Not the best known name in all-in-one printers, Kodak now has a range of four machine. They all use the same print engine, but are differentiated by different levels of bell and whistlery. Among the claims Kodak makes for all of them is photo prints for just 7p each - cheaper than any other inkjet. Kodak ESP 7 Kodak's ESP 7: …
Have they got rid of the vile easyshare software
That it insists on installing as "drivers"
100+ mb of crapola
Marketing department maths
I've had a 5000 series, with similar claims about price per photo, for about a year - all very well getting 180 bits of photo paper in the pack but I've never had a cartridge last anywhere near using all of them, so cost per photo in practice is nowhere near 6p. Still a decent all-in-one though.
Possible alternative: Epson Workforce 600
Last weekend i bought the Epson Workforce 600; wireless printing and scanning(!) both under XP and OS X 10.5.x; Fax and Automatic Document Feeder (missing in the Kodak). As for the price: $149... printers are dirt cheap.
Apart from that, specs seem kinda the same. Not sure about the cost per print for the Epson (which is where the printer companies will probably recoup their loss on the price of the printer itself...)
Printer is noisy as well, however that also depends on the quality of the print. When printing on economy / draft, the thing is really fast, but also really loud :-)
Canon Pixma Ip1500
My estimate (with a CISS( this printer costs ~5.5p per picture and those are A4 borderless prints. I do a lot of prints for charity at dog shows etc and as everything goes into the charity pot I eat the costs - so cheap but good paper, ink etc are important to me.
A newer version Canon printer has been costed at 7.8p per A4 print.
What I would be interested in is the running costs and real world print times for A3 borderless
printers I can plonk in a RV anwing - connect to a getset and use in a dog show field without
it dying on me. Up till now the canon has been the only printer that has passed the dog field test.
p.s If you want me to do some (A3) printer evaluations let me know - just make sure he supplier provided plenty of ink :-)
It's aimed at home users, so no fax.
It's the same idea that Vista contains.
Let's test the logic.
Office users - assume that they do need the fax for business - so they will decide to throw out the existing dedicated fax machine and make do with the fax facilty in a printer or use a fax modem on the PC should they have one.
Home users -may need to send the occasional fax, so if they want to do that they will need to buy a dedicated fax machine to squeeze on the desk next to the printer, because neither printer nor MS Vista have fax facility.
That does make sense, doesn't it?
Well, obviously the businesses using Vista are supposed to flog their old un-needed Fax machine to home users, using Microsoft Classified Ads on MSN. Or something.
Or they could just install Ubuntu on one of the many underspecified-for-Vista machines they have since the upgrade, and
$ sudo apt-get install hylafax
But what would I know? Anyway, I've got a colour laser, and there's no way in hell I'd ever go back to an inkjet.
You're presumably using third-party inks? I can't see you getting an A4 photo print from an iP1500 with Canon inks for 5.5p -- more like four times that. For a reasonably comparison, you have to use manufacturers inks throughout.