https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/

HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/

I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>
> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle

That's the consumer version of HP. In the words of Wikipedia:
"On November 1, 2015, Hewlett-Packard was split into two separate
companies; its enterprise products and services business were
spun-off to form Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while its personal
computer and printer businesses became HP Inc."

Hewlett Packard Enterprise took on the "top quality gear" side of
the business, while HP Inc. took on the role of using a good brand
name to sell typical consumer-grade gear to the average joe.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>
> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>
> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.

**You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
wonderful.

Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.

My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.

I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.

FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
for most purposes.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 4/03/2024 4:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>
>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>
>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with
>> shame.
>
> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
> wonderful.
>
> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>
> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>
> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>
> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
> for most purposes.
>
We all have our own experiences, I used to have an HP colour ink cum
scanner but a small flexible cable broke rendering it useless. Spare
parts unavailable, I suppose that I could have kludged it, but the
double sided printing never worked properly anyway. I now have an
similar Epson device, but it gets used as little as possible given the
price of ink. For anything that doesn't require colour (and most things
don't), I have an OKI laser, which produces good quality double sided
prints and doesn't object to third party toner cartridges. The scanner
on the Epson gets used more than the printer, it has a document feeder
which is quite useful, it also works as a fax, but nobody uses faxes
these days.
What gets up my nose about HP is their determination to extract every
last dollar from the customer, even to bricking their printers without
notice if they deign to use unauthorised ink. As for printing as a
service, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, it's their printer, you
use it at their pleasure, they can extract whatever information that
they choose, and you have to commit for 2 years or pay a penalty.

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>
>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>
> That's the consumer version of HP. In the words of Wikipedia:
> "On November 1, 2015, Hewlett-Packard was split into two separate
> companies; its enterprise products and services business were
> spun-off to form Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while its personal
> computer and printer businesses became HP Inc."
>
> Hewlett Packard Enterprise took on the "top quality gear" side of
> the business, while HP Inc. took on the role of using a good brand
> name to sell typical consumer-grade gear to the average joe.
>

HP Enterprise is shit too. I had an 8-cartridge LTO drive from them.
Typically used for daily backups, and the 8th tape for a monthly.
But the thing is so locked down, you have to enter a PIN to insert or
replace a cartidge. No numeric keypad, you had to use arrow keys to
enter a PIN. Most fucken tedious thing ever.

On 04/03/2024 20:20, Ozix wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>
>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>
>> That's the consumer version of HP. In the words of Wikipedia:
>> "On November 1, 2015, Hewlett-Packard was split into two separate
>>   companies; its enterprise products and services business were
>>   spun-off to form Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while its personal
>>   computer and printer businesses became HP Inc."
>>
>> Hewlett Packard Enterprise took on the "top quality gear" side of
>> the business, while HP Inc. took on the role of using a good brand
>> name to sell typical consumer-grade gear to the average joe.
>>
>
> HP Enterprise is shit too. I had an 8-cartridge LTO drive from them.
> Typically used for daily backups, and the 8th tape for a monthly.
> But the thing is so locked down, you have to enter a PIN to insert or
> replace a cartidge. No numeric keypad, you had to use arrow keys to
> enter a PIN. Most fucken tedious thing ever.

Just FYI - that PIN-thing can be turned off.

I've been wrangling a couple of G1/8's since 2008. :-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:29:48 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

>> HP Enterprise is shit too. I had an 8-cartridge LTO drive from them.
>> Typically used for daily backups, and the 8th tape for a monthly.
>> But the thing is so locked down, you have to enter a PIN to insert or
>> replace a cartidge. No numeric keypad, you had to use arrow keys to
>> enter a PIN. Most fucken tedious thing ever.
>
>Just FYI - that PIN-thing can be turned off.
>
>I've been wrangling a couple of G1/8's since 2008. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Gary B-)
>
Stop scaring me
Seems my HP getting dated but still works fine but slower must be over
5 years, Will be loading Google Chrome operating system when windows
slows it down more.
WIN10 64 bit touch screen.
Have a B/W HP laser (only used occasionally once a month)
prints both sides, must be around 3 years old.
"HP LaserJet Pro M404-M405 UPD PCL 6"

On Tue, 05 Mar 2024 08:03:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

>Will be loading Google Chrome operating system when windows
>slows it down more.
>
Forgot he link
<https://chromeenterprise.google/intl/en_au/os/chromeosflex/>
https://t.ly/mkVc5

