[JDW]

rayar8 said:

I'm a little dumbfounded.

As am I. I've been a paper subscriber to MacWorld for many, many years (since the 80's). I saw this set of printer reviews in my just-delivered "August 2009" copy. And yet I see from this site that it was actually done in January. I fully understand there is a "lag" to get things to print, but this is ridiculous.

rayar8 said:

Fine lines and gradients were just good... Explain that to me.

Personally, I am sick and tired of the 21st Century MacWorld "explaining" what should be SHOWN to us in pictures. I've been a subscriber to MacWorld longer than many MacWorld editors and writers have been on the payroll. No doubt these good people have not read through older issues of MacWorld, published in its heyday, where readers were given the common courtesy of an actual set of PHOTOS showing just how the print quality (e.g., "fine lines," etc.) compares.

Stop keeping us, your readership, in the dark MacWorld. I certainly appreciate the largely text review, but not showing us some snippets of exactly what you see is extremely troubling, especially in light of the fact you used to do this for us in the past. And you cannot say that it is impossible for you to properly show us the print "in print" because your publication used to do that in the past just fine. Indeed, I found this August issue of MacWorld rather ironic. For on page 5 Jason Snell speaks about how Apple deliberately hides technical details of the iPhone. MW is quite nearly doing the same by refusing to give us closeup photos of the actual hardcopy output of printers you review. And again, you did this for us on a regular basis in the past. So I am truly upset you refuse to do it for us now.

In addition, I am quite certain you intelligent men and women there at MacWorld must certainly know that we, your readers, want to know how these lasers compare with inkets in terms of quality, for both graphics and text, on plain and special papers. For if many can find reason to ditch their inkjets, I am certain they would. I've never seen a laser that can hold a candle to inkjets in terms of photographic output quality. But then, I've never seen the output of these lasers either. Therefore, you would be doing your readership well to not only show us closeups of the hardcopy output of these lasers, but also give us comparison shots of the output from modern inkjets too.

And as to the poster who mentioned this is a "thankless job" and "you cannot please everyone," I wish to say that (1) a more thorough review (with photos of the output) as I appeal for here would go further to pleasing most of your readers, and (2) the money I've paid for YEARS for your fine publication is indeed "thanks."

I therefore look forward to seeing more detailed printer reviews from MacWorld, with closeup photos of the output, in future issues. (And hopefully I, as a paper subscriber, won't be forced to wait 7 months to get the review on paper either. No I don't spent all my time here at the MW website. About the only time I come here is when an article in print prompts me to do so. I pay for your paper publication for a reason.)

Thank you.