Photo Printer -- battle between the best
Will in SF
Canon. I am having trouble selecting due to some posts in this group,
such as, Epson printers have printer ink problems, Canon's prints are
as good as Epson. Can anyone who has a Canon or Epson printer reply
with their pros and cons so I can make a decision please. I am looking
in the 200.00 or less range.
Thanks all.
Burt
reading before you chose. It really depends on what you want to do with it.
A few sites you can go on - Steve's digicam (google this as I don't have the
link handy) site reviews printers. www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff
primarily about Canon printers, compatable papers, and third party inks if
you should wish to use them (I do with my Canon I960).
www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for lots of interesting information if you are
interested in aftermarket inks, primarily for Canon photo printers. I am
not trying to sell you on using aftermarket inks. I can only tell you that
I have used them successfully, but you have to be selective in the ones you
decide to use. Newer Epson printers (I also use an older one with dye based
inks) have pigment based inks which produce a more long lasting image.
Whichever one you decide to buy, it is necessary to use it frequently and
not let it sit idle for a prolonged period of time as you will risk getting
head clogs, either with OEM or aftermarket inks. If you decide to buy
Canon, Slade's site has great information on maintenance and fixing clogged
heads. For Epson printers, you should look up the most recent posts from
Arthur Entlich and email him a request for his (free) Epson head cleaning
manual. You know the motto - "Be prepared." Just as it is a good idea to
know what to do when an idiot light comes on the dash of your car or a guage
reading is not normal, it is a good idea to have more knowledge about the
printer you buy than the manufacturer provides for you. Best of luck to you
on your purchase, Will in SF, from Burt - also in SF.
"Will in SF" <will...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1115087665.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
measekite
Will in SF wrote:
I have a Canon IP4000. This was rated by PC Mag as the best value and
the best Canon Printer other than the $350 model. It has a dual paper
feed. I use the cassette for business documents and the top autosheet
feeder for photos. The Epson competitive model is the R300. It does
not have dual paper feed.
Also the IP4000 can print full duplex. This is very handy for business
documents and printing stuff off of the Internet. The printer, in
addition to the 3 dye colors and the dye black, the printer has a
pigmented black use primarily for business documents.
While expensive to replace, the Canon has a user installable printhead.
The IP4000 is much faster than the R300, print substantially better in
business document mode, and marginally better in photo mode producing
more striking and vibrant photo colors.
The North American version of this printer does not print directly on
CDs but the European model does. If this is a must then you must
compromise and get the R300. The design of the CD tray on the R300 is
defective and is causing many users a host of problems with faulty feeds.
The R300 is an ink guzzler draining your expensive ink supply each time
you turn it on and when you print. The Canon inks at Costco are less
expensive than Epson, about $9.00.
I recommend that you use OEM inks unless your print load is very high.
In that case you should look into and take the risk by using 3rd party
carts. I have read much of the instructions on refilling and it appears
to be a messy pain in the ass.
There are about a half dozen regular tinkerers on this NG who will tell
you different. Go to the store and see for your self.
Before I bought my printer I went to Frys on the weekend and spoke with
both the Canon Factory Rep and the Epson Rep. Except for the subjective
evaluations, the two were in basic agreement with why I said in this
Post. Good Luck
measekite
Burt wrote:
>There is a series of posts on this NG about the ideal printer. Worth
>reading before you chose. It really depends on what you want to do with it.
>A few sites you can go on - Steve's digicam (google this as I don't have the
>link handy) site reviews printers. www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff
>primarily about Canon printers, compatable papers, and third party inks if
>you should wish to use them (I do with my Canon I960).
>
>
And
>www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for lots of interesting information if you are
>interested in aftermarket inks, primarily for Canon photo printers. I am
>not trying to sell you on using aftermarket inks.
>
Oh yes he is. That is all he and a few others profess around here.
Then you can be just like them and tinker instead of enjoying
photography and producing business documents.
>I can only tell you that
>I have used them successfully, but you have to be selective in the ones you
>decide to use.
>
Very Very selective. And only if your print load requires it. Saving
$100 in a year is not all that much. I spend more than that on lattes
at Starbucks.
>Newer Epson printers (I also use an older one with dye based
>inks) have pigment based inks which produce a more long lasting image.
>
Where the ink is very costly and pigmented inks have a greater
propensity to clog.
>
>Whichever one you decide to buy, it is necessary to use it frequently and
>not let it sit idle for a prolonged period of time as you will risk getting
>head clogs, either with OEM or aftermarket inks.