On 05/03/2024 08:03, Petzl wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:29:48 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>> HP Enterprise is shit too. I had an 8-cartridge LTO drive from them.
>>> Typically used for daily backups, and the 8th tape for a monthly.
>>> But the thing is so locked down, you have to enter a PIN to insert or
>>> replace a cartidge. No numeric keypad, you had to use arrow keys to
>>> enter a PIN. Most fucken tedious thing ever.
>>
>> Just FYI - that PIN-thing can be turned off.
>>
>> I've been wrangling a couple of G1/8's since 2008. :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Gary B-)
>>
> Stop scaring me
> Seems my HP getting dated but still works fine but slower must be over
> 5 years, Will be loading Google Chrome operating system when windows
> slows it down more.
> WIN10 64 bit touch screen.
> Have a B/W HP laser (only used occasionally once a month)
> prints both sides, must be around 3 years old.
> "HP LaserJet Pro M404-M405 UPD PCL 6"

I find that throwing Linux onto winderrs peecees extends their lives
greatly, they run faster than they ever did, and most people just access
trash trough a browser, so who cares what's under the hood.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

P.S. Yes, ChromeOS is pretty much Linux with a bunch of changes.

On 5/03/2024 2:46 pm, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/03/2024 08:03, Petzl wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:29:48 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> HP Enterprise is shit too. I had an 8-cartridge LTO drive from them.
>>>> Typically used for daily backups, and the 8th tape for a monthly.
>>>> But the thing is so locked down, you have to enter a PIN to insert or
>>>> replace a cartidge. No numeric keypad, you had to use arrow keys to
>>>> enter a PIN. Most fucken tedious thing ever.
>>>
>>> Just FYI - that PIN-thing can be turned off.
>>>
>>> I've been wrangling a couple of G1/8's since 2008.  :-)
>>>
>>>     Cheers,
>>>         Gary    B-)
>>>
>> Stop scaring me
>> Seems my HP getting dated but still works fine but slower must be over
>> 5 years, Will be loading Google Chrome operating system when windows
>> slows it down more.
>> WIN10 64 bit touch screen.
>> Have a B/W HP laser (only used occasionally once a month)
>> prints both sides, must be around 3 years old.
>> "HP LaserJet Pro M404-M405 UPD PCL 6"
>
> I find that throwing Linux onto winderrs peecees extends their lives
> greatly, they run faster than they ever did, and most people just access
> trash trough a browser, so who cares what's under the hood.
>

True, but some people do need MS Office and Adobe products, in which
case Windoze or Apple is a necessity.

>     Cheers,
>         Gary    B-)
>
> P.S.  Yes, ChromeOS is pretty much Linux with a bunch of changes.

On 4/03/2024 5:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>
>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>
>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with
>> shame.
>
> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
> wonderful.
>
> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>
> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>
> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>
> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
> for most purposes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My two printers are both Brother. HL1110, Which sounds like the same
one you have, tho mine was $65 (few years back now). Works fine.. And a
DCP350C an inkjet with Excellent print quality!. Works fine with
Inkstation carts. A good combo.
>

On 4/03/2024 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/03/2024 4:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>
>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>>
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>>
>>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with
>>> shame.
>>
>> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
>> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
>> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing.
>> Then there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
>> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
>> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
>> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
>> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
>> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
>> wonderful.
>>
>> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
>> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just
>> use it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to
>> occur. You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense)
>> just so you can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't
>> work with Windows 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing
>> drivers for it.
>>
>> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always
>> done for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every
>> three or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>>
>> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>>
>> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
>> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
>> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps
>> going. Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is
>> adequate for most purposes.
>>
> We all have our own experiences, I used to have an HP colour ink cum
> scanner but a small flexible cable broke rendering it useless. Spare
> parts unavailable, I suppose that I could have kludged it, but the
> double sided printing never worked properly anyway. I now have an
> similar Epson device, but it gets used as little as possible given the
> price of ink. For anything that doesn't require colour (and most things
> don't), I have an OKI laser, which produces good quality double sided
> prints and doesn't object to third party toner cartridges. The scanner
> on the Epson gets used more than the printer, it has a document feeder
> which is quite useful, it also works as a fax, but nobody uses faxes
> these days.
> What gets up my nose about HP is their determination to extract every
> last dollar from the customer, even to bricking their printers without
> notice if they deign to use unauthorised ink. As for printing as a
> service, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, it's their printer, you
> use it at their pleasure, they can extract whatever information that
> they choose, and you have to commit for 2 years or pay a penalty.

