I agree with your main point, but not the rest. I don't buy any cordless
tools for the reason that batteries last for at best, a few years.
When I pay my good hard earned money for a tool, I expect it to last
forever. I have enough heavy duty extension cord to reach every corner of
my 1/3 acre lot.
Batteries run down, but corded tools run continuously until the job is
done. Batteries eventually die, and fail to hold a charge. The
replacements batteries tend to cost about as much as the tool, and that is
before the battery becomes obsolete and rare.
That said, this isn't a one size fits all world.
Many find the cordless convenience to be worth the cost. Nothing wrong
And if I were a professional, one who makes service calls, there is no
question that the time saved would make the batteries pay for themselves.
Due to spam, I'm filtering all Google Groups posters.
What he said.
I have 4 various corded.
Used mid to low price cordless for a few years and they were fine.
Then the batteries wouldn't hold a good charge or take a charge.
Just too stupid to me when I always have an outlet to plug into.
Pissed me off having a tool that didn't work when I needed it so I
just tossed them instead of paying for a battery what a corded drill
If I needed it for my work I'd pay top dollar for good cordless and
just eat the battery replacement cost.
Only time I miss the cordless is working where I'm grounded.
So I put down a piece of plywood and watch where my hands are.
Sometimes I think I'm a cheap ass not having a cordless for such
occasions. But it's more protection against getting pissed by a drill
that doesn't work.
On Jun 7, 7:38 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yep, and the alternatives are dicking around with a tangled-up
extension cord, and writing everything out on paper.
Buy a decent tool, and you wouldn't have this problem. EXAMPLE: The
Ryobi ONE+ lithiums I bought over two years ago are still going like
the day they were new. In fact, I'm going to need to replace the drill
within the next 6 months because the gearbox is going to hell.
Buy a decent printer, and you wouldn't have this problem. EXAMPLE: I
bought an HP 7000 wide carriage inkjet. My last printer cost $75 to
replace the ink, and only printed a couple hundred pages. This printer
only costs $40 for replacement ink, and will print out the same number
of pages. HOWEVER, for another $20 I can get high capacity cartridges
which TRIPLE the number of pages I can print between refills.
The only SUCKER out there is you, who feels they have to make a
strawman argument out of the worst possible scenarios to justify....
well... I have no f*cking clue what you're trying to justify here...
Yeah, I've found color laser printers to still be ridiculously f*cking
expensive and the toner cartridges for any laser printer are just as
bad as inkjet cartridges.
============================================Expensive? Maybe, but laser color printer carts are DRY. I once had an HP
printer that would clog completely if not used for a few days. I spent most
of the ink cartridge printing the cleaning test. I threw it in the trash
and got a color laser from Fry's on sale for under $200. Inkjets are just a
way to piss away money. Another advantage of a color laser is the printouts
don't smear when wet. I will never buy or recommend an ink-jet to anyone,
especially the casual user that prints a few pages in color a month. About
the only people who could like inkjets are reformed junkies who like to play
with syringes. (-:
Amen to lasers over inkjets. When I lived in the apartments, every month
I would find one or two sitting by the dumpsters, in perfect condition
except for needing ink. When I priced the cartridges, I realized why.
Notice how the market for the home 4x6 photo printers has basically
collapsed? People realized it was a LOT cheaper to send their pix online
to the corner drugstore, which would print them on their
commercial-grade printer. I don't print much at home, so I only have a
couple BW lasers, both of which came from garage sales. If I ever need
color, I'll sneak it at work, or take a thumb drive down to whatever
Kinko's is called these days.
I do still have my old 24-pin dot matrix in the back room, though, along
with a couple sealed ribbons for it. It makes a fitting museum companion
for my old suitcase Kaypro v20 (xt class) machine. Neither is worth any
money any more, so I figured as long as I have room, I may as well hold
onto them for giggles.
I think it's been shown here that printing services do a much less expensive
job of printing out photos, and for the rare times I actually need photo
quality prints, I use them. The color laser is great for printing out web
pages that lose a lot of critical information when printed in B&W. I used
to use it extensively to print maps out before I got a GPS unit. Most of
the times I print stuff out on the HP 6, a real workhorse that's loaded with
magnetic ink so I can print my own checks.
re: "Laser printers (ARAIK) won't print on photo paper."
The laser printers we have at work have settings for Glossy paper and
We use transparency stock all the time for presentations and I've
printed some pretty nice "photos" when using the glossy stock.
