Which All-in-One Inkjet Printer is Cheapest to Use?

Ray asks: "A year or so ago, I got my dad a new computer system that included a Canon PX-160 printer/scanner/copier to replace his aging Lexmark with similar capabilities. On my next visit, I asked him how the new printer was working and he said the ink was killing him. The cartridges are expensive, they don't have much ink in them and there are no third party or refilled carts for it or (apparently) any other Canon. It looks like HP and Lexmark are the most likely to have (relatively) inexpensive supplies but what has your experience been with inkjet All-in-Ones as far as TCO goes?"

Comments

I believe the correct answer is...

[R2.0]

absolutely any LASER all-in-one printer.

I bougt a laser all in one

[eakerin]

Last time I was in the market for a new printer, I got a laser all in one (HP 3052). That was 6 months ago, and I'm still on the toner cartridge that came with it. Of course, the woman and I are relatively light on the printer (only a few hundred pages since we got it)

It cost me about $300 to buy, so there's a significant initial investment. But it's very fast, reliable, and toner is very cheap compared to ink, and lasts a long time.

My previous laser lasted me 10 years. I expect this one to do the same.

Inkjets damn you two ways...

[nweaver]

If you use them a lot, the ink costs a fortune per page, several times what a laser printer costs per page, so that a more expensive laser printer quickly becomes cheaper to own.

But if you don't use them a lot, the ink evaporates and the inkjet clogs up and stops working, forcing you to buy even more cartridges, so that a more expensive laser printer quickly becomes cheaper to own.

Buy a laser printer based all-in-one.

kodak

[Surt]

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-pa th=10581&pq-locale=en_US

Their new printers have half the ink costs of their closest competitors.