On 2024-03-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>
>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>
>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.
>
> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
> wonderful.
>
> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>
> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>
> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>
> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
> for most purposes.
>

These stories make me want to dig out my Epson LX400 Dot Matrix
printer and keep it working as a fallback.

On 21/3/2024 8:03 pm, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-03-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>
>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>>
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>>
>>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.
>>
>> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
>> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
>> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
>> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
>> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
>> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
>> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
>> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
>> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
>> wonderful.
>>
>> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
>> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
>> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
>> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
>> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
>> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>>
>> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
>> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
>> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>>
>> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>>
>> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
>> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
>> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
>> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
>> for most purposes.
>>
>
> These stories make me want to dig out my Epson LX400 Dot Matrix
> printer and keep it working as a fallback.

Or my old Microline 80 with tractor feed, teletype roll holder and no
lower case descenders, purchased late 81 along with a Sorcerer and WP
pack. Couldn't kill those printers!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 2024-03-22, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 21/3/2024 8:03 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>> On 2024-03-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>>
>>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>>>
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>>>
>>>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.
>>>
>>> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
>>> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
>>> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
>>> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
>>> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
>>> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
>>> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
>>> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
>>> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
>>> wonderful.
>>>
>>> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
>>> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
>>> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
>>> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
>>> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
>>> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>>>
>>> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
>>> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
>>> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>>>
>>> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>>>
>>> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
>>> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
>>> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
>>> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
>>> for most purposes.
>>>
>>
>> These stories make me want to dig out my Epson LX400 Dot Matrix
>> printer and keep it working as a fallback.
>
> Or my old Microline 80 with tractor feed, teletype roll holder and no
> lower case descenders, purchased late 81 along with a Sorcerer and WP
> pack. Couldn't kill those printers!
>

I purchased my Epson LX400 back in 1994, it was the most I ever spent
in my life up until that point (I was in Secondary School, and it cost
me about $200). I used that printer until about 2008. Still have it,
though the ribbons would have well dried up by now.

You know how there are a few things you buy, and you think "damn, I
really got my moneys worth out of that!". That printer was one of
those things.

Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2024-03-22, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On 21/3/2024 8:03 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>>>
>>>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>>>>
>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.
>>>>
>>>> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
>>>> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
>>>> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
>>>> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
>>>> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
>>>> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
>>>> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
>>>> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
>>>> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
>>>> wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
>>>> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
>>>> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
>>>> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
>>>> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
>>>> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>>>>
>>>> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
>>>> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
>>>> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>>>>
>>>> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
>>>> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
>>>> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
>>>> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
>>>> for most purposes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> These stories make me want to dig out my Epson LX400 Dot Matrix
>>> printer and keep it working as a fallback.
>>
>> Or my old Microline 80 with tractor feed, teletype roll holder and no
>> lower case descenders, purchased late 81 along with a Sorcerer and WP
>> pack. Couldn't kill those printers!
>>
>
> I purchased my Epson LX400 back in 1994, it was the most I ever spent
> in my life up until that point (I was in Secondary School, and it cost
> me about $200). I used that printer until about 2008. Still have it,
> though the ribbons would have well dried up by now.

The computer and WP pack was my most expensive item since I was 29 and in
first year teachers college. Needed the printer for assignments and to
print out pages and pages of program listings. The reason I bought the M80
was the huge stack of teletype paper rolls I was given. That and the fact I
could get fanfold paper from work meant I never had to buy paper for that
printer, just printer ribbon cartridges. Eventually upgraded it to an Epson
MX80 clone - needed better graphics capability.
>
> You know how there are a few things you buy, and you think "damn, I
> really got my moneys worth out of that!". That printer was one of
> those things.
>
Yep, I certainly got value out of that computer& printer setup. Can’t even
recall what I did with the printer, probably gave it away. The computer was
sold to a mining company in WA. Those two items set me off on a path into
IT in education.

____
Xeno

On 21/03/2024 8:03 pm, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-03-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>
>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>>
>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>>
>>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.
>>
>> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
>> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
>> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
>> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
>> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
>> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
>> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
>> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
>> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
>> wonderful.
>>
>> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
>> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
>> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
>> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
>> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
>> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>>
>> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
>> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
>> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>>
>> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>>
>> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
>> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
>> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
>> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
>> for most purposes.
>>
>
> These stories make me want to dig out my Epson LX400 Dot Matrix
> printer and keep it working as a fallback.

**Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?) 24 pin
dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold them all
for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each! Fabulous
printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who bought
one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused to stop
working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms really
well. Made in Germany too.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2024-03-26, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 8:03 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>> On 2024-03-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>>
>>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>>>
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>>>
>>>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.
>>>
>>> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
>>> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
>>> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
>>> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
>>> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
>>> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
>>> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
>>> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
>>> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
>>> wonderful.
>>>
>>> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
>>> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
>>> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
>>> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
>>> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
>>> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>>>
>>> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
>>> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
>>> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>>>
>>> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>>>
>>> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
>>> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
>>> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
>>> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
>>> for most purposes.
>>>
>>
>> These stories make me want to dig out my Epson LX400 Dot Matrix
>> printer and keep it working as a fallback.
>
> **Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?) 24 pin
> dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold them all
> for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each! Fabulous
> printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who bought
> one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused to stop
> working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms really
> well. Made in Germany too.
>

I kind of miss rugged, mechanical tech. Dot Matrix printers, floppy
drives, things that are noisy. There is a certain level of
satisfaction you get being able to see and hear the machines work, the
machines you put into action with a simple command.

On 27/3/2024 8:52 pm, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-03-26, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 8:03 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 2/03/2024 9:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hp-wants-you-to-pay-up-to-36-month-to-rent-a-printer-that-it-monitors/
>>>>>
>>>>> HP used to be a great company turning out expensive but top quality
>>>>> gear, now they are just a money grubbing mob taking the customer for
>>>>> every cent that they can. This is just the latest swindle
>>>>>
>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/the-printers-that-require-ink-to-scan-and-fax/
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet that Hewlett and Packard are turning over in their graves with shame.
>>>>
>>>> **You'd think. I've HP (laser) printers since the late 1980s (My first
>>>> was a LJ-IIIP). Then came some experimentation with other brands. Oki
>>>> was nice, but try to locate suitable drivers for the damned thing. Then
>>>> there was a disasterous foray into a Samsung laser
>>>> scanner/printer/copier. It was cheap and print quality was decent.
>>>> HOWEVER, a simple paper jam required a complete dismantling of the
>>>> printer! It was an horrific design. I gave up a few years back and
>>>> purchased another HP. I could not be happier. Toner is not cheap, but
>>>> print quality, speed and overall versatility of the thing is just
>>>> wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> Oh and WRT to print cartridges, let's discuss my old Canon inkjet
>>>> scanner/printer/copier. The ink dried out, so I figured I would just use
>>>> it as a scanner. Nup. Damned thing will not allow such a thing to occur.
>>>> You have to load it with (Canon only) inks (at huge expense) just so you
>>>> can scan. Oh yeah, my dedicated Canon scanner wouldn't work with Windows
>>>> 10, because they couldn't be bothered releasing drivers for it.
>>>>
>>>> My HP just quietly and quickly chugs away, doing what it has always done
>>>> for the past 4 years. The odd paper jam (maybe one sheet in every three
>>>> or four reams) is quickly and easily dealt with.
>>>>
>>>> I've learned my lesson. I'm sticking with HP. They just work.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW: My other printer is a cheap 'n cheerful Brother ($120.00 from
>>>> Officeworks) mono laser. It is similarly well designed, VERY cheap to
>>>> run (third party toners are easy and cheap to buy) and just keeps going.
>>>> Print quality is not in the same league as the HP, but it is adequate
>>>> for most purposes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> These stories make me want to dig out my Epson LX400 Dot Matrix
>>> printer and keep it working as a fallback.
>>
>> **Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?) 24 pin
>> dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold them all
>> for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each! Fabulous
>> printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who bought
>> one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused to stop
>> working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms really
>> well. Made in Germany too.
>>
>
> I kind of miss rugged, mechanical tech. Dot Matrix printers, floppy
> drives, things that are noisy. There is a certain level of
> satisfaction you get being able to see and hear the machines work, the
> machines you put into action with a simple command.

