Searching \ for '[OT]: Small laser printer to replace HP LJ 5L' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/displays.htm?key=laser
Search entire site for: 'Small laser printer to replace HP LJ 5L'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Small laser printer to replace HP LJ 5L'
2007\05\11@165524 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Hi,

We've been using an old HP 5L printer to print shipping labels, and it's
starting to fail in different ways (it's *very* old). I really like the form
factor and reliability of this printer. Are there similar laser printers out
there, with about the same form factor, and two alternative paper paths?

HP LaserJet 1100 looks like it would be a good replacement, but I'd have to
buy it refurbished. Any comments, suggestions?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Vitaliy

2007\05\11@190440 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Using a HP-1012 here; works well and has a nice paper cassette -
horizontal and *covered*.

Used to have a HP-5L; great when it worked, lousy when it didn't.  The
top loading paper holder would either get dusty and paper would slip and
not feed or ALL the paper would feed at once.

YMMV

Vitaliy wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\05\11@203535 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Marcel Duchamp wrote:
> Using a HP-1012 here; works well and has a nice paper cassette -
> horizontal and *covered*.

The footprint is slightly larger, but it does look pretty good otherwise.
The only problem is, I need a printer with a parallel interface (we're using
it with a print server).

> Used to have a HP-5L; great when it worked, lousy when it didn't.  The
> top loading paper holder would either get dusty and paper would slip and
> not feed or ALL the paper would feed at once.

Have you installed the "printer fix" from HP, that they used to send out
free of charge?

Vitaliy

2007\05\11@205800 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Vitaliy wrote:

> Have you installed the "printer fix" from HP, that they used to send out
> free of charge?

No. It died for good last year... one of the times when it grabbed the
last 30 pages in the hopper and tried to feed them all at once.  I
yanked the wad out and stripped the gears.  My bad...

It did print nice when it printed.  I had it at work and we have 2 or 3
of the HP-1012's around so I use those now.

Need a parallel port? Could begin to get hard to find.  Someone once
gave me a Centronics printer.  I sold it for 20 bucks. Should have kept
it for a conversation piece.  "Yup, the real thing. Complete with
Centronics interface."  Made a racket when it printed. Part of an S100
bus system.  The good old days.  Glad they are gone.

2007\05\11@222507 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Marcel Duchamp wrote:
>> Have you installed the "printer fix" from HP, that they used to send out
>> free of charge?
>
> No. It died for good last year... one of the times when it grabbed the
> last 30 pages in the hopper and tried to feed them all at once.  I
> yanked the wad out and stripped the gears.  My bad...
>
> It did print nice when it printed.  I had it at work and we have 2 or 3
> of the HP-1012's around so I use those now.
>
> Need a parallel port? Could begin to get hard to find.  Someone once
> gave me a Centronics printer.  I sold it for 20 bucks. Should have kept
> it for a conversation piece.  "Yup, the real thing. Complete with
> Centronics interface."  Made a racket when it printed. Part of an S100
> bus system.  The good old days.  Glad they are gone.

The setup we have now works, and I wouldn't want to make any drastic
changes. There are plenty of refurbished printers out there, with Centronics
interface -- and it's less expensive to maintain what we have, than to go
out and buy something new.

Vitaliy

2007\05\16@011340 by Nestor A. Marchesini

flavicon
face
Vitaliy escribió:
> The footprint is slightly larger, but it does look pretty good otherwise.
> The only problem is, I need a printer with a parallel interface (we're using
> it with a print serve
> Vitaliy
I recommend the HP1320 (1200 dpi) with parallel port and USB, besides is
postscript.
I use her for parallel port and CUPS in GNU/linux without any type of
problems.

Regards

Néstor A. Marchesini
Chajari-Entre Rios-Argentina
ICQ # 50983752 colo
MSN spam_OUTnestorm_desTakeThisOuTspamhotmail.com
.....nestormKILLspamspam@spam@xinet.com.ar
nestormspamKILLspamdeselectronica.com.ar


2007\05\17@004035 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

>> We've been using an old HP 5L printer to print shipping labels,  
>> and it's
>> starting to fail in different ways (it's *very* old). I really  
>> like the form
>> factor and reliability of this printer. Are there similar laser  
>> printers out
>> there, with about the same form factor, and two alternative paper  
>> paths?

If your heart is set on HP, I'm probably no help... (and I understand  
if it is).

I've put many thousands of pages through a Samsung < $100 printer  
here at home, and have been mildly surprised at how long it has  
lasted, and how many pages I get out of a toner cartridge.

The only complaint I might have is that the margins are a tiny bit  
wider on one side than the other -- a paper handling system that's a  
tiny bit too cheap.  And of course, when printing a lot, a larger  
paper tray is always desirable, but it'll hold quite a bit.

