Lexmark Z645 Printer

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 03 December 2007, David McGlone wrote:
>On Monday 03 December 2007 3:31:51 pm Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Monday 03 December 2007, David McGlone wrote:
>> >On Sunday 02 December 2007 9:15:20 pm D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
>> >> On Sunday 02 December 2007, David McGlone wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >My definition of "shady" is where I am walking that thin line between
>> > trusting Lexmark and not trusting them. In no way am I saying they make
>> > bad printers.
>>
>> I will.  We bought some of the $400 laser ones for the news dept several
>> years ago, roughly half a ream of paper a day through them.  We put cookie
>> sheets under them to catch the small parts that fell out daily, thinking I
>> could stay ahead of them by re-installing the pieces.  I couldn't keep up,
>> so that experiment was terminated in about 3 weeks, replaced them all with
>> 2 HP 4050's.  And a service contract...
>
>Wow. That's way worse than what I went through with them.

Yeah, that was worse than a Kansas City Pontiac made on a Monday morning.  You 
had to go over those with a good toolbox every Saturday morning for about 6 
months or the fenders fell off by the next Friday.  My Dad bought one of them 
in about 1956, the dealer threw in a socket set and that advice.  He was 
honest and right.  By the time we figured there was something odd in the 
tranny, every bolt in the bell housing had backed out about 1/4" and two were 
missing.  It was weeks before we started to find tight bolts.

I made up my mind to never ever consider a Lexmark product when they started 
playing SCO over their $160 toner tanks everyone else was selling for $30.

So scroom, and the camel that rode in on them too.

>--
>David M.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
What good is it if you talk in flowers, and they think in pastry?
		-- Ashleigh Brilliant