Yeah, hear those buzzy HDDs work, then head crash when you breathed too
hard near them. I too remember those days, floppy drives drifting out of
alignment, dot matrix printers that would send you deaf, the days of
flaky floppy disks, and even flakier CD ROM drives - I'm glad those days
are well and truly gone.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 27/3/2024 8:52 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>> On 2024-03-26, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> **Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?) 24 pin
>>> dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold them all
>>> for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each! Fabulous
>>> printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who bought
>>> one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused to stop
>>> working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms really
>>> well. Made in Germany too.
>>
>> I kind of miss rugged, mechanical tech. Dot Matrix printers, floppy
>> drives, things that are noisy. There is a certain level of
>> satisfaction you get being able to see and hear the machines work, the
>> machines you put into action with a simple command.
>
> Yeah, hear those buzzy HDDs work, then head crash when you breathed too
> hard near them. I too remember those days, floppy drives drifting out of
> alignment, dot matrix printers that would send you deaf, the days of
> flaky floppy disks, and even flakier CD ROM drives - I'm glad those days
> are well and truly gone.

Still well and truely alive where I'm sitting, next to a dot-matrix
printer, 3.5" floppy drive, Zip drive, CD ROM drive (I've rarely
had trouble with these being flaky, it's the discs that are the
problem), and two ~2GB IDE HDDs. All in/for the Pentium I PC that
I'm posting this from quite comfortably.

Not made by HP or IBM though.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Xeno wrote:
>
> Yeah, hear those buzzy HDDs work, then head crash when you breathed too
> hard near them. I too remember those days, floppy drives drifting out of
> alignment, dot matrix printers that would send you deaf, the days of
> flaky floppy disks, and even flakier CD ROM drives - I'm glad those days
> are well and truly gone.
>
>

I remember working for a geophysical company in late 80s, and they had
signs on the PCs for the cleaner not to bump them (they were left
running all night to do primitive number crunching).

On 28/3/2024 9:57 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On 27/3/2024 8:52 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-26, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> **Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?) 24 pin
>>>> dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold them all
>>>> for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each! Fabulous
>>>> printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who bought
>>>> one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused to stop
>>>> working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms really
>>>> well. Made in Germany too.
>>>
>>> I kind of miss rugged, mechanical tech. Dot Matrix printers, floppy
>>> drives, things that are noisy. There is a certain level of
>>> satisfaction you get being able to see and hear the machines work, the
>>> machines you put into action with a simple command.
>>
>> Yeah, hear those buzzy HDDs work, then head crash when you breathed too
>> hard near them. I too remember those days, floppy drives drifting out of
>> alignment, dot matrix printers that would send you deaf, the days of
>> flaky floppy disks, and even flakier CD ROM drives - I'm glad those days
>> are well and truly gone.
>
> Still well and truely alive where I'm sitting, next to a dot-matrix
> printer, 3.5" floppy drive, Zip drive, CD ROM drive (I've rarely
> had trouble with these being flaky, it's the discs that are the

I was thinking of pre-1990 equipment, ie. sub 100 meg HDDs - they were
very delicate. Zip drives, I have a heap of them here - still - 100s,
250s, 750s, must get around to disposing of them soon since I can't ever
see myself using them again.

> problem), and two ~2GB IDE HDDs. All in/for the Pentium I PC that
> I'm posting this from quite comfortably.
>
> Not made by HP or IBM though.
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 21:24:35 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> On 28/3/2024 9:57 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 27/3/2024 8:52 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-26, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> **Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?) 24
>>>>> pin
>>>>> dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold them
>>>>> all
>>>>> for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each!
>>>>> Fabulous
>>>>> printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who
>>>>> bought
>>>>> one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused to
>>>>> stop
>>>>> working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms
>>>>> really
>>>>> well. Made in Germany too.
>>>>
>>>> I kind of miss rugged, mechanical tech. Dot Matrix printers, floppy
>>>> drives, things that are noisy. There is a certain level of
>>>> satisfaction you get being able to see and hear the machines work, the
>>>> machines you put into action with a simple command.
>>>
>>> Yeah, hear those buzzy HDDs work, then head crash when you breathed too
>>> hard near them. I too remember those days, floppy drives drifting out
>>> of
>>> alignment, dot matrix printers that would send you deaf, the days of
>>> flaky floppy disks, and even flakier CD ROM drives - I'm glad those
>>> days
>>> are well and truly gone.
>> Still well and truely alive where I'm sitting, next to a dot-matrix
>> printer, 3.5" floppy drive, Zip drive, CD ROM drive (I've rarely
>> had trouble with these being flaky, it's the discs that are the
>
> I was thinking of pre-1990 equipment, ie. sub 100 meg HDDs - they were
> very delicate.

