The trick to finding a good, but cost-effective, laser printer is to break down the cost of printing to a per-page cost. For example, I recently had to find a sub-$150 monochrome laser printer for my work. This falls into the small home office category. I found the following printers from my supplier: Samsung ML 1610 ($99.99) Brother HL 2040 ($119.99) Samsung ML 2010 ($129.99) OKI B4100 ($143.99) Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W ($149.62) My supplier carries toner for all of these printers, but no drum replacement kit for the Samsungs. So immediately we're down to three printers. Brother HL 2040 ($119.99) OKI B4100 ($143.99) Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W ($149.62) Next, I looked up the toner cartridges for each of these printers, and how long the toner lasts: Brother HL 2040 2500 pages $ 49.87 $ 0.020 per page OKI B4100 2500 pages $ 30.10 $ 0.012 per page Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W 3000 pages $ 78.84 $ 0.026 per page Next, I looked up how much the replacement transfer drums cost, and how long they last: Brother HL 2040 12000 pages $ 86.77 $ 0.007 per page OKI B4100 25000 pages $149.57 $ 0.006 per page Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W 20000 pages $ 99.27 $ 0.005 per page Then, when you combine the two, you have a total-cost-per-page number: Brother HL 2040 $ 0.027 per page OKI B4100 $ 0.018 per page Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W $ 0.031 per page Once you know this information, you can safely decide on what printer to get, once you take a look at the following examples: After printing 0 pages (printer/cost) Brother HL 2040 ($119.99) OKI B4100 ($143.99) Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W ($149.62) After printing 5000 pages Brother HL 2040 ($255.88) OKI B4100 ($234.10) Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W ($305.84 ) After printing 10,000 pages Brother HL 2040 ($391.78) OKI B4100 ($324.22) Konica Minolta PagePro 1350W ($462.06 ) As you can see, with a little work, you can save a lot of money in the long run by looking at all the factors involved in a laser printer purchase, not just the price. And in the case of these similar-performing printers, the more expensive printer doesn't always mean you will get more for your money!|W|P|114159907406066279|W|P|How not to get ripped off on a laser printer|W|P|
I don't like marketing departments. It seems like they never stop trying to make their product better than what it really is, while staying technically accurate. What ever happened to having a great product, and just saying 'we have the best product out there, and this is why:'. Not 'you need this' or 'this unit is the brightest', (when brightness actually has nothing to do with the product. So basically, throw the marketing aside, and look into it yourself.
I took this advice in looking into a new TV for myself. I found that marketing departments are getting away with promoting qualities in their TV's that aren't even desirable, such as contrast ratio. They want you to purchase their unit based on contrast, because it is the easiest thing to improve on, not because it actually means anything.
And as long as we're on the topic of false-but technically-not-false advertising, I'd like to bring on my most major finding in my own investigations.
I have a 32" Sony Wega. I'm looking into moving from this 4:3 aspect unit to a 16:9 aspect unit.
Here are the stats for my TV:
4:3 aspect ratio
24 inches wide
18 inches tall
432 square inches
(also 163 pounds. That doesn't have to do with anything, it's just fun to point out how ludicrous moving it around is...)
Now, the HDTV signal from comcast is coming in at an aspect of 16:9. That means on my TV, it is displaying an image that measures 18 inches tall and is 32 inches wide. But my screen is only 24 inches wide. So the TV just cuts 4 inches off of each side and you miss out on that part of the signal. That signal you're paying for. Well that won't do...
So if I wanted to keep the same square area of screen, but in 16:9 so I don't lose anything, I would have to do the following:
27.7 inches wide
15.6 inches tall
432 square inches
So now that we're viewing the HDTV signal from Comcast in 16:9, I can see the entire signal being sent to me. In the past, where my TV would have been cutting off the sides of the signal to show it in 4:3, it now shows the entire signal being sent in its native 16:9.
But wait! Something's wrong here. Because this is 16:9, my "32 inch" 16:9 TV displays people in the movie 2.4 inches shorter!
In effect, a person on my 16:9 TV is the same size as on a "26 inch diagonal" 4:3 TV. I gained extra picture on the sides of the 16:9, but the actual size of what's being displayed gets smaller on a 16:9 if you compare the 16:9 and 4:3 "32 inch diagonal" TV's next to each other. This is because the TV's are still being marketed by diagonal size, but have changed dimensions!
I want to keep the same image height I'm used to, but just get the extra inches on the sides that I've been missing. In order to replace my 32" Sony and keep the same image size, but add the extra picture on the sides, I would have to look into a 16:9 TV with the following specs:
36.7 inch diagonal
32 inches wide
18 inches tall
576 square inches
Whoa! A "36.7 inch diagonal" TV? Yep, if I wan to keep the picture I am used to, but get the benefit of the extra picture on the sides, that's what I'm looking at. And that's what you should be looking at if you're thinking of switching from a 4:3 TV to a 16:9.
So what if you don't have a 32" TV? Well, with the help of Excel, I found a shortcut for converting from 4:3 to 16:9, here it is:
It just so happens to work out that no matter what size diagonal your 4:3 TV is, if you take the inches diagonal of the 4:3 (32", for example) and multiply it by 1.2238 (22.3837% or so), the number you get will be the size diagonally that you will need in your 16:9 so that you have the same screen height as your 4:3.
So why don't the marketing/advertising departments show this information? Because there's no way they want to have a "Compare with a 26-inch standard TV" sticker on their expensive "32-inch" 16:9 HDTV. They'd rather have to say 'Hmm...the "32-inch" 16:9 TV isn't that much more expensive than the "32-inch" standard TV, I'll pay a few bucks more and get the 16:9"
But, as I've shown, you're not getting more, you're getting a TV that, while wider, gives you a picture about 13% smaller than you are used to.|W|P|114159854273497901|W|P|Avoid disappointment trading up to an HDTV|W|P|