HP has stop marking ink volume on the cartridge box

[joe...@yahoo.com]

I am mostly pretty tolerant in those deceiving or misleading business
practice, such as advertising a merchandise as $9.99 when it actually
is meant to $10, but recently when HP starts not printing ink volume
(such as 39 ml) information on all the cartridge boxes (such as 74,
75, 74XL), I think it really goes to an extreme; it is a really bad
business behavior. Using Google’s motto, “don’t be evil”, this is a
perfect example of HP evil. Recent financial crisis gives a person or
a corporate an opportunity to build a good character - to be
conscientious.

[albu...@mailinator.com]

The HP site provides page yields for the various carts used in
different configurations. I was impressed with the 74XL's 710 -750
standard pages. I'm a refiller myself and have never purchased a new
ink cartridge. The page count is the most important number today
rather than ink volume because printers can vary in efficiency. A big
supply of ink goes quickly in a printer that dumps all the ink on
needless cleaning cycles whereas a printer that does not clog as much
and doesn't clean as much can make the ink go further.

For example, the 74XL with 18ml (using the HP site), supposed to print
over 700 pages while the old 45 with 42 ml of ink only printed 500
pages. As you can see, the ink volume is not the key now.

[Dave]

>The HP site provides page yields for the various carts used in
>different configurations. I was impressed with the 74XL's 710 -750
>standard pages. I'm a refiller myself and have never purchased a new
>ink cartridge. The page count is the most important number today
>rather than ink volume because printers can vary in efficiency. A big
>supply of ink goes quickly in a printer that dumps all the ink on
>needless cleaning cycles whereas a printer that does not clog as much
>and doesn't clean as much can make the ink go further.

Careful. You can't believe the advertised page counts. The numbers are
severely fudged. Think about it for a second...what is a "page"??? Is it
double-spaced text with only a few paragraphs, or is it a dozen wallet-sized
photographs? Obviously, the photographs are going to use a shitload more
ink for each page that you print. That's why you need to consider fill
rate, also. Without knowing the fill rate, the page count means NOTHING.
Fill rate is (to over-simplify it a bit) how much of the page is covered
with ink. But even if you know that, you have to take the manufacturer's
word on it. And the manufacturer has no incentive at all (ahem) to fudge
the numbers.

I see this HP (not marking ink volume on cartridge) issue a bit differently.
Several years ago, I spotted a trend where all major printer manufacturers
started shipping some models of printers with beginner ink cartridges. The
beginner ink cartridges looked identical to the ones you buy as name-brand
replacements. The difference is, the cartridges that ship with the printer
contain only 30-50% as much ink as the replacement cartridges that you
purchase when the ink runs out. This applies to toner as well, and affects
both inkjets and lasers. At the time, I thought it was a pretty scummy
thing to do. I mean, the manufacturer saves about 3 or 4 cents (maybe,
probably not even that much) in NOT filling the cartridge all the way, but
the manufacturer makes a buttload of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on the replacement cartr
idge when the initial ink runs out much faster.

Now, keeping in mind that printer manufacturers (not just HP, BTW) are
already inclined to rip off consumers by not filling ink cartridges all the
way...
We, as consumers, should be really PISSED that now they (HP, anyway) aren't
even promising a certain fill level by marking the volume of ink on the
cartridge.

This is worse than the ever-shrinking packages of grocery items, like the
"half gallon" of ice cream that is 1.5 quarts now, and shrinking...
Because now HP can put a few drops of ink into a cartridge that is still the
same physical size, and the consumer has no way of knowing that he's been
ripped off.

I mean, at least you can see the ice cream containers shrinking... -Dave

[albu...@mailinator.com]

I'm not carrying water for HP, but they do provide a site with lots of
specific information. My example was relative between two different
carts. I have no doubt that a 74XL produces more copies than a 45 with
twice the volume of ink. HP does provide the ink volume. I got the
above information directly from HP. Anybody with a computer and a
brain can access this information too. I always refill carts that I
receive used. I get about 200 7"X*8 full color prints from one #78
refill, which is pretty amazing. I've been using up a supply of dye
ink that I bought at Dollar Tree for $1/oz. (Don't bother to check.
They stopped selling it.)
I totally agree that the OEM ink is vastly overpriced and they are
embarrassed to print those tiny volume numbers on the package. I'm
just trying to stay one step ahead by refilling. Right now I like ink
rather than toner, but that could change. I might even try a solid ink
system, but those alternatives have problems too.

[Evelyn Leeper]

Dave wrote:
>> The HP site provides page yields for the various carts used in
>> different configurations. I was impressed with the 74XL's 710 -750
>> standard pages. I'm a refiller myself and have never purchased a new
>> ink cartridge. The page count is the most important number today
>> rather than ink volume because printers can vary in efficiency. A big
>> supply of ink goes quickly in a printer that dumps all the ink on
>> needless cleaning cycles whereas a printer that does not clog as much
>> and doesn't clean as much can make the ink go further.
>
> Careful. You can't believe the advertised page counts. The numbers are
> severely fudged. Think about it for a second...what is a "page"??? Is it
> double-spaced text with only a few paragraphs, or is it a dozen wallet-sized
> photographs? Obviously, the photographs are going to use a shitload more
> ink for each page that you print. That's why you need to consider fill
> rate, also. Without knowing the fill rate, the page count means NOTHING.
> Fill rate is (to over-simplify it a bit) how much of the page is covered
> with ink. But even if you know that, you have to take the manufacturer's
> word on it. And the manufacturer has no incentive at all (ahem) to fudge
> the numbers.

I noticed that the new printer that we got "free" with our Mac took ink
cartridges that was a little cheaper than the ones for our old printer,
but also produced a *lot* fewer pages.

