|
|
My color laser is an HP LaserJet Pro CP1025nw. Got it for $100 at Staples in 2012 (!) and I still haven't replaced the "starter" cartridges. I did buy a new replacement set (ready to go) a good while back, but until these stop working, they remain in the sealed packaging.
I very much want to completely ditch inkjet. But, lasers don't print on printable discs. And I'm not gonna print on CD labels (I have in the past, never more).
|
|
|
|
|
I'd recommend a color laser printer, unless you're printing photographs. Most of the lasers I've seen can't do natural color as well as inkjet.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I'd still put up with the less-than-perfect colors. I do have a color laser printer (see some of my responses above). The only reason I still have an ink-jet (and have one on the way) is that I have a need to print on discs (the CD and DVD kind). I'd otherwise be ecstatic if I never had to deal with an inkjet printer ever again.
Printing on labels is not an option - I did before; never again.
According to my research, I'm not the only one who wished lasers could be used on discs. But, everyone concludes that even if it were possible, they run so hot they'd warp the discs. And given how hot sheets of paper get sometimes when coming out of my printer, I tend to believe that...
|
|
|
|
|
If you only print 'rarely' I see only one solution: remove printer cartridges after printing and vacuum them 
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: remove printer cartridges after printing and vacuum them
AKA "buy a new set of cartridges every time you need to print something".
This is practically what I've been doing with this printer, well, not Day One, but "Day on which I needed to print a second time". Until it decided that even with new cartridges, it's gonna put up this new error message.
|
|
|
|
|
Any particular reason you're still using a printer? We in tech should be driving changes and well, we should all be paperless by now.
Some times it can't be avoided. Some industries refuse to move forward... like the medical industry still requiring a fax (from different parties besides yourself). But, by and large, printers should be a relic of the past for most of us.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Someone, I forget where, recently posted a rant about--not the promised paperless office--but those who keep pushing that decades-old lie.
There will always be a need to have something printed. In my case, picture a pile of identical, plain white, inkjet printable CDs and/or DVDs. The alternative is writing on them with Sharpies.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: There will always be a need to have something printed
If everyone thought that way, we'd still be living in caves. Is there a specific reason you think this to be true or is this just a thing you think will continue because that's just the way you've done it?
There are document types that can and do completely replace paper. So, there is no technical reason. Having a "hard copy" isn't really better than a back up. It has a worse filing mechanism. Can't be searched, etc. There are way more pitfalls with paper documents than going paperless.
dandy72 wrote: In my case, picture a pile of identical, plain white, inkjet printable CDs and/or DVDs. The alternative is writing on them with Sharpies.
You mean printing DVD labels? I never seen an inkjet printer print actual DVD discs. 
From a label stand point, I can see the rationale. But, I'm willing to bet that will be phased out too. You already see that with crypto wallets and LED displays on them. No reason the future "DVDs" can't have something similar. Sure, we're not there yet, but the future is coming and paper is the past for the most part.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Is there a specific reason you think this to be true or is this just a thing you think will continue because that's just the way you've done it?
You're wording it like I'm to blame by perpetuating the problem. I guarantee you, I don't yield that much power. I don't get to make up the rules, it doesn't matter what I think. Numerous articles have been written on the topic. I completely understand what you're saying and I wish it were true, but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. I've certainly reduced the amount of paper I have to deal with - I did complain, somewhere else in this thread, that I do so little printing myself that ink cartridges dry up long before I have time to use them.
Besides, in the end, I was talking about printing on discs, not keeping a document in electronic format to save paper. Like I said, the alternative is either a Sharpie, or...not identify the content of a disc at all? Good luck dealing with a pile of those. 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I never seen an inkjet printer print actual DVD discs
I have, numerous times, and I have some discs that are nearly indistinguishable from the original (unless you hold them up side-by-side). This is what the typical tray looks like. You slide that into a slot in the printer. This is what the process looks like (that's not my specific printer, but the idea is the same).
