On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:56:46 +0000, Joseph Rosevear wrote:

> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:03:28 +0000, Joseph Rosevear wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there, slackers.
>>>
>>> It's early in the morning, and I'm tired. I bought a Lexmark Z65 color
>>> inkjet printer for $15.99 from a thrift store, and all I'm getting from
>>> it is alignment pages.
>
> [snip]
>
>> IMHO your money would have been better spent getting a new cheap printer
>> that works. Often cheaper than the ink that comes with them.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> -Joe
>
>
> Hello disdainful doubters,
>
> I got it working, and it's beautiful. This is my first ever color
> printer, and I'm already thinking about all the cute and pretty things
> I can make with it. Posting to this group forced me to use my brain
> for a moment, and then the solution came to me. Something like that.
> More like I was so tired I started to get gutsy, and I did it all over
> again taking the chance I was afraid to take before.
>
> Install scripts bother me.
>
> And perhaps this was a case of rtfm, although there was no manual.
> Just an internet post that actually did tell me what to do, although I
> didn't get it right the first time.
>
> I owe it to you who had no faith in me. Thank you.
>
> -Joe
>
> P.S. I'll put links to the web posts that guided me on my website
> (josephrosevear.com) when I get a chance to update it.


I'm glad you have it working. The point I was trying to make previously is
that it is often cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to buy cartridges
for one you already have - they come with cartridges although some are
shipped now with only half a load.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:51:56 GMT, rm@biteme.org wrote:
> Milan Babuskov <mbabuskov@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there some readme in the .tgz file? I found Lexmark support for
>> Linux to be great, and I have yet to find their printer that does not
>> work. I've had problems with HPs, Samsung and Cannons mostly don't work
>> at all... IMHO, Lexmark is the best when it comes to Linux
>> comaptibility. It's one of the rare cases where you see the printer box
>> and it says: Supports Windows, Linux, MacOS.
>
> A quick search on google shows that your experience is unique.
> Lexmark clearly has more problems running with unix/linux than any
> other common printer out there. The all-in-ones are hopeless.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
rm

I have a Lexmark E320, it is not in the list of Lexmark printers in
linuxprinting.org, it works OK.. I downloaded a Linux config file from
somewhere in Lexmark (its been a while).. for 90% of my printing, I
use Tex and dvilj.

There is an OKI printer somewhere around, I had it before the
Lexmark, someone had written Linux drivers for it, one of the children
brought it off for to use with their WinComputer, it wouldn't
configure under XP, so by that time, they were buying their own, and
left it here, I will use it when the Lexmark toner runs out.


--
greymaus
Just Another Grumpy Old Man

rm@biteme.org wrote:
> Lexmark clearly has more problems running with unix/linux than any
> other common printer out there. The all-in-ones are hopeless.

I'm curious, what vendor would you recommend? Up until now, I recommened
Lexmark to everyone, but now I have second thoughts.

Did you find one company whose (most) printers are Linux compatible?

--
Milan Babuskov
http://njam.sourceforge.net
http://swoes.blogspot.com

Milan Babuskov <mbabuskov@yahoo.com> writes:

> rm@biteme.org wrote:
>> Lexmark clearly has more problems running with unix/linux than any
>> other common printer out there. The all-in-ones are hopeless.
>
> I'm curious, what vendor would you recommend? Up until now, I
> recommened Lexmark to everyone, but now I have second thoughts.
>
> Did you find one company whose (most) printers are Linux compatible?

This is a useful page :-)


http://www.freestandards.org/en/Open...gestedPrinters

atb

Glyn
--
RTFM http://www.tldp.org/index.html
GAFC http://slackbook.org/ The Official Source :-)
STFW http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...inux.slackware
JFGI http://jfgi.us/

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:17:16 +0100, Milan Babuskov wrote:

> Isn't there some readme in the .tgz file? I found Lexmark support for
> Linux to be great, and I have yet to find their printer that does not
> work. I've had problems with HPs, Samsung and Cannons mostly don't work
> at all... IMHO, Lexmark is the best when it comes to Linux
> comaptibility. It's one of the rare cases where you see the printer box
> and it says: Supports Windows, Linux, MacOS.

You're either trolling, or stupid, I can't tell which. Lexmark
compatibility *SUCKS*, and there's no other way to put it. I've had
perfect results with HP, Samsung, and Brother printers (never tried a
Canon).

Are you on drugs, or something?

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C wrote:
> You're either trolling, or stupid, I can't tell which. Lexmark
> compatibility *SUCKS*, and there's no other way to put it. I've had
> perfect results with HP, Samsung, and Brother printers (never tried a
> Canon).

Ever tried HP1010 or HP1020 for example? Can't remember which one, but
for one of those you need to flash its RAM before *each* print job. Then
HP1100 which some of the time just does not work, etc. There are HP
printers that work flawlessly (like 6x and 4x series), but models from
the 1xxx series have some problems.

A lot of Samsung ones I've seen are win-printers, i.e. I could not use
them at all. Canon is even worse when it comes to that, unless you are
willing to pay some money for a commercial driver (to some 3-rd party
German company IIRC). I don't have experience with Brother ones though.

> Are you on drugs, or something?

Chair.

--
Milan Babuskov
http://njam.sourceforge.net
http://swoes.blogspot.com

Milan Babuskov <mbabuskov@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan C wrote:
>> You're either trolling, or stupid, I can't tell which. Lexmark
>> compatibility *SUCKS*, and there's no other way to put it. I've had
>> perfect results with HP, Samsung, and Brother printers (never tried a
>> Canon).

Actually, it is linux compatibility, not lexmark compatibility, that
sucks. Linux/unix printer stuff has never worked and this is just
one more area where Microsoft blows the linux/unix community away.

cordially, as always,

rm

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:23:20 +0000, rm trolled:

>>> You're either trolling, or stupid, I can't tell which. Lexmark
>>> compatibility *SUCKS*, and there's no other way to put it. I've had
>>> perfect results with HP, Samsung, and Brother printers (never tried a
>>> Canon).

> Actually, it is linux compatibility, not lexmark compatibility, that
> sucks. Linux/unix printer stuff has never worked and this is just
> one more area where Microsoft blows the linux/unix community away.

Wrong again, n00b. All my printers work fine with Linux.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:

When we want any shit from you, we'll give your head a squeeze.

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:38:19 +0000, rm whined:

> When we want any shit from you, we'll give your head a squeeze.

Ahhh, the standard blurb from the n00b, when he realizes he's lost (yet
another) debate/point. It's all he's got left.

You're just..... pathetic. Bugger off, worm.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".