Best user friendly printer maker?

[measekite]

measekite said: Snipped per request

[Regarding windows update, spyware, and whatnot]

Snipped per additional request

Measekite's comments about higher maintenance and printer drivers were
regarding Linux. I've used Mandrake/Mandriva Linux for over four years
now, and I've never had a printer not work with Linux. I've used HPs
and Epsons. As for maintenance, there is much less than for Windows,
but probably more than for a Mac. I'll take Linux over any version of
Windows any day of the week. At least with Linux the software doesn't
have to phone home for permission for me to use it.

the reason why linux is a minority os is because of a shortage of
drivers and it is not user friendly. period. not ifs ands or buts.
otherwise people would be using it.

 

[zakezuke]

the reason why linux is a minority os is because of a shortage of
drivers and it is not user friendly. period. not ifs ands or buts.
otherwise people would be using it.

This is where measekite shows his ignorance. Linux is a kernel.

Anyhow the server market from one source stated that *nix based systems
represented about 28.3% of the market share in 2004, and is expected to
have 37.6% in 2006.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/index.php?

As a home operating system... I agree linux has a LONG way to go.
But... here's the funny thing.... there TENDS to be really good support
for older devices under linux which were abonded by windows a long time
ago. For example, one of my scanners never got win95 drivers, but
there was sane support under *nix. Funny 'eh. But to say "otherwise
people would be using it" is complete bullshit.

One of the biggest reasons to not use linux was the lack of winmodem
support. Average joe user with a dell could not for example install
linux and surf the net, but now in the 21st century since broadband is
so popular, and network card support in linux is quite excelent... this
is not an issue. Sound card support is decent, and graphics card
support is more than adquate. While I don't think it's quite ready for
your average home user, it's getting there.

Imbeaded devices... well... you probally know this already so I won't
get into it.

Perhaps measkite can enlighten us as to what hardware does NOT have
linux support which is nessicary for the home user.

 

[TJ]

This is where measekite shows his ignorance. Linux is a kernel.

Anyhow the server market from one source stated that *nix based systems
represented about 28.3% of the market share in 2004, and is expected to
have 37.6% in 2006.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/index.php?

As a home operating system... I agree linux has a LONG way to go.
But... here's the funny thing.... there TENDS to be really good support
for older devices under linux which were abonded by windows a long time
ago. For example, one of my scanners never got win95 drivers, but
there was sane support under *nix. Funny 'eh. But to say "otherwise
people would be using it" is complete bullshit.

My computer, just short of three years old, would be only marginally
functional under Vista, but it is a powerhouse (at least for the things
I do) with Mandriva Linux 2006. I do have a few programs I still use
with Windows 98 (and yes Measekite, I know it's no longer supported by
Microsoft, and that it's horribly outdated), but ALL of my Internet
activity is done with Linux.

To Measekite: I'm people, and I use it.

One of the biggest reasons to not use linux was the lack of winmodem
support. Average joe user with a dell could not for example install
linux and surf the net, but now in the 21st century since broadband is
so popular, and network card support in linux is quite excelent... this
is not an issue. Sound card support is decent, and graphics card
support is more than adquate. While I don't think it's quite ready for
your average home user, it's getting there.

Another reason is that almost all computers come with Windows
pre-installed, and most users don't realize that Windows and Linux
happily co-exist on the same machine. They don't want to go through the
process of learning yet another OS, when they perceive that the one that
came with their machine works perfectly well. Most users hate change,
even when it's good.

I agree with the last sentence in that paragraph, too.

Imbeaded devices... well... you probally know this already so I won't
get into it.

Perhaps measkite can enlighten us as to what hardware does NOT have
linux support which is nessicary for the home user.

Oh, and measekite...remember that hardware software support doesn't
necessarily have to come from the manufacturer in an open source system.
Anybody is free to develop a driver on his own. Much of Linux hardware
support comes from the community, so be sure to check there, as well as
with the manufacturers.

TJ

 

[TJ]

MACs are known for being more expensive to buy and more expensive to
maintain. I can build a PC for about $1200 that would cost more than
$2000 as a Mac. Everything you buy for a Mac costs more. It may be a
little easier to operate for the beginner but thats all. Progrmming
software either costs much more or is non existent. User software also
costs more.

