Reccommendation for a good laser printer that's not too expensive to run

the-mango

Zanderman wrote: »

PS BigRon is, methinks, a little too effusive in his praise of IJT - but then he is similarly effusive of obscure computer companies in his other posts.

I actually thought he was spamming

skivenov

I've got two bottom of the range HP lasers, one's 3 years old now and still fine.

Refilled cartridges are a tenner off ebay.

I wouldn't reccomend anything else.

the-mango

Thanks.

I've narrowed it down to Brother HL-2130 on the cheaper end. For the real cheap ones it seems that printing costs are just that little bit higher for SAmsung.

On the little bit more expensive and that have the ability to do double sided automatically which would be a huge bonus for me I have got
Samsung ML-3310D
and
Brother HL2240 Series.

@skivenov I looked at HP but they don't have as good reviews or be as cheap (both in intial cost and long term costs)

BigRonW

Zanderman wrote: »

IJT's 'free' printers are printers they've opened, taken the starter toner cartridges out, and repacked without those cartridges. Which effectively makes the printer shop-soiled.

They then have the cheek to ask you to pay for those toners (which are the half capacity starter ones) plus some others (either their own brand or some other starter ones taken out of other printers) and, if you buy those, they give the compromised printer 'free'.

They market the printers describing their paper consumption based on full-capacity toners - so you have to halve what they say for the toners they provide. Which is mis-representation.

Having said all that it's a good deal financially if you're happy with that approach and accept you're not getting quite what they imply - but not if you're not.

PS BigRon is, methinks, a little too effusive in his praise of IJT - but then he is similarly effusive of obscure computer companies in his other posts.

That's quite a specific allegation you're making there, Zanderman. Doubtless you can back it up with the actual evidence that was sorely lacking in your post? I've been a customer of Morgans since they were based in the back of a camera shop in Tottenham Court Road - that's my only connection with them. They seem to have bought (or have been bought?) by IJT who operate from not far from my home in Somerset.
Given the gravity of your allegations, I assume that you have made a formal complaint to Trading Standards? Or are you merely "as full of it" as you claim their cartridges aren't?

PS Methinks Zanderman (not to mention the moderators here) would be well advised NOT to make potentially libellous accusations which he's subsequently unable to substantiate. If I'm effusive about obscure makes of tablet computers.... maybe it's because (a) I know about them and (b) am happy to share the information that some of them are excellent value?

BigRonW

the-mango wrote: »

I actually thought he was spamming

Curious... My post was 100% factual. I DID suspect that the offer must be for a rubbish-quality printer, I DID Google it, and found that it was an award wining printer; I DID order one, and I HAVE had no problems with it. Zandeman's post on the other hand seems composed of malicious (and libelous) gossip, which I doubt that he has a hope of substantiating. As such (given that MSE is "joinly and severally" responsible for his accusations) his post is quite clearly in flagrant breach of the Forum's rules and guidelines.

What's curious is that you seem more interested in a groundless accusation of spamming than in the danger of MSE getting sued, thanks to a gratuitously malicious post....

the-mango

BigRonW wrote: »

Curious... My post was 100% factual. I DID suspect that the offer must be for a rubbish-quality printer, I DID Google it, and found that it was an award wining printer; I DID order one, and I HAVE had no problems with it. Zandeman's post on the other hand seems composed of malicious (and libelous) gossip, which I doubt that he has a hope of substantiating. As such (given that MSE is "joinly and severally" responsible for his accusations) his post is quite clearly in flagrant breach of the Forum's rules and guidelines.

What's curious is that you seem more interested in a groundless accusation of spamming than in the danger of MSE getting sued, thanks to a gratuitously malicious post....

Sorry but I didn't put much thought into the post, therefore wasn't that interested, I was just stating my gut reaction as I've seen a lot of low post count spammers.

Zanderman

BigRonW wrote: »

That's quite a specific allegation you're making there, Zanderman. Doubtless you can back it up with the actual evidence that was sorely lacking in your post? I've been a customer of Morgans since they were based in the back of a camera shop in Tottenham Court Road - that's my only connection with them. They seem to have bought (or have been bought?) by IJT who operate from not far from my home in Somerset.
Given the gravity of your allegations, I assume that you have made a formal complaint to Trading Standards? Or are you merely "as full of it" as you claim their cartridges aren't?

