I use the P2015 and it’s great and only eight seconds from you print to the first page comes out – even from standby mode. Highly recommended.

I’m really happy with my P20015. I haven’t seen print-outs from the 1022 so I can’t compare, but it’s good detail down to very small sizes.

Dan,

have you thought about getting an older model? I bought a used LJ 4050 last summer for about 70 € (incl. PS, 3rd paper cassette, no network). That’s a real workhorse, indestructible ;)

I can compare only to a HP LJ 6MP (600dpi) and a 1200dpi Kyocera FS-1920, the 4050 prints way better than both of them.

If you’re in Berlin, I can show you a printout :)

Jens

As the previous owner of your 1022... I’m surprised you would consider buying another (but happy it’s worked for you, too). The price is certainly right, but its print outs are grainy and always heavy. I wouldn’t buy that printer for the long-haul.

How is the 1022, anyway? Does it miss me?

Dan,
I have a 2300 HP. It is 600dpi and comes with what they call Pro Rez that is supposed to simulate 1200 dpi. I would compare results to how an inflatable woman compares to a real human :-)

It is a good general purpose machine but not so good for type design. As you say with the 1022, outline rendition at smaller sizes is not acceptable for type design use. Let me now how your new machine works out!

ChrisL

>How is the 1022, anyway? Does it miss me?

Yes, it does! I think that it misses Charlie most of all, though. The printer is decidedly not moody, which I can’t say about any of the other printers I try to connect to regularly. Of course you are right about that weight being a problem.

Jens, I have thought about buying a used printer. The only drawback is that I need to make my decision soon; I’d like to have whatever I’m going to get by this time next week.

It is nice to hear some good things about the P2015.

Well, tell the 1022 we all say hi (although, you might want to avoid telling it we don’t think it’s the ideal printer for type design proofing... no need to insult it).

Not on topic, but for what it is worth. Top is process black on uncoated vs. Ricoh AP610N on super white office paper on the bottom. Walbaum 9/11.125.

I recently purchased this for about $400 US.

I always use very good paper and it really helps but 600dpi just doesn’t cut it for type.

ChrisL

I have a P2015 too. The main drawback already - noted else where - is that hinted fonts don’t proof properly with it. It’s some kind of HP rendering engine glitch. I have been meaning to see if they patched it in some kind of firmware update or something for a while! But if you can proof sans hints then you are alright. I really like it’s speed and the quality is good. I compared it against many other new printers looking at actual output last year and I felt it was the best compromise in the price range. Paper has a definite impact on quality. I have had no issues with it in the past year.

Thanks, Eben! What about unhinted fonts?

Hey Eben, I’m curious about this HP hinting glitch, what exactly happens?

HP uses postscript emulation, rather than true postscript. For true postscript I recomment the Ricoh that James mentioned above, or a Xante machine. I have the Ricoh and think it’s a great machine. They also make a smaller version, I can’t remember the exact name.

No problem with unhinted fonts.

HP’s PS-interpreter applies hints even at resolutions/sizes that don’t need hints. E.g. overshoot is suppressed, so round letters are smaller than they actually are. Not really useful for evaluating type design.
It’s amazing that HP still hasn’t done anything about it — they know about the problem for a couple of years now.

Thanks Karsten! Now I don’t have to go & link to the thread where you said that.

Maybe one day I will have a Xante...

:-)

I would love a 2400 dpi Xante but $4000 is more than I can spare.

ChrisL

Likewise. But when those fonts start selling like hotcakes... nevermind.

Actually, if you are proofing for office use I think the P2015 is not bad at all. ;-)

I can dream of selling like hotcakes but first I have to get them off of the griddle :-)

ChrisL

And I though type designers were rich :op ...

I knew about HP’s PostScript clone incorrectly applying overshoot suppression at sizes beyond what it should. Do we actually know anything specific about any other bad hint processing on their part? I certainly don’t.

Although the overshoot processing bug *is* a big one for type designers working with Type 1 or OpenType CFF, it bothers me when a very specific problem starts to be represented as being broader and more nebulous than it is. Then again, maybe Karsten knows something I don’t - certainly possible!

Cheers,

T

Yep, the “e.g.” before “overshoot” was nonsense. The overshoot issue is serious enough for type designers who want to see the overshoot and evaluate whether it is sufficient or not. What bothers me is that type designers who use a HP (one without original Adobe RIP) should need to find out by themselves that the error is not in their drawings.

Btw, I still use a HP printer, my third or fourth, because I like the printing quality.

Well, thank you everyone for all your comments! After much looking, I’ve ordered the P2015. If it is good enough for Peter Bruhn, then it is good enough for me, I guess.

I spent a while looking for Ricohs, Xantes and Xeroxes. None of these were carried in stores. I had heard some good things about real PostScript Xeroxes, but online, I could only find a single b/w Xerox Phaser in my price range, and just had PostScript 3 emulation. I could get a big Ricoh, but only if I had it shipped from the US. That would surely take too long, and I’d have to pay import duties as well, which in my experience seem to average about 20% of the cost. I couldn’t find any Xantes in country either.

Since I’m proofing unhinted type, I think that I’ll be allright for now. I’ve had good experiences with the HP 3005, so I have my fingers crossed. Wish me luck!

Chris, I can send you samples later if you’d like.

“Chris, I can send you samples later if you’d like.”

Thanks, Dan!

ChrisL