Bullshit they were.

> Zip drives, I have a heap of them here - still - 100s, 250s, 750s, must
> get around to disposing of them soon since I can't ever see myself using
> them again.

>> problem), and two ~2GB IDE HDDs. All in/for the Pentium I PC that
>> I'm posting this from quite comfortably.
>> Not made by HP or IBM though.
>>

On 29/3/2024 4:36 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 21:24:35 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 28/3/2024 9:57 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 27/3/2024 8:52 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-26, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> **Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?)
>>>>>> 24 pin
>>>>>> dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold
>>>>>> them all
>>>>>> for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each!
>>>>>> Fabulous
>>>>>> printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who
>>>>>> bought
>>>>>> one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused
>>>>>> to stop
>>>>>> working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> well. Made in Germany too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I kind of miss rugged, mechanical tech.  Dot Matrix printers, floppy
>>>>> drives, things that are noisy.  There is a certain level of
>>>>> satisfaction you get being able to see and hear the machines work, the
>>>>> machines you put into action with a simple command.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, hear those buzzy HDDs work, then head crash when you breathed too
>>>> hard near them. I too remember those days, floppy drives drifting
>>>> out of
>>>> alignment, dot matrix printers that would send you deaf, the days of
>>>> flaky floppy disks, and even flakier CD ROM drives - I'm glad those
>>>> days
>>>> are well and truly gone.
>>>  Still well and truely alive where I'm sitting, next to a dot-matrix
>>> printer, 3.5" floppy drive, Zip drive, CD ROM drive (I've rarely
>>> had trouble with these being flaky, it's the discs that are the
>>
>> I was thinking of pre-1990 equipment, ie. sub 100 meg HDDs - they were
>> very delicate.
>
> Bullshit they were.

Yes, they were indeed bullshit - reliability not in their feature list.
>
>> Zip drives, I have a heap of them here - still - 100s, 250s, 750s,
>> must get around to disposing of them soon since I can't ever see
>> myself using them again.
>
>>> problem), and two ~2GB IDE HDDs. All in/for the Pentium I PC that
>>> I'm posting this from quite comfortably.
>>>  Not made by HP or IBM though.
>>>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 23:02:12 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> On 29/3/2024 4:36 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 21:24:35 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/3/2024 9:57 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> On 27/3/2024 8:52 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-26, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> **Back in the early 1990s, I purchased 50 Mannesmann Tally (sp?)
>>>>>>> 24 pin
>>>>>>> dot matrix printers from IBM. They cost me $50.00 each. I sold
>>>>>>> them all
>>>>>>> for $300.00 each. I checked the original cost - $2,300.00 each!
>>>>>>> Fabulous
>>>>>>> printer. Tough, reliable and fast (for a dot matrix). A mate who
>>>>>>> bought
>>>>>>> one for his business was still using it 10 years ago. It refused
>>>>>>> to stop
>>>>>>> working and he liked it because it would print multi-part forms
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> well. Made in Germany too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I kind of miss rugged, mechanical tech. Dot Matrix printers, floppy
>>>>>> drives, things that are noisy. There is a certain level of
>>>>>> satisfaction you get being able to see and hear the machines work,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> machines you put into action with a simple command.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, hear those buzzy HDDs work, then head crash when you breathed
>>>>> too
>>>>> hard near them. I too remember those days, floppy drives drifting
>>>>> out of
>>>>> alignment, dot matrix printers that would send you deaf, the days of
>>>>> flaky floppy disks, and even flakier CD ROM drives - I'm glad those
>>>>> days
>>>>> are well and truly gone.
>>>> Still well and truely alive where I'm sitting, next to a dot-matrix
>>>> printer, 3.5" floppy drive, Zip drive, CD ROM drive (I've rarely
>>>> had trouble with these being flaky, it's the discs that are the
>>>
>>> I was thinking of pre-1990 equipment, ie. sub 100 meg HDDs - they were
>>> very delicate.
>> Bullshit they were.
>
> Yes, they were indeed bullshit - reliability not in their feature list.

Bullshit.

>>> Zip drives, I have a heap of them here - still - 100s, 250s, 750s,
>>> must get around to disposing of them soon since I can't ever see
>>> myself using them again.
>>
>>>> problem), and two ~2GB IDE HDDs. All in/for the Pentium I PC that
>>>> I'm posting this from quite comfortably.
>>>> Not made by HP or IBM though.
>>>>