You do know that the included toner cartridges are only one-third to one-half full*, right? That's why they call them "starter" cartridges.

(* Exact quantity varies by manufacturer and printer model)

New toner cartridges _seem_ expensive but they last as long as two or three new printers.

That's what print shops are for. There's no need to suffer inkjet ownership just to be able to print a photo every couple of months.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

That was when he was running a corporation in a competitive business world.

(OK, he kept it up for a bit longer than strictly necessary after Microsoft had "won", but that's another story. Plenty of CEOs do worse things than that.)

Also: Individual colors, and a head declogging routine that works on a single cartridge at a time instead of draining the perfectly good colors as well.

The final straw for me was when one color was blocked, so I did a couple of cleans to sort it out and that drained another color so I had to put in a new cartridge (luckily I had separate colors), run the cleaning again, by which time another color was flashing as empty and I had to change that as well. During this time my brand new black ink cartridge went down by about 25%. All in all that page cost me about $20 to print.

I went out next day and bought a color laser. I've had it about 10 years and only bought one new set of cartridges. It's always worked first time - switch on and print. I'd rather stab my own eyeballs with forks than own another inkjet.

You know you can get color laser printers, right?

I'm talking about the amazing new one they're trying to sell me. The new one with cheap cartridges.

Have they solved all the nozzle cleaning problems, etc. as well? Why would I want an inkjet?

I can buy a color laser for less money that will also print thousands of pages between refills. Plus it "just works", no messing around, ever.

Um, how will they do that without Internet access?

Don't worry, they don't want people like you you in there anyway.

It's almost as if you didn't look at the picture in the linked article.

Is there a human in it? No...then...

I think I see the problem: They didn't allow any burn-in time for the cables before doing the listening test - they just plugged them in and started listening as if that was going to sound correct.

A real listening test needs at least of couple of weeks for the atoms in the cable to settle down after moving/bending it in any way.

And don't forget that cables need to be burnt in for a month or so before they achieve full sound.

(Moving them or bending them in any way de-aligns the atoms and means another burn-in period...)

It's almost as if you didn't read the article before posting that.

Hint: The problem perceived by audiophiles isn't caused by data errors.