--
Nate Duehr
.....nateKILLspamspam.....natetech.com



2007\05\17@091840 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:40 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I'll second that: I've got the Samsung ML-2510. I bought it for $79.
It's LIGHTNING fast (both to power up, and to spit out pages). Has USB
and parallel interfaces.

Best part for me though: Linux drivers ON THE DRIVER CD that actually
WORK! VERY well done on their part, they have a GUI install exe and
everything that works very well, over USB, under linux.

HIGHLY recommend it. TTYL


'[OT]: Small laser printer to replace HP LJ 5L'
2007\07\09@200019 by Vitaliy
flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Well, unfortunately I had a not so nice eBay experience with a used HP
printers dealer (paper feed problem), so I'm back at square one.

I'll stop by Fry's today, and pick up either the ML-2510 you recommended, or
the ML-2571N.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2007\07\10@154156 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Vitaliy wrote:
> Well, unfortunately I had a not so nice eBay experience with a used HP
> printers dealer (paper feed problem), so I'm back at square one.
>
> I'll stop by Fry's today, and pick up either the ML-2510 you recommended,
> or
> the ML-2571N.

Urgh! :-|

I bought the ML-2510, it is indeed a very nice printer (easy to set up,
super-fast). HOWEVER, the dimensions for ML-2571N listed on the website, do
not include the paper tray. I haven't noticed the fact that the display unit
at the store did not have it installed. In retrospect, I should have
realized that it's impossible for the printer to be 11" deep, given how the
paper is loaded.

Are there any new printers out there, that have the vertical loading paper
tray, like the LJ 5L?

Vitaliy

2007\07\10@223051 by Peter

flavicon
face
The though not new the canon BP660, a little dated but I believe it to
be the same print engine the HP 5L 6L were based on.  The HP 2100/2200
not vertical but can feed straight through.  As a printer technician in
a past life, the HP 5L / 6L do/did suffer with high wear rate on pickup
rollers.  Cheap to replace if you know how. Speaking from Australia anyway.
cheers,
Peter

Vitaliy wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\07\11@022655 by Peter Bindels

picon face
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > I'll second that: I've got the Samsung ML-2510. I bought it for $79.
> > It's LIGHTNING fast (both to power up, and to spit out pages). Has USB
> > and parallel interfaces.
> >
> > Best part for me though: Linux drivers ON THE DRIVER CD that actually
> > WORK! VERY well done on their part, they have a GUI install exe and
> > everything that works very well, over USB, under linux.
> >
> > HIGHLY recommend it. TTYL

I have the ML-1610 which is about 2 years old right now, on its second
toner where the first lasted 2000 pages (I always print on economy
mode - it covers enough by far) and the second is at 1500 and running
strong. It cost me 160 euros plus 70 for a toner cartridge and it has
by far outperformed all inkjet printers I've ever had.

2007\07\11@051150 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I have the ML-1610 which is about 2 years old right now, on its
> second
> toner where the first lasted 2000 pages (I always print on economy
> mode - it covers enough by far) and the second is at 1500 and
> running
> strong. It cost me 160 euros plus 70 for a toner cartridge and it
> has
> by far outperformed all inkjet printers I've ever had.

Outperformed using what measure?
Serious question.

On a cost basis E70.00/2000 = E0.035 ~~= $US0.045? per copy doesn't
sound especially cheap for 'ink' in economy mode compared to some ways
of supplying an inkjet printer. I use a bulk ink feed system (utterly
marvellous) on a Canon MP760 printer but even self refilling and even
possibly commercially refilled ink cartridges would be cheaper.

Other metrics might include speed, print quality and duplexing (or
not). Coloured ink costs me the same as black so colour is a "free"
bonus on my printer.



           Russell


2007\07\11@065321 by Peter Bindels

picon face
On 11/07/07, Russell McMahon <EraseMEapptechspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> Outperformed using what measure?
> Serious question.
>
> On a cost basis E70.00/2000 = E0.035 ~~= $US0.045? per copy doesn't
> sound especially cheap for 'ink' in economy mode compared to some ways
> of supplying an inkjet printer. I use a bulk ink feed system (utterly
> marvellous) on a Canon MP760 printer but even self refilling and even
> possibly commercially refilled ink cartridges would be cheaper.
>
> Other metrics might include speed, print quality and duplexing (or
> not). Coloured ink costs me the same as black so colour is a "free"
> bonus on my printer.

The metrics would be total cost of ownership (4000 pages for 200
euros), quality of printout (haven't seen the slightest smear or drip
from any of the printouts), speed (10 a minute easily, fastest inkjet
I've seen before did 4), ease of use in Linux (gs -sDEVICE=gdi and I'm
done, also included drivers which I haven't even bothered to install)
and customer service (free send-back program for the empty toners). Up
to the last time I checked their website it was pretty good but I've
only just noticed they replaced their website with something in flash.