>
I print photos a few times a week. I have not had a headclog since I
have owned the printer. I also have an HP that I use for business
document since my model has a draft mode that rivals letter quality and
does full duplex. If you are not going to use the printer frequently
and you are worried about printhead clogs then the HP has a new
printhead built in with each cartridge. But is does cost more. If you
consider the HP go with the model (8000 series) that allows you to have
3 carts installed at once so you do not have to play musical carts.
>If you decide to buy
>Canon, Slade's site has great information on maintenance and fixing clogged
>heads.
>
I am not knocking Neil Slade but this entire group are so pre-occupied
with clogged heads because they are advocators for aftermarket inks, the
majority of which are high risk.
>For Epson printers, you should look up the most recent posts from
>Arthur Entlich and email him a request for his (free) Epson head cleaning
>manual. You know the motto - "Be prepared."
>
Better to Be Informed
Burt
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EhCde.1568$5o2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
(snip)
Will - you may have noticed that Measekite has a running dialogue
(diatribe?) with several of us on this NG who do refilling of cartridges
although he, admittedly, doesn't do refilling or use aftermarket cartridges
himself. Cost is about $1 per refill. Works fine and is easy to do once
you figure out the little tricks. If you wish to refill Canon cartridges
you can read the basic technique on Slade's site and get some more info on
the Nifty stuff site I mentioned. Most of the online ink vendors also have
instructions. Again, I'm not trying to sell you on this idea, but if you
want more info several of us can help you with it.
measekite
Burt wrote:
Oh but he and his friends are.
birdman
If you are planning to use color management with a system that profiles only
the monitor then Epson printers will much more readily yield prints that
more closely match the monitor color. There are several reasons for this:
Epson has more paper surfaces and provides much better canned profile
matches for their papers in their printer drivers. It is my opinon that
Epson's drivers are far more sophisticated than Canon's drivers for use in
an Adobe style color managed system. Of course you must use Epson inks to
achieve consistency.
Outside of a few high end after market inks if you do not plan to use OEM
ink cartridges save yourself time and aggravation and have your prints made
at Walmart.
Realize that mid level Canon Pixma printers are identical to the previous
generation of i9xx canon printers: they use the same inks (read the
cartridge box labels).
If you are going to profile printer/paper combinations then Canon printers
can achieve results far superior than what you can get with Canon's canned
profiles for their piddling few paper surfaces. It takes alot of work to get
there.
As you can see I would always opt for Epson printers, given the choice. It
is not that the printers are technically better but Epson software, out of
the box, is incomparably superior to Canon's.
Off topic rant: Canon makes great products but rushes them to market and
frequently the next generation product is nothing more than a repackaged
previous generation product. Canon also has serious software problems across
its entire product line: witness the software upgrade for the D20 within
weeks of its release.
Burt
(snip)
Will - Measekite mistakes our posts about head clogs as an admission that,
as users of third party inks, we are experiencing problems with our
printers. The reality is that HE continually tells people that third party
inks are a problem and we simply reply to let people like you know that we
who have had experience with some excellent third party inks and don't want
him to scare you off! He takes EVERY opportunity to criticize all the ink
vendors and their products. I am only following behind his posts to remind
you and others that you came to this NG with questions you wanted answered
by people who can relate their own experiences. The ONLY head clogs I have
had were with original manufacturers inks. I have had none with aftermarket
inks as yet. All inkjet printers can end up with a head clog, regardless of
OEM or aftermarket ink use. Why do you think that all the printers have a
head cleaning utility and do cleanings on startup and at printer-controlled
intervals? Just look through the posts and see the (lack of) quality of
Measekite's responses and judge for yourself. I would add that his
description of his printer is certainly accurate and the comparative
information he has gleaned from magazine reviews is also available to you
to read for yourself.
measekite
Burt wrote:
Consumer Reports also had a past article of the perils of aftermarket inks.
>He takes EVERY opportunity to criticize all the ink
>vendors and their products. I am only following behind his posts to remind
>you and others that you came to this NG with questions you wanted answered
>by people who can relate their own experiences. The ONLY head clogs I have
>had were with original manufacturers inks.
>
Thats you. However look at Art, an author of a manual of how to clear
headclogs. Why is this so necessary to so many people, the majority of
who use aftermarket inks. The NG is almost the AfterMarketInk Club.
>I have had none with aftermarket
>inks as yet. All inkjet printers can end up with a head clog, regardless of
>OEM or aftermarket ink use. Why do you think that all the printers have a
>head cleaning utility and do cleanings on startup and at printer-controlled
>intervals? Just look through the posts and see the (lack of) quality of
>Measekite's responses and judge for yourself.