Jeremy Falcon wrote: From a label stand point, I can see the rationale.
If you don't manage to place a label exactly right on the first attempt, the disc will vibrate and spin out of balance, and you can't take it off and try to realign it.
Plus, they tend to wrinkle with time and humidity, develop air bubbles, tear, rip, etc - they're a mess and look totally unprofessional.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: You're wording it like I'm to blame by perpetuating the problem.
If everyone thought that way, then nothing will ever change.
dandy72 wrote: Besides, in the end, I was talking about printing on discs, not keeping a document in electronic format to save paper. Like I said, the alternative is either a Sharpie, or...not identify the content of a disc at all? Good luck dealing with a pile of those
Sure, ok. I suppose as long as its judicious in nature. Not everyone is discerning and still wastes paper like it's going out of style... when the world has moved past that by and large. Even labels' days are numbered.... watch.
dandy72 wrote: I have, numerous times, and I have some discs that are nearly indistinguishable from the original
There's a miscommunication here. You're still referring to labels right? The wording suggests an inkjet printer is printing the actual plastic disc... which is impossible AFAIK. Inkjets, ya know... splatter ink on crap. 
dandy72 wrote: If you don't manage to place a label exactly right on the first attempt, the disc will vibrate and spin out of balance, and you can't take it off and try to realign it.
Not really sure what has to do with the point.... but um... ok?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: The wording suggests an inkjet printer is printing the actual plastic disc... which is impossible AFAIK. Inkjets, ya know... splatter ink on crap.
I'm talking about using an inkjet printer to print on the surface of a disc. I linked to an image that shows the tray you put the disc on before sliding it into the printer's slot for it, and a video that shows the process. You should understand this if you followed the links.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Not really sure what has to do with the point
My point was, printing on a label is not an option since they're crap. I've been talking about printing directly on the surface of a disc.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed with most others, laser is the way to go. I have an HP MFP 477fdw. Prints colour, both sides, cheap to buy and cheap to run so long as you buy 3rd party toner (HP stuff is 3 times the price of the printer!). It also scans (double sided), photocopies and would fax too if it were connected. Connects by USB, Ethernet or WiFi and I can print to it from my iPhone.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to sell me on laser printers, I already have two.
Find me a laser printer that'll print on discs however. As in, CDs and DVDs.
And not labels.
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.brother-usa.com/products/hll2400d laser, duplex, fast reliable. I have an older model. No regrets.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I should've mentioned that the only reason I still have this (or any) ink-jet printer is that I still have the occasional need to print on discs (CDs, DVDS, etc).
Lasers can't do that. I wish they did. Labels are non-contenders, they only create a mess and look completely amateurish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did write:
Quote: Labels are non-contenders, they only create a mess and look completely amateurish
Have you actually used those types of labels? They're garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
I gave up on Ink Jet printers when the price of the Canon Ink 5 color
was greater than the cost of the printer as of today it is 20 yrs old
The Library is 5 miles away
Scan 10 cents
Black & White 10 cents a page
Color Page 50 cents a page (it was 10 cents) they got smart
|
|
|
|
|
Laser printers are a better deal nowadays than inkjet printers unless you need photo-quality full-color prints. Even then, color laser printers are pretty good for things like posters and charts.
Laser toner doesn't dry out if you use it infrequently (because it's already dry). It's only a bit more expensive than an inkjet cartridge and prints many more pages.
I'll never buy another inkjet printer. My Brother MFC-L2717DW b&w laser printer only cost around $200 and has been utterly reliable for two plus years now.
|
|
|
|
|
I am a big fan of Epson EcoTank ink jet printers. I currently have an ET-2850, which I use almost daily. No ink cartridges. You connect an ink bottle for each of the four inks and fill each reservoir; no muss, no fuss. Replacement bottles are inexpensive: you can get them at Office Max, Office Depot, Staples, and occasionally, Wal-Mart.
