|
Everw single time I need to print something out at home, the damn printer takes 10 freaking minutes "cleaning the printing heads" or whatever other elephanting piece of printer. (HP Officejet 6700).
Printing is expensive enough, I don't need half of my cartridges be sucked into oblivion every time I start the machine.
Home printers is an industry runned by doomed people : guys, I hate you so much. 
|
|
|
|
|
Home printing definitely sucks if you need colour printing and cannot afford a colour laser printer.
I don't print in colour and a laser brother printer has served me well for the past 8 years - the toner cartridges are cheap in comparison to inkjet cartridges and they last a long time.
If you don't need colour consider getting yourself a laser printer.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: Home printing definitely sucks if you need colour printing and cannot afford a colour laser printer.
I swore off bubble-jet printers when the last set of cartridges I bought dried up before I ever got a chance to use them. I paid $100 for my color laser (HP LaserJet Pro CP 1025), and have never been tempted by another bubble-jet since.
|
|
|
|
|
Get an Epson - the ink tank is separate from the print head (they use a different technology, HP is a "bubble jet" which used heat to expel the ink, Epson uses piezo technology licensed from XAAR) so when the ink runs out, you change the just tank, not the head and it it's a lot cheaper. And it doesn't need cleaning so often.
I find that provided I print reasonably regularly - weekly in high summer - it just works, and doesn't dry out and need cleaning at all.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Canon multifunction printer scanner copier. It can't scan without ink cartridges installed  Copying I can understand, but why disable photo / document scanning. It's pretty noisy as well and also does the unnecessary print head cleaning. It's auto double sided printing is pretty cool though and the scanning software works well in separating and auto rotating multiple scanned pics.
|
|
|
|
|
Jacquers wrote: It can't scan without ink cartridges installed
Do not get me started on that...
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently there are workarounds for that though - holding in the stop button until the error goes away.
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Simple: money.
If you don't have cartridges - or they are empty - you haven't given enough money to the manufacturer's yet! 
Ink is where the money is, most printer manufacturers are happy to sell the printer at cost or below, because they will make huge profits on the ink. When I was involved with industrial ink jet printers, we bought ink at £20/l and sold it at £115 for 110ml... There is serious money in consumables!
What, did you think it was lazy programming? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah it's a travesty. Printers used to just print. Now for various reasons manufactures might cite as necessary we have to first endure this side show.
We have an HP somthin or other in a spare bedroom down the hall from where I sit n' code. We live in the woods and every time my wife sends a print job it sound just like a racoon in the trash can. I kid you not. I am only just now just getting used to it that it's just a print job Ron, and not a critter in your house.
|
|
|
|
|
You get to buy the hardware at or below the manufacturer's cost. For the all-in-one models you get a scanner and a copier built-in. They only make a profit when you buy ink. In my experience, I get 30-50 pages out of a set of cartridges, where I'm printing at around 25% coverage. That comes to around $0.65 per page. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Folks, you should be impressed that your printer works at all, given the conditions you've described. You leave your printer powered up for weeks on end, and you complain if it cleans the printhead before you start? Those nozzles dry out very quickly, since you insist on ink that doesn't soak the paper. Clogged nozzles will not help your print quality. I'm amazed how well these little things work, given the quick-and-dirty nozzle flush that their 'clean' operation does.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I can print about 10 pages with a set of cartridges, so 65€. This is 6,5€/page. If only one cartridge is empty, you cannot print anymore. I have used color twice in three years, but had to replace all color cartridges five times -> they got emptied only by the cleaning.
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: you complain if it cleans the printhead before you start
Yes, I complain. What's the "best" use case then ? Do I have to print one picture every day so that "ink does not dry out" ? This is just ridiculous. And the "I can't scan because a cartridge is empty ?". Seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: Do I have to print one picture every day so that "ink does not dry out" ?
The printhead clean operations are required due to the very low duty cycle of operations you're using. If you printed more often, you'd probably see fewer clean operations.Rage wrote: "I can't scan because a cartridge is empty ?"