>
That is the opinion of the few members of the Burt Club.
Frank
As if it's any of your business! Your not in charge of this ng. Your
lying opinions carry no weight in this ng. You have not earned the
respect of anyone here and you continue to post nothing but vile, trash
talk, bullshit. You insult everyone that you disagree with and that's
99% of all posters. Everyone here must be getting the idea that you're
some kind of ng nut stalker or else this ng is actually the only life
you have. You seem like a lunatic and everyone tells you that but you
don't get it. You exhibit the worst kind of social skills(none)that one
could possible have in human society.
I know for a fact if you talked to people face to face as you do in this
ng your face would be very battle scarred. Which btw, leads one to
conclude that you harbor some very real anxieties and insecurities that
you have act out in this ng where you can feel secure in doing so.
How pathetic it that.
Frank
Douglas
8.0.I see nothing about the ip4000 being the best printer under $350,the
R800 is below $350 and is ranked higher!The ip4000 is a good printer,just
not the best!
"Frank" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hsDde.9022$fI.8275@fed1read05...
Burt
">>(snip)
>>
>>Will - Measekite mistakes our posts about head clogs as an admission that,
>>as users of third party inks, we are experiencing problems with our
>>printers. The reality is that HE continually tells people that third
>>party inks are a problem and we simply reply to let people like you know
>>that we who have had experience with some excellent third party inks and
>>don't want him to scare you off!
>
>
> Consumer Reports also had a past article of the perils of aftermarket
> inks.
>
>>He takes EVERY opportunity to criticize all the ink vendors and their
>>products. I am only following behind his posts to remind you and others
>>that you came to this NG with questions you wanted answered by people who
>>can relate their own experiences. The ONLY head clogs I have had were
>>with original manufacturers inks.
>
> Thats you. However look at Art, an author of a manual of how to clear
> headclogs. Why is this so necessary to so many people, the majority of
> who use aftermarket inks. The NG is almost the AfterMarketInk Club.
>
1) all inkjet printers have the potential to have head clogs with OEM or
aftermarket inks. Since each HP cartridge comes with a new printhead, its
printheads have less numbers of months or prints and therefore less time
subject to ink drying in or under the print head. You do pay a price for
that with more expensive carts.
2) Tony, an experienced printer repair person (whom Measekite dissed )
posted some statistics on this NG that indicates that OEM and aftermarket
ink related head clogs were about equal in the approximately 500 printers
brought to him last year for repairs. As I said in a previous post - be
prepared regardless of the ink that you use in case you get a head clog.
Few head clogs are fatal and most can be cleared with proper cleaning
techniques. You know that a good set of tires can carry you safely for
thousands of miles, but don't go anywhere without a jack, lug wrench, and
spare!
3) This newsgroup is about helping people with printer questions. Printers
use ink. Therefore inks are part of this NG. Measekite has continued to
raise this issue himself and I merely respond with my own experience to
counter his extremely negative approach.
4) Yes, Consumers did have negative comments about third party inks as did
one of the PC mags. (Wilhelm also tested some aftermarket inks and found
they weren't as good as OEM inks. None of the inks Wilhelm tested are the
ones that I've seen recommended by satisfied users.) I have had a
subscription to Consumers for as long as I can remember - 25 or 30 years? -
and have lots of respect for that magazine. That said, however, I wouldn't
take their advice for all purchases as there are better tech journals and
forums for some items. Yes, I am sure there is junk ink out there, but I
can vouch for some excellent ink also.
5) Measekite paints the entire third party ink market with the same broad
negative brush. You will see his posts and judge for yourself. I honestly
hate to keep repeating this information but I hate it more that Measekite
uses invective, foul language, and partial truths to scare people about
these products. I don't care if you use OEM inks or aftermarket inks. You
just need to know that there are people who have used them successfully as
opposed to Measekite who doesn't use them but rants as if he is the ultimate
fount of knowledge in this area.
measekite
Frank wrote:
If you are an example then I am glad. Did you take your Viagra tonite.
> You have not earned the respect of anyone here and you continue to
> post nothing but vile, trash talk, bullshit.
That is your dinner.
> You insult everyone
You are not everyone. You are not a person. You are a right cheek. OK
Frankie Crankie
> that you disagree with and that's 99% of all posters.
