Digital BW, The Print

Sheesh... I'm starting to wonder if the 2400 isn't a better idea after
all.  I'd get good "out-of-the-box" results for both B&W printers
without third-party inks, RIPs, custom curves, etc. on both glossy and
matte papers.  All the major fine art paper manufacturers provide ICC
profiles for it (unlike the 220/260) and of course it would permit me
to print larger than 8.5 x 11 if I ever choose to.  It sounds like the
ink costs are actually much less than a 260 or 380 as well, which
really surprises me.  

I just want to make sure I'm not missing an option I haven't
considered.  Here's my understanding so far:

260/380 - uncertain whether they work with MIS inks; OEM inks very
expensive; few available profiles for color printing on third-party papers

800 - doesn't feed thicker papers; requires 3rd party inks for good
b&w results; 

1800 - problems with refurb quality; requires 3rd party inks for good
b&w results;

2400 - not as archival as 800/1800 pure carbon; ink wasted when MK and
PK are swapped

Using 3rd party inks may actually be an advantage for some, since it's
cheaper.  But it also adds a layer of complexity and things that can
go wrong (refilling carts, chip problems, etc.).

Someone over at Photo.net said that swapping the MK and PK cartridges
on the 2400 wastes 1/4 of the total ink in the machine.  Could that be
true?  That's $25 a swap!!!!