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:52:41 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
A 7000 page toner cartridge for my HP P2015dn is about $35. I don't need
color at home. I still have an inkjet printer but ink is expensive and the
damned printer was always plugged up when I wanted to use it.
Ink is the cheapest component of the print cartridge. The companies
obviously do this to make you have to buy new cartridges sooner.
Years ago, I learned from some researchers at Kodak that Kodak made no
money off the sale of their cameras and all the profit was in sale of
their film. From this thread it is obviously apparent that it is the
same for the printer manufacturers.
I'm still smarting after trading in a 5 gallon propane tank for a new
filled one (Blue Rhino) to see that it actually contains 15 pounds which
is about 3.5 gallons of propane. I think it is a con to sell anything
in a partially filled container. Maybe some lawyer reading this out
there will consider some class action suits based on these things.
Nothing you said here makes half-filled ink cartridges in new printers
Kodak selling cameras (or printers, which they also sell) at cost (or
below) is also not a con.
Is every loss-leader that a manufacturer or store sells as means to
get you to buy more of their products a "con"?
You bought a printer for $X dollars and you got a printer and some ink
to get you started. How were you conned?
Did you buy the printer expecting a certain number of sheets to be
printed before you had to buy more ink? On what did you base that
expectation other than your own hopes? Did they promise you a certain
number of sheets when you bought the printer? I don't recall being
promised anything like that when I've bought printers in the past.
If you buy something in a container that can hold 600 gallons of a
product and it is clearly labeled as containing 15 gallons, how were
you conned? You got exactly what was "promised" on the label, so how
were you conned?
Would you feel better if that $99 printer with a half-filled cartridge
was $124 with a full cartridge?
You weren't expecting them to absorb that extra cost were you?
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
If you buy a "gallon" of milk that contains half a gallon were you
You were scammmed. Or taken. Or suckered. Or shorted.
Or ripped off.
I don't know if it's true - haven't seen that with HP's - but
purposely loading a cartridge meant to hold, say 2 ounces with 1
ounce so the customer has buy a new cartridge sooner is dishonest
unless it is specifically noted on the packaging, such as,.
"NOTE: CARTRIDGE IN THIS PRINTER CONTAINS HALF THE INK OF A NORMAL
"NOTE: THIS PRINTER CONTAINS INK CARTRIDGE DESIGNED FOR SUCKERS."
That's bogus. Nowhere near cost of ink.
What would make most people feel better is for these companies to
produce and make a profit on their printers.
And produce and make a profit on their ink.
A sharp consumer who doesn't like cartridge cost will get around the
ink ripoff by avoiding models cost too much to feed them ink.
Maybe the makers will wise up, maybe not.
Depends on the consumers.
Last printer I bought when my HP died was a little Cannon.
Because I didn't like HP cartridge cost and that they made them
I print maybe 2 pages a year. I'm a paperless type guy.
When the kids did college printing I told them to buy the cartridges
themselves. That cut way down on printer use.
I doubt I'll buy another printer now that the kids are gone.
My wife wanted one of those camera photo printers.
Until I explained the cost of ink, and that I could get printing done
at many places for a tenth of the cost of just the ink.
Anyway, the printer ink cartridge "problem" doesn't affect me.
But I understand how it does others who choose to print.
Good answers. You got to him first.
I don't mind Kodak making a profit off film or HP off ink.
It's the partially filled containers that got me particularly when the
cost of the contents was not significant.
How can you buy a gallon of milk that contains half a gallon?
Every container of milk (or propane or paint or whatever) that I have
ever purchased was clearly marked with the amount of product in the
container. A half gallon of anything clearly marked as a half gallon
- and priced as a half gallon - is a half gallon.
How was I scammed, taken, suckered, or shorted? You can't be "shorted"
if you paid for the amount of product that you received. You can't be
scammed, taken or suckered if the amount of product is clearly marked
on the package, you read said markings and then decide if the price
for that amount is appropriate.
Oh, please. The product was priced for the printer and the amount of
ink you get with it. There was no promise of any given amount of ink.
Consider yourself lucky that you got any ink at all. Consider your
glass half full instead of half empty.
You missed my point. If a replacement ink cartridge costs $50, then
they would have every right to charge you $25 more for the printer if
the cartridge was full vs. half full. If they are already losing (or
not making) money on the printer, why should they eat further into
their cash flow by giving you free ink?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.