U Can't Count or is it Count Can't
> Everyone here must be getting the idea that you're some kind of ng nut
> stalker or else this ng is actually the only life you have. You seem
> like a lunatic and everyone tells you that but you don't get it. You
> exhibit the worst kind of social skills(none)that one could possible
> have in human society.
I am glad I got you so pissed off.
>
> I know for a fact if you talked to people face to face as you do in
> this ng your face would be very battle scarred. Which btw, leads one
> to conclude that you harbor some very real anxieties and insecurities
> that you have act out in this ng where you can feel secure in doing so.
> How pathetic it that.
> Frank
Kiss me baby :-*
measekite
Douglas wrote:
>ZDnet ranks the Canon ip4000 at 7.7 and the Epson R300 at 7.6.The R800 is
>8.0.I see nothing about the ip4000 being the best printer under $350,the
>R800 is below $350 and is ranked higher!The ip4000 is a good printer,just
>not the best!
>
>
I think the best std carriage printer is probably the IP8500 and the
best wide format is the i9900. I am speaking about consumer printers.
PC MAG and others rate the i9900 as the best consumer printer. Do a
search for printer reviews on PC Mag and read all of the reviews.
The R800 does a very poor job on business documents. It does not have
twin paper feed nor can it print duplex. It is a pure photo printer.
On that note the i9900 and IP8500 are also pure photo printers but do a
better job on business documents than the R800.
measekite
Burt wrote:
>">>(snip)
>
>
>>>Will - Measekite mistakes our posts about head clogs as an admission that,
>>>as users of third party inks, we are experiencing problems with our
>>>printers. The reality is that HE continually tells people that third
>>>party inks are a problem and we simply reply to let people like you know
>>>that we who have had experience with some excellent third party inks and
>>>don't want him to scare you off!
>>>
>>>
>>Consumer Reports also had a past article of the perils of aftermarket
>>inks.
>>
>>
>>
>>>He takes EVERY opportunity to criticize all the ink vendors and their
>>>products. I am only following behind his posts to remind you and others
>>>that you came to this NG with questions you wanted answered by people who
>>>can relate their own experiences. The ONLY head clogs I have had were
>>>with original manufacturers inks.
>>>
>>>
>>Thats you. However look at Art, an author of a manual of how to clear
>>headclogs. Why is this so necessary to so many people, the majority of
>>who use aftermarket inks. The NG is almost the AfterMarketInk Club.
>>
>>
>>
>(snip)
>
>1) all inkjet printers have the potential to have head clogs with OEM or
>aftermarket inks. Since each HP cartridge comes with a new printhead, its
>printheads have less numbers of months or prints and therefore less time
>subject to ink drying in or under the print head. You do pay a price for
>that with more expensive carts.
>
>
I believe I said the cost is more.
>2) Tony, an experienced printer repair person (whom Measekite dissed )
>
You mean Tony da Tiger aka repair hawker who stats cannot be trusted.
He sells after market ink and does repair so one must discount what he says.
>
>posted some statistics on this NG that indicates that OEM and aftermarket
>ink related head clogs were about equal in the approximately 500 printers
>brought to him last year for repairs. As I said in a previous post - be
>prepared regardless of the ink that you use in case you get a head clog.
>Few head clogs are fatal and most can be cleared with proper cleaning
>techniques. You know that a good set of tires can carry you safely for
>thousands of miles, but don't go anywhere without a jack, lug wrench, and
>spare!
>
>
Like the Firstone on the Explorer
>3) This newsgroup is about helping people with printer questions. Printers
>use ink.
>
Get outta here, I thought they ran on gasoline.
>Therefore inks are part of this NG. Measekite has continued to
>raise this issue himself and I merely respond with my own experience to
>counter his extremely negative approach.
>
>4) Yes, Consumers did have negative comments about third party inks as did
>one of the PC mags. (Wilhelm also tested some aftermarket inks and found
>they weren't as good as OEM inks. None of the inks Wilhelm tested are the
>ones that I've seen recommended by satisfied users.) I have had a
>subscription to Consumers for as long as I can remember - 25 or 30 years? -
>and have lots of respect for that magazine. That said, however, I wouldn't
>take their advice for all purchases as there are better tech journals and
>forums for some items. Yes, I am sure there is junk ink out there, but I
>can vouch for some excellent ink also.
>
>
Mostly junk and the vendors are hawkers who will not say in writing why
real BRAND they are selling you. All they care about is buy buy buy.
>5) Measekite paints the entire third party ink market with the same broad
>negative brush.
