Lexmark Z645 Printer

[David McGlone]

On Monday 03 December 2007 9:11:23 pm Gene Heskett wrote:
> 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.

LOL. Whooo hooo. I love a little smart a** sarcasm.



-- 
David M.