Re:Why do printers still suck?
by CydeWeys on Tuesday November 03, 2020 @05:39PM
(#24984860)
There's nothing inherently flawed with inkjet printers. There are very good ones out there; look up something like the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000. You're using an overly broad brush to unfairly tar the entire technology based on your experience with the very worst cash-grab implementations of it. It'd be like saying smartphones as a technology suck because a $50 piece of junk Chinese Android performs terribly.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
No, inkjets are an inherently flawed technology. The nozzles dry out and clog up. If you use them infrequently, you'll use more ink for cleaning than you do for printing.
They're not "inherently flawed". Color laser doesn't come close to the same high quality photo prints. If printing high quality prints is something you regularly do then inkjet is your only option.
It's not that the technology is inherently flawed, it's that way too many people are buying them for document printing when they should instead be getting laser printers. Inkjets are much more of a niche specialty product.
Depends on the ink. My HP Latex can sit for months and then fire up and print like nothing happened
That "Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000" is way out of budget for me.
$1300?
Thought this thread related to home office printers.
Inkjet isn't really a home office printer tech. It's a "super high quality photo" tech. If you got a cheap inkjet for black and white document printing then you bought the wrong thing, plain and simple. Cheap inkjets aren't suitable for any purpose; they should just flat out be avoided, like all those really cheap no-brand Chinese electronics on Amazon/Wish.
Right- for regular home office use, ink jet seem a silly choice.
For printing photos, inkjet with a continuous ink supply can serve well, but for text you won't beat laser even at more than double the price.