>
More than 80%
>You will see his posts and judge for yourself. I honestly
>hate to keep repeating this information but I hate it more that Measekite
>uses invective, foul language, and partial truths to scare people about
>these products.
>
Boooooo Hooooooo
>I don't care if you use OEM inks or aftermarket inks. You
>just need to know that there are
>
a few
Frank
Yeah, you actually are that pathetic. And you're even dumb enough to
think you pissed me off. You don't posses near enough gray matter to
even get me mildly upset. In fact, I share your postings with my
associates and we always laugh and crack up at your stupidly childish,
usually incoherent responses that I and everyone else elicit from you.
You're the ng yo yo on a string. :-D
Frank
measekite
Frank wrote:
:-(
> In fact, I share your postings with my associates and we always laugh
> and crack up at your stupidly childish, usually incoherent responses
> that I and everyone else elicit from you.
> You're the ng yo yo on a string. :-D
> Frank
Luv :-D
Arthur Entlich
What kind of items will you be printing, how large?
How long do they need to last?
Will you use OEM or 3rd party inks?
How important is cost per print?
Do you need CD printing?
What types of paper do you plan to use?
Will you be selling your work?
How many prints a week/month/year whatever do you plan to make?
Art
Arthur Entlich
seen coming from you in a long time, and it seems to me to fairly
present the product you're using. I think you have served the person
making the query well by this.
These days, with the print quality so improved overall with most of the
manufacturers, it is somewhat a subjective point of view, so I'd suggest
this person try to get some print samples and see with his own eyes the
differences, so he can determine what pallet he finds most appealing.
We all have differing tastes in colors, and we perceive color
differently. Also, depending on what type of subject matter he tends to
print, he may find one pallet or another more useful or pleasing for him.
Since I do not own an R300, I won't attempt to contradicts the issue of
ink usage or cost per print. I suspect the differences in ink cost per
unit don't vary drastically between the models, but a four color model
will probably cost less to provide ink for than a six color.
If the person asking about this matter were to look back over the last
few days, there are several postings mixed in about some Epson versus
Canon discussion.
Art
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> This posting is the most reasonable, balanced and mature posting I
> have seen coming from you in a long time, and it seems to me to fairly
> present the product you're using. I think you have served the person
> making the query well by this.
>
> These days, with the print quality so improved overall with most of
> the manufacturers, it is somewhat a subjective point of view, so I'd
> suggest this person try to get some print samples and see with his own
> eyes the differences, so he can determine what pallet he finds most
> appealing.
While I agree that it should be done that way it is mostly impossible.
Most of the demos are set up to print certain professional pictures with
certain professional done profiles and the printers are not connected to
a computer.
That said this is what I think would be a fair comparison. Phtoshop has
a professional done test picture. I would copy it on to a CD and find a
store that have all of the printers connected to a computer. Take your
own paper or buy a small pack of Epson and Canon Pro paper or use
Costco/Kirkland for both. Print a couple of photos on the CD from each
printer and then compare them. With Canon, print one with the effects
menu neutral and the other with it on.
Judge the results for yourself.
> We all have differing tastes in colors, and we perceive color
> differently. Also, depending on what type of subject matter he tends
> to print, he may find one pallet or another more useful or pleasing
> for him.
>
> Since I do not own an R300, I won't attempt to contradicts the issue
> of ink usage or cost per print. I suspect the differences in ink cost
> per unit don't vary drastically between the models, but a four color
> model will probably cost less to provide ink for than a six color.
PC WORLD Mag in one of the past 4 issues did an entire cost analysis of
cost per print including ink and paper. It is worth reading.
Douglas
talking about PHOTO PRINTERS! Read the post! The subject says Photo
Printer!Although the ZDnet ratings were all inclusive.Have you owned a i9900
or an ip8500? Have you ever used either?I have owned the i9900 and sold and
used several ip8500s.I also own the R800.You read into the reviews just what
you want,not the whole story!I can SHOW you parts of the Computer Shopper
ip4000 review that states feathering in text and banding on photos.They
finish by saying,"if you demand top quality photos,look at the Epson R800".
They are also owned by ZD.news:ooEde.1598$5o2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Arthur Entlich
Epson printers use a different technology than Canon or HP printers do
to propel the ink. It tends to be a more precise method but more
importantly, it can handle move varied inks, because it is a mechanical
means rather than use of heating and resistance. Besides Epson's own
OEM inks that vary from dye to several pigment sets, there are probably
over one hundred inks formulations made that claim they can be used
safely in Epson printers.