2007\07\11@070852 by Hazelwood Lyle

flavicon
face
> > I have the ML-1610 which is about 2 years old right now, on its
> > second
> > toner where the first lasted 2000 pages (I always print on economy
> > mode - it covers enough by far) and the second is at 1500 and
> > running
> > strong. It cost me 160 euros plus 70 for a toner cartridge and it
> > has
> > by far outperformed all inkjet printers I've ever had.
>
> Outperformed using what measure?
> Serious question.
>

I have a older ML series laser, 1710, I think, and I recall that the
"original" toner cart that shipped with the unit was not a full
cartridge. More of a "test/demo" toner unit, though I got quite a bit
of printing from it before finally buying a full toner cartridge (at
almost the cost of the printer).
I find the print quality to be excellent, and I prefer the colorfast
nature of toner over ink. If the page gets a few drops of rain on it, it
doesn't run like cheap mascara.
Price, both initial and per page, print quality, reliability (no clogged
print heads, no anti-inking countermeasures) are all excellent for me.

Just my experience.. This has been a product that "just works". That is
unfortunately rare nowadays.

Lyle

2007\07\11@071624 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Hazelwood Lyle wrote:

> Just my experience.. This has been a product that "just works". That is
> unfortunately rare nowadays.

Absolutely agreed on several Samsung "cousins" like them, during the
latest years.


--
Ciao, Dario

2007\07\11@083805 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> The metrics would be total cost of ownership (4000 pages for 200
> euros), quality of printout (haven't seen the slightest smear or
> drip
> from any of the printouts), speed (10 a minute easily, fastest
> inkjet
> I've seen before did 4), ease of use in Linux (gs -sDEVICE=gdi and
> I'm
> done, also included drivers which I haven't even bothered to
> install)
> and customer service (free send-back program for the empty toners).
> Up
> to the last time I checked their website it was pretty good but I've
> only just noticed they replaced their website with something in
> flash.

I find that monochrome laser printers just don't do justice to my
colour photos :-). (Although monochrome A3 prints on plain paper can
look amazingly good).

My Canon MP760 cost me about E300 equivalent. The inbuilt duplexer
allows eg double sided text documents with pictures etc in colour.
It's an "all in one" with scanner/copier, CD label printer, flash card
reader and no kitchen sink (nor fax) so the E300 price was higher than
for a straight printer. .

If I take a glossy photo from the printer and wait one minute it can
then be held under a running tap without any visible ink damage. Not
that I'd try that test on most of my photos. Waterproofness is far
superior to that of my earlier inkjets.

My ink cost (using a continuous inking system)(CIS) is so low that
you'd have to walk to AND from school through the snow uphill both
ways with no shoes AND no cardboard box to live in to beat it.

Print quality is probably inferior to a top laser, and maybe to a
budget laser, but when the venerable 300 dpi HP here finally died I
mourned its passing and didn't replace it with another laser.

Integrated fax along with scanner can be nice but, having lost 2
all-in-ones with fax so far to Lightning storms (which killed nothing
else on each occasion) I've decided that I can forgo that luxury.

I imagine the inkjet is slower than the laser I haven't got but, while
this would sometimes be useful, for me the horses-for-courses
conclusion is that I'm very happy with the inkjet compromise. The
extremely low cost of photo (and other) printing provided by the CIS
helps that greatly.



       Russell





2007\07\11@152040 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Dario Greggio wrote:
>> Just my experience.. This has been a product that "just works". That is
>> unfortunately rare nowadays.
>
> Absolutely agreed on several Samsung "cousins" like them, during the
> latest years.

Yes, but what about a *small footprint* printer, preferably 11" deep? With a
vertical paper tray..

I'll keep looking, I guess... :S

2007\07\13@000100 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I find that monochrome laser printers just don't do justice to my
> colour photos :-). (Although monochrome A3 prints on plain paper can
> look amazingly good).

I print all my photos at local Walgreens (upload online, ready in ~1hr).
$0.19/each, excellent quality (indistinguishable from "real" photos), there
is no water-soluble ink to smear, and I'm pretty sure the prints will not
fade for a long time.

[snip]
> I imagine the inkjet is slower than the laser I haven't got but, while
> this would sometimes be useful, for me the horses-for-courses
> conclusion is that I'm very happy with the inkjet compromise. The
> extremely low cost of photo (and other) printing provided by the CIS
> helps that greatly.

Have you considered the cost of photo printer paper?

It's great that you're happy with your inkjet, but after spending a few
hundred dollars on top-of-the line photo printer and getting disappointed by
the results and the cost of supplies, I told myself "never again". I print
all my photos at Walgreens (I've heard that there are places online that are
even cheaper, but they're not as convenient), use a cheap b/w MFC at home,
and print in color on a Dell 3100cn (surprisingly good quality for the
price) at work.

