Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: w0z who wrote (1554)	7/30/2002 9:05:57 PM
From: John Koligman	Respond to of 4345

Bill, the cost is all over the place depending on which printer brand you go with. PC Magazine ran an 'ink comparison' test some time ago, and Lexmark inkjets used the most ink by far. In some cases the dollar figures were in the hundreds of dollars more over a year/two year period for the ink hogs. Another key factor is how many tanks your printer has, so that if one color runs out you don't have to replace several, resulting in wasted ink. I recently bought my wife a Canon 900 model that uses six ink tanks, which seems to be the direction some of the majors are heading in... Best regards, John

To: w0z who wrote (1554)	8/1/2002 10:07:16 PM
From: Jimbo Cobb	Respond to of 4345

Bill....I haven't printed enough pictures lately to have a good feel for it....But I think if you printed ALL the digital pics you took in highest quality mode on highest-quality paper, the paper+ink costs would be pretty close to the developing costs, maybe more.....BUT most people don't print anywhere close to all the digital pics they take....actually I take a ton more digital pics than I would have ever taken with 35mm, but I print even less than I would have with 35mm, so I feel it saves me money and gives me instant access to the pics.....but I am pleased with the quality I get when I do print them out. Jimbo.