Don't use an ink-jet for black only printing. If you use the printer often, the economies of scale will result in a laser crushing the ink-jet in terms of cost.
Ink-Jets vs. Lasers:
- Ink-Jet paper costs more than Laser Paper. The 24 lb ultrabright heavyweight paper works much better in ink-jets, but is more expensive than the high-end high-quality 20 lb laser paper.
- A Laser Toner will often do multiple big boxes (5000 to 10000 sheet boxes) of paper. An ink-jet cartridge gets through a few 500 sheet reams, if you have the high-capacity cartridges. Depending on the printers, the ink-jet cartridges cost 1/2 to twice as much to replace as black colour cartridges. The cost for consumables in an ink-jet is much higher than a laser.
- A Laser printer can sit for many months (years) and still work. The ink-jet must be used to keep working.
- There is no significant difference between laser printer and ink-jet costs. My colour ink-jet costs more than some colour lasers.
Theoretically, the cost of ownership on an ink-jet for black only printing could be less than a black and white laser. In practice, I have never seen a happy user with an ink-jet for black and white printing.
If you are looking at new printers, also check the paper feed mechanisms. Purchase a printer that holds the paper flat (regardless of usage). At high-volumes, the non-flat feeds jam. At low-volumes, the paper bends with humidity, and the non-flat feeds jam. Unless your usage is so low that you are willing to feed one page at a time, get a paper feed mechanism that holds the paper flat.
Volume users will want a paper feed mechanism that can hold at least 500 sheets of paper (ideally in one tray). This will take you to a certain cost level of printer, just for the paper feed mechanisms. I've seen inexpensive paper feed mechanisms jam on 100-page documents in brand new printers. If you are going to go through 500 sheet reams of paper with any frequency, or just printing large documents, you really want to pay the extra money for a good paper feed mechanism.