Not necessarily. Check this out, from a blog I frequent:

New Intel Mac cheaper than a Dell
Configured the same, a new Intel quad-powered Macintosh is quite a bit cheaper than a Dell. And the Mac runs both Windows and OS X, which the Dell

won't do. Here's more info.

Dang, the link didn't copy with the blog text. Well, here it is anyway:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6625581.html

TJ

 

[zakezuke]

Oh, and measekite...remember that hardware software support doesn't
necessarily have to come from the manufacturer in an open source system.
Anybody is free to develop a driver on his own. Much of Linux hardware
support comes from the community, so be sure to check there, as well as
with the manufacturers.

Yes., this is both a positive and a negative with linux based systems.
On the one hand, alot of things are supported which would otherwise be
abandoned. On the other hand, there are things which are not
documented well enough to have device drivers written for them.
Community supported drivers are a two edged sword... on the one hand
you are with in direct communication with those developing the drivers,
cutting lots of beurocrasity and red tape. On the other hand, there
has to be a community which gives a shit about your issue, or gives a
shit about your device.

 

[Gary Tait]

i tried linux but found canon don't do any print drivers for it.
Getting on the internet with broadband was problematic too.

Huh?

Linux is easy to get on the internet. The internet is build on
Unix/Linux/BSD boxes, that must say something. I never touched the IP
settings for my Linux box to set it up to go on the internet, mind you I am
behind a NAT router that issues DHCP. I could manually set the IP settings,
and that is no harder than on Windows.

 

[Gary Tait]

One of the biggest reasons to not use linux was the lack of winmodem
support.

Who in their right mind would run a winmodem?
(yah, I know, the Windows user that doesn't care or know better)

When I went modem shopping (thrice),I bought a 14.4K that would work under
DOS/Win3.1, a hardware external 33.6 identical to what my ISP at the time
was using (anticipating likely using it under linux, and on an older
Pentium system that would be slower running a winmodem), and a PCI 56K
modem I bought becasue the oft repaired 33.6 was getting wonky (I think
there was three days between the failure of the 33.6 and the arrival of the
56K). At the end of the Pentium machine's use, I ran a hardware ISA 56K
modem I got from someone (who upgraded to a winmodem perchance, as the
56K's PNP function failed, which I bypassed an put it in hard address
mode).

Printer shopping, well I only really bought two printers, one for DOS, and
one when I was an established windows user (the Pixma iP5000). The rest I
got free and used, and most were Linux cpmatible.

 

[Gary Tait]

My computer, just short of three years old, would be only marginally
functional under Vista, but it is a powerhouse (at least for the things
I do) with Mandriva Linux 2006. I do have a few programs I still use
with Windows 98 (and yes Measekite, I know it's no longer supported by
Microsoft, and that it's horribly outdated), but ALL of my Internet
activity is done with Linux.

My other computer, about 4 years old, runs more or less like Win2K, with
FedoraCore3 Linux. My main PC is WinXP. I skipped right over 98, ME, and
2000.

 

[zakezuke]

Who in their right mind would run a winmodem?
(yah, I know, the Windows user that doesn't care or know better)

When I went modem shopping (thrice),I bought a 14.4K that would work under
DOS/Win3.1, a hardware external 33.6 identical to what my ISP at the time
was using (anticipating likely using it under linux, and on an older
Pentium system that would be slower running a winmodem), and a PCI 56K
modem I bought becasue the oft repaired 33.6 was getting wonky (I think
there was three days between the failure of the 33.6 and the arrival of the
56K). At the end of the Pentium machine's use, I ran a hardware ISA 56K
modem I got from someone (who upgraded to a winmodem perchance, as the
56K's PNP function failed, which I bypassed an put it in hard address
mode).

That's the thing. Free operating system, but only $80 for an external
hardware modem. Might as well use windows, the OS your system came
with. I too have an external modem which I bought specificly because I
didn't want to be locked into a pc. I was running Amiga and Sun for a
while. For me it was totally worth the expence. But average joe user
wouldn't want to spend $40 to $80 for extra wires when they don't have
to. Granted you can *sometimes* find external modems at places like
goodwill, but really if someone has something that works, that requires
money or bother to do things differently, well... might as well not
screw with it.