We decided to keep using our old printer.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
One can pay back the loan of gold, but one
dies forever in debt to those who are kind.

[albu...@mailinator.com]

That's what they call a throw away printer. My guess is that it was a
Dell. They seem notorious for tiny half-filled starter cartridges that
sometimes don't work at all.
It's easy to forget that with these HP and Dell printers, you are
buying a whole new ink delivery system including the print head with
each purchase. That adds to the cost. Then, you are throwing away a
good print head. We have alternatives. We can refill, which is messy
and takes a learning curve for each printer. You still need donor
carts to work with. Buying non OEM or refurbished carts from a
reliable source is still much cheaper. You can also think about a
commercial printer with larger capacity and which you would plan on
keeping a very long time.
Don't be bamboozled into buying those expensive carts all the time.

[albu...@mailinator.com]

On Mar 22, 4:46 pm, lisa...@privacy.net wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:34:41 -0700 (PDT), in misc.consumers.frugal-living albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
>
> >That's what they call a throw away printer. My guess is that it was a
> >Dell. They seem notorious for tiny half-filled starter cartridges that
> >sometimes don't work at all.
> >It's easy to forget that with these HP and Dell printers, you are
> >buying a whole new ink delivery system including the print head with
> >each purchase. That adds to the cost. Then, you are throwing away a
> >good print head. We have alternatives. We can refill, which is messy
> >and takes a learning curve for each printer. You still need donor
> >carts to work with. Buying non OEM or refurbished carts from a
> >reliable source is still much cheaper. You can also think about a
> >commercial printer with larger capacity and which you would plan on
> >keeping a very long time.
>

> Kodak printers have a separate print head that does not get thrown away with each change of ink. That said I
> have had my printer for about 1.5 years and the print head now needs to be replaced for the second time. The
> most recent print head did not last as long as the ink cartridges! When the print head breaks is also tells
> you that the printer is out of ink. The ink cartridges are cheap because they do not contain a print head but
> the printer keeps saying they are empty when they are not so you have to buy more ink cartridges. Also when
> the printer thinks it is out of ink the scanner will not work. I'm not going to replace the print head again
> since my ink cartridge outlasted the print head.
>
> These printers were a good idea but they are defective and defeat the purpose of having a build in print head.
> I think I'm done with owning a printer. I'm just going to use library printers from now on.

The Canon printers have built in heads and separate ink tanks too. You
can just drill a hole in the tank and pour ink in (older unchipped
models). I have one old Canon that I've used for years. Kodak is a
newcomer to the market and I guess they have quality problems. If you
can even consider using the library for printing, you don't print
much. I bet your printhead got clogged up from non use. My experience
is they can be revived from clogging. Perhaps you would be better off
with a cheap b/w laser printer because they are not subject to
clogging from sitting unused for long periods.

[Don Klipstein]

In article <al8ds499umddt6drc...@4ax.com>,
lis...@privacy.net wrote:

<SNIP>

>Kodak printers have a separate print head that does not get thrown away
>with each change of ink.

So does Canon. And my experience with a few different Canon printers is
that replacement ink cartridges are the individual color units.

If you do a lot of printing and spend a hundred or two bucks (or more)
on ink every year, then inkjet printers (usually under $250) are probably
not what is best, but something a level up in laser printers used in
offices.

And do not expect any printer capable of printing photos to be both
most-cost-effective and giving more than a few years of trouble-free
service.

Keep in mind that inkjet printers need some usage or some cleaning to
keep their print heads working, and cleaning does fill up the waste ink
reservoir - intended to normally not fill up within reasonable life
expectancy of the printer with a reasonable amount of cleaning. Cleaning
with the waste ink reservoir being full can damage the purge unit, which
is also not normally the limiting factor for life expectancy of an inkjet
printer.

- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)

[clams_casino]

lis...@privacy.net wrote:

>
>
>Kodak printers have a separate print head that does not get thrown away with each change of ink. That said I
>have had my printer for about 1.5 years and the print head now needs to be replaced for the second time.
>

Kodak printers = JUNK. While they do use less ink - great if you want
faintly printed pages - their printer hardware is highly flawed - very
poor quality.
We used one for about a month before we junked it - way too many paper
jams, very slow printing, skips in the print, etc, etc, etc.

[albu...@mailinator.com]

They came out with good reviews, a cheap entry price, and individual
carts. I took a look, but decided to stay with old proven HP's from
garage sales or curb finds. Actually, the Canon and HP's that I have
are so dependable that I hesitate to pick up anything else free or
otherwise. Refilling and bottom feeding are not for everyone, but I
feel sorry for those being raped by new cart prices. At least find a
refilled cart online for half price that is warranted.
PS. The refill ink sites all publish the volume of ink in a cart if
the OP still has any question.

[Cheapo Groovo]

In article <3a1496d2-139c-4e60-b382-
3dec30...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, joe...@yahoo.com says...

> I am mostly pretty tolerant in those deceiving or misleading business
> practice, such as advertising a merchandise as $9.99 when it actually
> is meant to $10, but recently when HP starts not printing ink volume
> (such as 39 ml) information on all the cartridge boxes (such as 74,
> 75, 74XL), I think it really goes to an extreme; it is a really bad

> business behavior. Using Google=3Fs motto, =3Fdon=3Ft be evil=3F, this is a

> perfect example of HP evil. Recent financial crisis gives a person or
> a corporate an opportunity to build a good character - to be
> conscientious.
>

read my latest post to get aroung this
http://cheapogroovo.vox.com/library/post/cheapo-ink-jet-cartridges-part-
2.html