote:
"kony"

If someone doesn't have thick
skin then I apologize for offense, but I'd have to also feel
that handling people with kid-gloves only works to a certain
point, and thick skin doesn't grow all by itself.

Kony -


...
Your tone, from the start, was combative and accusative.
No need for someone to be "thick skinned" and experience offensive
responses.

All of us who participate in usenet and other internet-based forums realize
that some respondants are less civil than others. In part, this is a
product of the anonymity of the medium. Face-to-face, less of the dialogue
would be abrasive. Why not imagine that when you enter into a usenet
dialogue you are actually speaking directly to an individual or group of
people. That is not "handling" people with kid gloves - it is just common
courtesy.


Burt,

You're correct, of course.

Yes, how dare a person be "combative" instead of agreeing
with another who shows no real consideration of facts or of
the impact on others.

Grow up, this is a conversation. If words make your eyes or
ears bleed, you have been in isolation a little too long I
suspect. It is not as though every other word was four
letters in my replies, and sometimes people need a little
kick in the pants to get their conversation back on track.
If I think someone is being less than considerate or
deceptive, I will state that. They are welcome to elaborate
on their position, and to stop selectively ignoring evidence
towards their own agenda.

When someone tries to always steer a conversation back
towards a goal instead of taking it as it comes, looking at
facts instead of ignoring them, it is a dead giveaway that
there is an agenda.

Is it always a polite discourse with someone having an
agenda? No. If that could always be accomplished by being
polite, what a great thing that would be. When you are
polite and someone already refuses to discuss facts instead
_choosing_ to ignore direct evidence, they are either
mentally defective or choosing to do so.

Nobody is perfect, if overlooking facts was an oversight, or
consideration of the impact of something on others wasn't
thought out, that much can be overlooked. It's when
something is repeatedly mentioned and still an attempt to
sweep truth and fact under the rug, that civility has
already degraded in the conversation.


However, I think that we've wasted enough
"ink" reasoning with this combative troll. He has to fight; he has to
win. Period. Disengage.

I've killfiled him, and submit that the rest of us do likewise.

Richard


Good for you, it's a bit like putting your hands over your
ears and singing la la la la la.

measekite wrote:


I recommend Windows for 95% of my customers...

But for printers I still recommend Canon unless they just want business
documents and them I offer them a choice between HP or Canon.


So, for how long have you been a floor salesman at Staples? Is this
just during the Holiday period that you'll be hawking the printers, or a
long-term thing?

-Taliesyn

B. Schneier wrote:
Most of my printing involves documents and legal briefs. There is some
color printing for brochures and stuff I find on the Internet. Can
someone recommend a color ink jet that prints laser-like text and is
reasonably fast.

Thanks in advance,

BS


How many pages per month would be color and what percentage of a page
would be colored?

I just checked the links you mentioned, and I'm not sure I understand
what you are stating here. The drivers seem to have the same suffix
(.303130) but the prefixes are different and so are the sizes of the
files, so I'm not sure they are the same files. My experience with
scanners is that the firmware can limit what drivers will work, sometime
to the point of working with only specific serial number groups.

I looked at the several Visioneer scanners I own (all of which are in
storage) and none seem to have XP drivers (the 6100, the 3100 and two of
the paperport MX) that I can find. If you know where they are hiding
I'd love to know.

However, I'll also mention that the quality of the scanners left a lot
to be desired. They suffered from streaking, offset convergence, and
other problems. I finally bought a Umax, and then got an Epson.

Art


kony wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:16:48 -0800, Cal Bubba
wrote:


Burt wrote:


TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.

That's my point. You scanner may, in fact, have worked fine! The
*******s were too sucky to even see if their existing drivers would work
under the new OS (which, in my own case, the driver works just fine).

By the way, Visioneer scanners were/are sold under other brand names
(such as Memorex,Colorado, and private label brands). So when you buy a
scanner sold under one of these brand names, guess whose "support"
you're going to get?

Bubba



Any of the above? Mostly Visioneer since their 'site does
provide the legacy drivers. (see links below).

