| ??? 02/20/10 15:58 Read: times |
#173365 - manufacturing quality standards have been lowered Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
Richard Erlacher said:
I, too, thought printing on transparency with a laser printer would be the "solution." What I found, however, was that laser printers stretch the medium along one axis while heating it in order to bind the toner to it. I guess a "stretch-resistant" medium specifically deigned for the purpose would help? Yes it would, but I've never seen or heard of any such medium. After all, the typical laser printer heats the medium in order to bind the toner to the medium, all the while transporting it under tension. BTW, there were several articles in BYTE and other such "hobby" mag's that described this same problem. When did you try this? 1990 Have you tried it recently, with modern media? No ... and, in fact, we got rid of the Gerber Plotter, too. Further, the toner often wasn't dense enough. No HP Laserjet I ever had would perform satisfactorily in this regard. In order to produce satisfactory artwork, I bought a pen plotter, already having convinced myself that the opacity of the rubber-based ink would produce better results than a laser engine. Inkjets large enough for the job weren't on the market yet. Again, when did you try this?
Have you tried it recently, with modern printers? Experience has taught me that the current-generation laser printers don't place as dense a line as the older (very much older) HP laser printers using the SX engine, e.g. LaserJet III, LaserJet II, and earlier, with the one exception that I observed, the Okidata PL-1200, which, itself, wasn't much newer. I presently use a color laserjet, and, while it does an adequate job, I haven't found it particularly wonderful, nor have I found it equal to the printers of the '80's that HP produced. After all, back when this exercise started, laser printers comparable, albeit monochrome, with those I use today, cost on the order of $3k, while, when I bought my last Color Laserjet, which, BTW, prints on both sides of the paper, it cost less than $250. Clearly, the manufacturers have cut a few corners in order to cut the price of the printer, in order to make their profit on selling toner. After all, a complete reload of toner costs more than the printer did. Moreover, today's color laserjets seem, almost universally, to be network-interfaced, which cost about $250 extra back in the day of the laserjets before the LJ4. This quality reduction is not unique to the printer industry. I recently replaced a 50-year old freezer, with the recollection of other appliances that I own, all over 30 years old, when I was surprised to learn that the typical design-life-expectancy of a modern household appliance is, on average, 8 years. As a consequence, I have my appliances repaired, rather than buying new ones. Based on this general trend, and on my observations, I'd guess that modern printers offer no hope of doing the job better than the ones of 25 years ago. I still have all the old SX-engine laser printers that I've owned, aside, perhaps, from a few I've given to my colleagues when they needed one to cannibalize to repair theirs. When I'm idle, or I have excess manpower available, I endeavor to take the old non-functioning printers and combine them into functioning ones. The old-timers print very well once the defective module is replaced, though not quite as fast as the newer ones. It's wonderful, however, to turn on an old repaired printer purchased when I was in my 40's and have it produce output considerably better than what the newer printers do. RE |