__________________
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that there are some things I just can’t keep up with, the determination to keep up with the things I must keep up with, and the wisdom to find a good RSS feed from someone who keeps up with what I’d like to, but just don’t have the damn bandwidth to handle right now.
© 2009, Rex Hammock
|
|
|
|
|
Oh lovely.
The ESP32 line by Espressif (a fabless semiconductor company) is a line of MCU processors out of China that have 2 hardware I2C busses on them. Two. This is important.
Well in previous versions of their development framework you'd simply tell it I2C_NUM0 or I2C_NUM1 to indicate which bus you were going to send data on. It has been this way through 4 major versions of the framework, and it works similarly in Arduino, at least similarly enough to make code forking minimal if you want to support both platforms.
Now Espressif has decided that's not good enough in 5.0+
Now you must configure a bus, and then get a handle for it, rather than using one of two fixed constants.
It's unnecessary complexity. Furthermore, it makes supporting both Arduino and ESP-IDF platforms tricky, because there's no bus initialization required to reference an I2C bus with Arduino or ESP-IDF 4-
To that end I made a stupid little lib called htcw_esp_i2c. The ugly code is at the end of the post.
Now you can do for example to init bus index 1 on pins 21 and 22:
static ft6336<320, 280> touch(esp_i2c<1,21,22>::instance);
static m5core2_power power(esp_i2c<1,21,22>::instance);
which works on any ESP-IDF 4.0+ or Arduino platform.
The issue with this is the code to facilitate it is ugly, and shouldn't need to exist.
Was it Einstein? who said "something should be as simple as it can be, and no simpler"
Well, code should be that way.
template<int Port, uint8_t SdaPin, uint8_t SclPin>
class esp_i2c {
public:
#ifdef ARDUINO
static TwoWire& get_instance() {
if(Port==1) {
Wire1.begin(SdaPin,SclPin);
return Wire1;
}
Wire.begin(SdaPin,SclPin);
return Wire;
}
static TwoWire& instance;
#else
#if ESP_IDF_VERSION >= ESP_IDF_VERSION_VAL(5, 0, 0)
static i2c_master_bus_handle_t get_instance() {
i2c_master_bus_config_t i2c_mst_config;
memset(&i2c_mst_config,0,sizeof(i2c_mst_config));
i2c_mst_config.clk_source = I2C_CLK_SRC_DEFAULT;
i2c_mst_config.i2c_port = Port==1?I2C_NUM_1:I2C_NUM_0;
i2c_mst_config.scl_io_num = (gpio_num_t)SclPin;
i2c_mst_config.sda_io_num = (gpio_num_t)SdaPin;
i2c_mst_config.glitch_ignore_cnt = 7;
i2c_mst_config.flags.enable_internal_pullup = true;
i2c_master_bus_handle_t bus_handle;
if(ESP_OK!=i2c_new_master_bus(&i2c_mst_config, &bus_handle)) {
return nullptr;
}
return bus_handle;
}
static i2c_master_bus_handle_t instance;
#else
constexpr static const i2c_port_t instance = (i2c_port_t)Port;
#endif
#endif
};
#if defined(ARDUINO) || ESP_IDF_VERSION >= ESP_IDF_VERSION_VAL(5, 0, 0)
template<int Port, uint8_t SdaPin, uint8_t SclPin>
#ifdef ARDUINO
TwoWire&
#else
i2c_master_bus_handle_t
#endif
esp_i2c<Port, SdaPin, SclPin>::instance = get_instance();
}
#endif
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: #if defined(ARDUINO) || ESP_IDF_VERSION >= ESP_IDF_VERSION_VAL(5, 0, 0)
Several seal pups died from this line alone  I hate it when you are forced to that kind of ugliness #MaintainMyCode
|
|
|
|
|
Fortunately in the latest revision that went away. What's still really ugly is that static template field initialization code. I hate that C++ makes you do it that way instead of putting the initializer inline. At least C++17 - maybe they've changed that since.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,080 5/6
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