My Visioneer 4400, Memorex 6142, PrimaScan 2600U (all same
printer/driver, just sold under all these names) has XP
drivers. For the price I paid way back when (under $20
after a rebate) and that it works still today, I can hardly
complain if it wasn't supported by Vista.

http://support.visioneer.com/product...ex/default.asp

Now the funny part, the 2600U claims not designed for XP but
is the same printer, with same driver they claim works for
the Memorex:
http://support.visioneer.com/product.../downloads.asp

Many scanners suffer from either plasticizers or volatiles of the
lubricants vaporizing and redepositing on the bottom surface of the glass.

Most of them can be opened with care, by removing a couple of screws and
carefully cleaning the inside surface. Try not to knock the scanning
bar or moving it, and try to keep dust out and off the mirrors.

Art

Cal Bubba wrote:

Burt wrote:

TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new
Windows version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The
scanner wasn't very old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.
In fairness, technology and associated software for scanners had
advanced to the point where it was actually a blessing after the fact.


Which model? I have 5, maybe 7-8 year old lower-end
Visioneers that still worked on XP. I'd have replaced them
long ago but they keep running so... one of them will be
replaced if I ever need to use it to scan more than text as
it's CCFL is starting to dim some so it is mostly suited for
text scanning now.

In my case, the Visioneer in question is the OneTouch 7600 USB. I
bought it from Office Max something like 7 years ago for $20 after
rebate. The oddball chipset it uses(What WAS that chipset called? E3?
Something like that.) was also used by at least two other scanner
brand names, though I expect they were probably all made by the same
manufacturer. I've never used Windows XP, so I don't know if they
issued a driver for it or not. I used it with Windows 98SE. It worked
great then and still works now, those infrequent times when I fire up
Windows and use it.

Mine was the first "one-touch" model. It used a parallel cable that
also connected a printer. All pre-USB stuff.


Ohmygod! I've been ripped off! I paid $39.95 at McFrugals.

My Visioneer scanner is a "Colorado Primascan 2400P." It's got a regular
Visioneer name, too, and probably other "brands." I put "brands" in
quotes because it's been a great long time since Memorex was a real
company. They buy stuff and sell stuff. Sometimes, like AT&T, GE
(Thomson), Timex, IBM, etc., they license other companies to use their
name. IBM chewing gum? You heard about it here, first, folks.
When you see products from these companies in unexpected places, read
the fine print on the box. Aha!

My scanner connects to the computer via a printer cable. At the same
time, virtually identical models were being sold with USB interfaces,
which I should have bought -- but didn't know.

No matter, Visioneer simply claims that the thing is, OS-specific,
therefore obsolete, and so they no longer have to support it with
updated drivers: which is arrogant Visioneer bull****.

Visioneer is one of those maddening companies who put a telephone moat
around their business to ensure that customers don't disturb them.

You can imagine my surprise when I just connected the scanner to my new
PC, running XP-Pro SP2, and it worked just fine. My only problem is that
something inside has been outgassing, and there's a resulting coating on
the inside of the glass. This has reduced the contrast. When I get
brave, it'll go onto my workbench and perhaps I'll be able to clean the
glass. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire thing
were held together with glue. A landfill princess.

Bubba
If you're in the West and you need a Bubba, here I am.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:06:57 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:

I just checked the links you mentioned, and I'm not sure I understand
what you are stating here. The drivers seem to have the same suffix
(.303130) but the prefixes are different and so are the sizes of the
files, so I'm not sure they are the same files. My experience with
scanners is that the firmware can limit what drivers will work, sometime
to the point of working with only specific serial number groups.

Then let's start with specifics.

What scanner do you have and what OS are you trying to
install this on?

Generally, the most versatile driver is probably the one
here,
http://support.visioneer.com/drivers....303110.EN.exe




I looked at the several Visioneer scanners I own (all of which are in
storage) and none seem to have XP drivers (the 6100, the 3100 and two of
the paperport MX) that I can find. If you know where they are hiding
I'd love to know.

I only spoke of the one I had, you can seek what is
available he
http://support.visioneer.com/



However, I'll also mention that the quality of the scanners left a lot
to be desired. They suffered from streaking, offset convergence, and
other problems. I finally bought a Umax, and then got an Epson.


I had no streaking, or other problems. That certainly
doesn't mean there are no problem with your particular
specimens, I can only speak for 3 Visioneer models here, A
visioneer 4400, Primascan 2600u, and 8100. The Primascan
2600U has the most hours on it by far, and thus the most
CCFL wear, it has worse contrast than the other two due to
this and is most suitable for documents where contrast
tweaks can be later applied in an imaging app.