I am a professional photocopier technician, focusing on office sized, but also desktop laser photocopiers. I am certified in HP, Lexmark, various Xerox models, and various Canon photocopiers.
I say with all of my heart: Fuck HP.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I am a professional photocopier technician, focusing on office sized, but also desktop laser photocopiers. I am certified in HP, Lexmark, various Xerox models, and various Canon photocopiers.
I say with all of my heart: Fuck HP.
But half of their modern printers require a monthly paid subscription to even function. They need to stop doing that.
people need to stop buying HP printers
They did.
They now rent them through a monthly paid subscription.
zing!
so shitty, though
Does anyone at HP even use their own printers?
Depends if there's a camera nearby or not.
"They're gone? Bring back the Brother."
I wish i had the answer to this, as i work ewaste in the silicon valley, but HP isnt one of our clients.
Probably not the inkjets. The lasers have been good. Old ones were eternal.
I remember programming rude messages into the LCDs of those old HP Laserjets in college. Good times
"FEED ME A STRAY CAT"
"BBQ SAUCE LOW"
Some of my favorites.
It's not their printers which are hated, it's their business model of selling overpriced ink and toner cartridges to a price that's higher than champagne prices and using technical devices to make it impossible to use other toner sources, firmware to make printers stop working when ink runs anywhere near low (they define 'low' as 33% ink left), while at the same time ensuring that as much ink and toner as possible are wasted through unnecessary testing and calibration and cleaning processes.
No, we hate their fucking printers as well. Non-removable printheads and automatic retraction to try to stop you from unclogging their shit hardware. I'd also include the firmware in critique of their printers, what you mention above, as well as limiting black printing if color is low (even with dedicated black cartridges). Arbitrarily restricting scanning on some models, etc.
We decidedly DO hate their printers.
That are all symptoms of said business model. And Hewlett Packard isn't the only company with such abominations.
No, I hate their bloated as fuck drivers as well.
Can we sue for false advertising
We have some old, great HP printers. Rock solid.
As they die, Brother, my Brother.
Fuck the latest HP.
Iirc Brother printers are heading down a similar dark path. Though I don’t recall where I got that info, so take it with a grain of salt.
Edit: I somehow misspelled brother.
The HP logo is all it takes to make printers hated at this point. Couldnt give me one even if it included 10yrs of ink.
I hated my mom's Epson way more than any HP I've ever used. It was nice because it was a ink-tank model, but the software was awful.
This is kinda like saying I'd rather step in the slightly smaller pile of shit.
With all the interest in 3D printer and large communities building their own printers, where are the amateur 2D printers? Did we just jump to 3D printing because it was cooler (which I also admit is amaizing)?
I just want a basic 2D inkjet or laser printer that doesn't stop printing because magenta is low or doesn't waste ink to “clean” the print head, nor make up weird errors because it doesn't have access to the internet.
What about printers without ink? Would it be too hard/complicated to use a lower power laser (instead of a laser cutter) to burn/scorch a thin micrometric, if not nanometric, layer of normal everyday printing/copy white paper?
As a child, I remember scorching magazine/journal paper and all sorts of wood materials with my grandmother's handheld magnifying lens under the summer sun in the yard. I was able to draw stuff without burning some of the material completely.
What about printers without ink?
Laser printers have existed for a long time and they don't use ink, but they do use toner. I'm gonna assume just scorching the paper has been proven to be a bad idea, because someone would have tried to market a toner-free printer by now otherwise.
My best guess is that it's very hard to scorch paper to a color anywhere near black without creating a serious fire hazard. Even if you could calibrate the laser just right, the next batch of paper could burn because it has a slightly different weight, texture, or composition.
You'd probably end up being special paper stuff something in it that turns black at a fairly low temperature. That's pretty common for things like receipt printers.
They were when HP was run by engineers.
Does this count as false advertising?
This is a good opportunity to ask if there's a better printer company whose printers we should buy instead.
In addition to Brother, Ecotank style printers (printers that refill from ink bottles instead of cartridges) are pretty good even if they come from usually shittier printer companies. The ink is extremely cheap and there's no way to prevent people from using different brands of ink bottles.
You have to pay more up front for the printer, but that's because they're sold with the idea that the printer company makes its money upfront instead of overcharging you for ink later.
Just adding to this, toner printers are ideal if you’re printing only a few items per year. If ink dries, it makes for some intensely frustrating issues. I’m 90% of the way to finding HP’s CEO and bringing my clogged nozzle printer down on their stupid face.
Subhead: "apparently they're being serious" - The Register knows what people think!
Hahaha. Now this explains why MSoft have started pushing hp smart app. Absolute scum bags them both. Wonder how much MSoft accepted to push that software out?
So...it's not an HP printer?
My guess if you buy a HP printer, they send a Brother laser printer, which is going to make consumers much happier.
!nottheonion@lemmy.world
HP literally defines my hate of printers, this is hilarious.
Someone did some market research and found out they're in the dog house.
So they recognize that people hate their printers.