HP Photosmart 7760 opinions please

[Roots750]

I was unprepared for the HP 7760 I received as a Christmas present and as
such I don't know if it will meet my needs for a printer that will do a very
good job at a reasonable cost per page for photo printing as well as text.
How does this printer perform when compared with to similarly priced units
($150-$200) from Epson,Canon and Lexmark.

Thanks in advance

[Bob Headrick]

"William Bell" <wb...@tinkle.com> wrote in message
news:ol1vs055t16ovdogf...@4ax.com...

> HP is a Bubble jet no good for long life Prints, only Epson can do that as
> its
> not a Bubble Jet..

The above a totally incorrect statement. The Photosmart 7760 uses the same
inks as the DeskJet 5550, rated at 73 year display permanence by Wilhelm. See:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp_5550_preview.html. The display permanence
of these prints is significantly better than typical silver halide prints -
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/WIR_4x6_Prints_2004_12_07.pdf lists Kodak
as 19 years, and Fuji Crystal Archive at 40 Years.

The Photosmart 7760 is a nice photo printer. For text printing I would
suggest using the #56 black cartridge rather than the #58 photo cartridge.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

[Glen S]

Bill wrote:

>>HP is a Bubble jet no good for long life Prints, only Epson can do that as its
>>not a Bubble Jet..
>
>

> Your info is very inaccurate.
>
> Many printers have long life prints using the original inks and papers.
> Their life is equal to or better than lab prints. This applies to Canon,
> Epson, Lexmark, and HP models.
>
> When it comes to "bubble jet", that's a Canon trademark name for their
> line of printers. And even though Epson is not called a bubble jet, it
> does use similar inkjet droplet technology. Instead of heating the ink
> bubble and firing it out a jet (thermal inkjet), the Epson uses
> electricity to expand the ink droplet and fire it out the jet (piezo
> inkjet).
>
> They both use jets of ink for printing, hence the name "inkjet". The
> difference is only in how the ink is forced out of the jets.
>
>
>>HP Running cost are very high, Canon is the lowest and Lexmark being the
>>worse
>
>
> Again your info is inaccurate.
>
> I have first-hand experience in this as I've owned both Canon and HP
> printers and have compared their ink costs and print quality. HP running
> costs are not what many people believe.
>
> Take a look at the page yield and costs of cartridges from similar
> printers. At first glance, the HP cartridges appear expensive at $50 CDN
> for a tri-colour cartridge, while a single Canon ink tank is only $20.
> But you need three ink tanks, not just one.

But do these color cartidges usually get used up fairly evenly? It would
be a shame to have to spend $50 on a new cartridge if one or two of the
colors still have useable ink in them...

I am still on the fence with my printer purchase, I almost purchased the
IP5000, but scanning the boxing week sales I see I can get the HP 7760
for C$149.99, $99 after rebates so that is currently the front runner.
The photo grey option is still my #1 reason for the HP, the 2 sided
printing the canon's big +. I suppose I should take a boo at IP4000
prices since that also does 2 sided and is probably closer in price to
what I can get the 7760 for...

decisions decisions! and costco.ca is online soon, and I heard that they
are having BIG discounts during boxing week...