PS Methinks Zanderman (not to mention the moderators here) would be well advised NOT to make potentially libellous accusations which he's subsequently unable to substantiate. If I'm effusive about obscure makes of tablet computers.... maybe it's because (a) I know about them and (b) am happy to share the information that some of them are excellent value?

Dear BigRon,

It's well-known that IJT's free lasers aren't quite what they make them out to be - if you're as familiar with them as you claim you'll know all about it.

It's definitely dodgy to sell printers that have been opened and had their starter units removed - and it's really bad practice to sell separately the starter cartridges that are only shipped inside printers. It probably isn't illegal - but it's not very impressive and is clearly misleading.

As for proof - yes I can prove everything I said - indeed I have had compensation from IJT for their misleading claims about these printers -and they wouldn't have offered that if I didn't have a case...

Adam_B_3

Samsung CLP-320 I have in my house... it's great and even decent for printing photos on glossy paper

BigRonW

Zanderman wrote: »

Dear BigRon,

It's well-known that IJT's free lasers aren't quite what they make them out to be - if you're as familiar with them as you claim you'll know all about it.

It's definitely dodgy to sell printers that have been opened and had their starter units removed - and it's really bad practice to sell separately the starter cartridges that are only shipped inside printers. It probably isn't illegal - but it's not very impressive and is clearly misleading.

As for proof - yes I can prove everything I said - indeed I have had compensation from IJT for their misleading claims about these printers -and they wouldn't have offered that if I didn't have a case...

SO "Nothing to see here" actually refers to the factual content of your posts? You made noises identifying yourself as a troublemaker, the vendor refunded yout cash - possibly just to get rid of you... and you manage to "spin" that into PROOF of wrongdoing?

Initially, I bought the two set of cartridges from IJT, but ALSO bought a pair of spare black cartridges from "StinkyInk", beause at that time, IJT weren't selling individual cartridges. I've subsequently bought two more black cartridges from IJT - based entirely on price. From the email convesations I've had with the proprietor of "Stinky Ink" (who's a genuine ink and toner "nerd") it's pretty clear that IJT and Stinky have no commercial connection: they're just competitors.Which is strange as they both sell absolutely identical cartridges for the Dell, with the exception that IJT's carboard cartons have an IJT "Sleeve" wrapped around them.

Your theory (and if you're honest it IS no more than a "theory") suffers from the same logical flaw as re-incarnation does. Thanks to population growth, there are are currently more people alive today than all those who have lived and died throughout the entire course of history. So, there just aren't enough souls to fuel reincarnation.Likewise, your theory (if you'd thought it thrrough) relies on trading in cartridges removed from brand new printers - which you claim have a capacity of half what they ought to have.... which would be about 1,250 pages rather than the claimed 2,000 (but which apparently comes closer to 2,500. I mentioned that John from Stinky Ink is a "toner nerd".... printing out thousands of pages just to see how many sheets you get from a cartridge is his idea of "fun". He's actually TESTED them to find out.) There are jJust not enough "starter" cartridges around (one set per printer) to keep such a scheme going. (in a scheme where TWO sets of cartridges come with each printer?!) It's kind of puzling that John -who lives and breathes ink and toner didn't ONCE mention any suspicion about IJT's cartridges; I've found zero difference between John's and IJT's both in weight, appearance or performance, but YOU have a theory which you insist on presenting as fact.

I once had an acquaintance who supplemented his income by making utterly groundless legal claims against businesses. Oft-times they would simply pay up, because he pitched his claims just low enough that it worked out cheaper to pay him to go away than it would have been to defend the case in court. Doubtless you regard all these pay-outs as PROOF that his (utterly spurious) claims were well grounded?!

I think that it's "definitely dodgy" to repeatedly make accusations for which you have absolutely zero proof or even any genuine evidence. And equally "dodgy" to be utterly unrepentant when reminded of the rules that govern this forum.

Zanderman

BigRonW wrote: »

I think that it's "definitely dodgy" to repeatedly make accusations for which you have absolutely zero proof or even any genuine evidence. And equally "dodgy" to be utterly unrepentant when reminded of the rules that govern this forum.

BigRon - you really need to calm down. I've said nothing untrue. Why are you so upset?