I heartily agree that sucks. I can almost guarantee that the engineers didn't want to make things work that way, but were forced into it by some douchebag in a suit.
If you really want a lower expense per page, a color laser printer might be a better deal. Unfortunately the printers are much more expensive than ink-jet. Since it sounds like you don't print very often, you could even give up having a printer and use a local print shop for the rare times you need one. I've got one in town where I live that you can e-mail a PDF to them and they will print the job. They offer a choice of papers, bindings, and so on.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: The printhead clean operations are required due to the very low duty cycle of operations you're using. If you printed more often, you'd probably see fewer clean operations.
Any technology that relies on a duty cycle that in excess of many user's requirements is fundamentally flawed and doomed to die.
Laser printers don't have that problem, are now relatively cheap to buy, and the consumables are far cheaper than the excessive head-cleaning of low duty-cycle inkjets.
Hell, even typewriters didn't have that problem...
Inkjets were good in their day, but their usefulness for general printing tasks has passed.
Although there still produce better photos than lasers.
|
|
|
|
|
After coming downstairs for a coffee at 05:30 and having Dij the Cat throw up on the carpet - wonderfull way to wake up fully, that - it might be worth you having a look at one of these: Bissell spot cleaner[^] - we have the previous generation without the heater (and one of the full size jobbies, but it's a pain to move and use)
It means that when cats have accidents - and they do that - it's simple and quick to clean up. Lift the lumps, spray the solution, scrub, and vacuum it up. Much, much more effective and pleasant than doing it manually...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
modified 29-Aug-15 3:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
They've designed it to look like it's from an 80's movie? Ghostbusters came to mind
Looks pretty good, except that I don't have any fibers, carpets, rugs and upholstery.
Well, not enough to worry about it 
You've seen my floor, it's all PVC, throughout the house.
|
|
|
|
|
Brrr! We have a tile floor in the kitchen, and a wet-room floor in the bathroom, and they are both damn cold in winter - the carpets are a lot more foot-friendly!
Unless you have underfloor heating, or course - but I hear that is expensive to run.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Unless you have underfloor heating, or course - but I hear that is expensive to run.
I do, and it's more economical than radiators. In fact, I don't have a single radiator in my house (well, an electric one in the bathroom, but I never use it as it also has floor heating).
And PVC is great for floor heating as it let's a lot of heat through, making it more efficient than, say, laminate
In winter I just always have warm floors, which is great as I also always have cold feet!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Unless you have underfloor heating, or course - but I hear that is expensive to run.
I live in a flat above a guy who keeps his flat at Saharan temperatures during the winter. My underfloor heating literally costs nothing! I haven't turned my heating on once in two years.
|
|
|
|
|
I start VS2015 on Dell workstation and work on my C# project. don't feel much difference.
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Southmountain wrote: don't feel much difference.
Well, what did you expect ?
Have you considered the designers of VS 2015 might be quite pleased you haven't noticed any difference ? On the other hand, if, over time, you never use any of the new features in the language (C# 6) or the IDE ... ?
There have been other, recent, posts here on CP that reported VS 2015 is slow compared to its predecessors.
There's a potential serious bug reported in VS 2015 (by Marc Gravell and Nick Craver) if you compile with the new 64-bit Ryujit compiler: I don't know if that's fixed yet, or not, but Nick Craver will tell you how to disable Ryujit: [^].
StackOverflow maintains a good thread on VS 2015 features, bugs, etc.: >[^]
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you! very informative
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Southmountain wrote: don't feel much difference
You will after it crashed a couple of times
Well, that's my experience anyway. Can't edit HTML with Knockout in a CSHTML. It seems the intellisense for HTML/JavaScript makes VS2015 crash 
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for sharing...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using both the RC for some time and release version. It appears to work pretty well. The only annoying bug is when I am compiling in a VM and my project is on a network drive, the compile fails because the precompiled headers are too large. This is a bug that has been around at least a decade and Microsoft never fixes it.
To be fair, I only use the IDE for debugging C++. I always compile from the command line (for cross platform compatibility) and use my a heavily customized editor that is MUCH, MUCH better than any IDE I have ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
