4 ms·
"He backed up those assertions with an HP-sponsored Qualitylogic study showing that its cartridges last longer than refilled ink cartridges (no study of cost pe
by warfangle 16y ago
"He backed up those assertions with an HP-sponsored Qualitylogic study showing that its cartridges last longer than refilled ink cartridges (no study of cost per page, however) and an HP focus group of 17 people, half of whom Brown says were unhappy with "bargain ink.""
Not a statistician. But it seems that if half the participants were unhappy with the bargain ink (and in such a small sample, no less), people were just as likely to like the bargain ink better? In which case, given that these were likely joe schmoes off the street (instead of, say, doing a highly technical analysis of the quality and durability of the final print - the other study only says the cartridges last longer), the study was essentially meaningless, and they're adding spin?
- CWuestefeld 16y agoRegarding ink, I find that I get equally good results on my Epson Stylus Photo when using OEM ink vs. el cheapo -- in conjunction with the right paper. The el cheapo ink does not work well with all paper. Through experimentation I've found a combination that does work well. The conclusion to this may be that print quality is at least as dependent on paper as on ink. On my Brother color laser, output quality has been highly dependent on toner quality. The one time I tried to use el cheapo toner, the results weren't simply "less good" but so bad as to be unusable. Statistically, of course, my two anecdotes do not constitute data. But it may be so some interest. (And as another poster said, Brother can be outsmarted with the "tape on the toner cartridge" trick)