• Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    It would probably be more appropriate to compare a brother inkjet… But yeah.

    FWIW if you’re reading this and you’re sick of wasting tons of money on ink because you just print a handful of documents in black and white every year … Get a Brother TONER-based printer. I bought mine almost 5 years ago and I’ve yet to have to change the toner or waste a single page on a bad print. When I need to print it just works, no “clean the cartridges” nonsense.

    Toner is just a better printing technology, both for high and low volumes of printing. The only people that win out on inkjet are maybe the rare folks that print like a handful of things every single week.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      The only people that win out on inkjet are maybe the rare folks that print like a handful of things every single week.

      Also those who regularly print on certain things other than paper—print-on-fabric systems are usually inkjet, which makes sense when you think about it. And as of 10-15 years ago, some of the more expensive and complex inkjets (not the <$100 consumer loss leaders) had better colour fidelity than the average colour laser, which visual artists are willing to pay extra for.

      The inkjet printer has a place, but it’s a small niche, and 98% of people buying them really should be buying lasers instead.

      • progandy@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        As always, most consumers ignore the maintenance costs and buy the option advertised with the lowest price tag.