YMMV. ;)

Vitaliy

2007\07\13@023937 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I print all my photos at local Walgreens (upload online, ready in
> ~1hr).
> $0.19/each, excellent quality (indistinguishable from "real"
> photos), there
> is no water-soluble ink to smear, and I'm pretty sure the prints
> will not
> fade for a long time.

My nearest Walgreens is some thousands of miles away :-)
BUT http://www.digitalmax.co.nz is currently doing "6x4" prints for $NZ0.18
~= $US0.14, so that's an option here.
BUT the prices here, and quite probably there and elsewhere too, for
eg A4 prints which are ~= 4 x the size of 6x4, are >> 4 x the cost
:-(.
Also, I find that the "automatic colour correction" and other
processing decisions applied by commercial printers makes it hard to
get any 'artisitic' effects to appear as intended.
Digitalmax photos can be uploaded via internet or delivered to most
photoshops or chemists on all the usual media. Delivery is in a few
days to the retail outlets for free or for a modest courier fee
($NZ2.50?) to one's door.

$NZ1.00 ~~= $US0.75.

I print MANY A4 prints here so commercial printing is unnatractive.

> Have you considered the cost of photo printer paper?

I think you will already be able to correctly guess the answer to that
question :-).

I examined all the available papers and determined that a very low
cost gloss "photo paper " sold in packs of 50 by a local electronics
chain (Dick Smiths - approx equivalent of Fry's here), was as good as
most for my purposes* and by far the cheapest. They occasionally
special it and when they do I buy MANY boxes of it - enough to last
until the next special. On special it costs $NZ0.28/A4 sheet. I use
these for A4 (natch) and I cut these in 4 to get effectively 6x4 (a
shade under in 1 dimension) at $NZ0.07/sheet. That plus bulk feed
continuous ink gives me print costs below the 6x4 $NZ0.18 of
Digitalmax and I can have it NOW.

       http://www.dse.co.nz/cgi-bin/dse.storefront/46971c4700339a30273fc0a87f33067c/Product/View/XM7105

> It's great that you're happy with your inkjet, but after spending a
> few
> hundred dollars on top-of-the line photo printer and getting
> disappointed by
> the results and the cost of supplies, I told myself "never again".

I had a lot of problems getting to this stage. The continuous inking
system and the Canon MP760 make it all worthwhile.




       Russell McMahon


* This paper makes no claims as to archival merit but provides good
results in colour fastness over the short to medium term. IF I want
archival quality I consider other media and systems BUT there is no
guarantee that any of the archival quality claims will in fact hold
true. Time, literally, will tell.


2007\07\13@112345 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jul 11, 2007, at 5:09 AM, Hazelwood Lyle wrote:

> I have a older ML series laser, 1710, I think, and I recall that the

<snip>

> Just my experience.. This has been a product that "just works".  
> That is
> unfortunately rare nowadays.

Same printer here, the Samsung's are a bargain that also work very well.

I'd happily purchase another one.

--
Nate Duehr
natespamspam_OUTnatetech.com



2007\07\13@131157 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> My nearest Walgreens is some thousands of miles away :-)

Yes, I am aware of that. But I am also aware of the fact that you've been to
the States, so you know what Walgreens is, and should by now be used to the
American's self-centered view of the world. ;-)

> BUT http://www.digitalmax.co.nz is currently doing "6x4" prints for $NZ0.18
> ~= $US0.14, so that's an option here.

I figured there's got to be someone in NZ to fill the vacuum. :)

> BUT the prices here, and quite probably there and elsewhere too, for
> eg A4 prints which are ~= 4 x the size of 6x4, are >> 4 x the cost
> :-(.

That's true, to print a full page photo would cost more like x15 the cost of
a 4x6 at Walgreens. :(

> Also, I find that the "automatic colour correction" and other
> processing decisions applied by commercial printers makes it hard to
> get any 'artisitic' effects to appear as intended.

Hm. I haven't considered that.

> I print MANY A4 prints here so commercial printing is unnatractive.

Many? Like, how many? I'm sure that after a certain point, commercial
printing of large prints may become economical. I think the main reason
they're so expensive now, is the fact that most people buy the smaller
sizes.

> I had a lot of problems getting to this stage. The continuous inking
> system and the Canon MP760 make it all worthwhile.

I see why your inkjet works for you. However, most people do not use their
printers to print photos, most of the time. I think that for the average
person, a low-end black-and-white printer is a far better investment than a
color inkjet. Prints are nice and crisp on any kind of paper, they don't
smear, and toner can last for years, given typical usage. Inkjets are
typically slower, and require more maintenance (ink tends to dry up, nozzles
clog up, etc).

But we digress again. :) What's the modern equivalent (form factor-wise), of
an HP LJ 5L/6L? It must have either a parallel interface, or an Ethernet
port.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...