One of the reasons Epson can offer more types of paper surfaces and type
is because the method of ink propelling is mechanical. The ink is not
heated or otherwise changed during the printing process. However, the
same feature that allows the ink head to work so universally with
differing inks is also another consideration.
The micro-piezo head requires gravity to work, so the heads have to be
aimed downward. The head nozzles are passive so some excess ink is left
under the heads and this tends, over time to dry and can lead to head
clogging or some other print quality issues. As a result, Epson heads
need a bit of preventative maintenance to avoid ink clogs that can be
time consuming to resolve at times. The manual referred to is a
preventive maintenance as well as a emergency unclogging instruction
manual. If people take precautions every 6-12 months. they can avoid
getting into a bind with clogged heads. In general dye colorant inks
are less problematic than pigment inks. Epson's pigment inks in the
Ultra chrome family are being reformulated for several newer printers
(R800, R1800) to limit the clogging problem.
However, the Durabrite inks (also pigment OEM Epson) and some other 3rd
party inks might be more prone to clog the heads. I have seen and
experienced clogs with both Epson's own inks (dye or pigment) and 3rd
party inks.
Well formulated inks from long time reputable dealers, either if they
make the ink themselves, or repackage a product usually have their
reputations on the line and will provide you with ink from known
manufacturers. If you do decide to go with 3rd party inks, ask around
from people who have used them, they will know which worked easily and
which did not. Several Epson groups are around that have members who
regularly used 3rd party inks.
By the way, most clogs can be cleared with a simple head cleaning done
by the printer, but if you buy an Epson and you ever need instructions
to unclogging it, my manual (free) tells you how and using simple
household items you can do it yourself.
Other inkjet printers also clog, but HP has you replace the head each
cartridge change, and Canon uses only dye inks which don't clog as
easily. Canon printers do sometimes clog also.
Art
measekite
Douglas wrote:
>Just WHO do think publishes PC Magazine? Ziff Davis! as in ZDnet! WE are
>talking about PHOTO PRINTERS! Read the post! The subject says Photo
>Printer!Although the ZDnet ratings were all inclusive.Have you owned a i9900
>or an ip8500? Have you ever used either?I have owned the i9900 and sold and
>used several ip8500s.I also own the R800.You read into the reviews just what
>you want,not the whole story!I can SHOW you parts of the Computer Shopper
>ip4000 review that states feathering in text and banding on photos.They
>finish by saying,"if you demand top quality photos,look at the Epson R800".
>They are also owned by ZD.
>
>
These are the opinions of the reviewers. They will vary.
SamSez
"Will in SF" <will...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1115087665.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Epson. More papers, less fading. I can't even see where there's a choice.
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Since my name was mentioned I thought I should chime in about this.
>
> Epson printers use a different technology than Canon or HP printers do
> to propel the ink. It tends to be a more precise method but more
> importantly, it can handle move varied inks, because it is a
> mechanical means rather than use of heating and resistance. Besides
> Epson's own OEM inks that vary from dye to several pigment sets, there
> are probably over one hundred inks formulations made that
Begin Keyword
> claim
End Keyword
> they can be used safely in Epson printers.
>
> One of the reasons Epson can offer more types of paper surfaces and
> type is because the method of ink propelling is mechanical. The ink
> is not heated or otherwise changed during the printing process.
> However, the same feature that allows the ink head to work so
> universally with differing inks is also another consideration.
>
> The micro-piezo head requires gravity to work,
I guess that is why the space Shuttle has Canon printers. ;-)
> so the heads have to be aimed downward. The head nozzles are passive
> so some excess ink is left under the heads and this tends, over time
> to dry and can lead to head clogging or some other print quality
> issues. As a result, Epson heads need a bit of preventative
> maintenance to avoid ink clogs that can be time consuming to resolve
> at times.
and Costly
> The manual referred to is a preventive maintenance as well as a
> emergency unclogging instruction manual. If people take precautions
> every 6-12 months. they can avoid getting into a bind with clogged
> heads. In general dye colorant inks are less problematic than pigment
> inks. Epson's pigment inks in the Ultra chrome family are being
> reformulated for several newer printers (R800, R1800) to limit the
> clogging problem.
>
> However, the Durabrite inks (also pigment OEM Epson) and some other
> 3rd party inks might be more prone to clog the heads. I have seen and
> experienced clogs with both Epson's own inks (dye or pigment) and 3rd
> party inks.
>
> Well formulated inks from long time reputable dealers, either if they
> make the ink themselves, or repackage a product usually have their
> reputations on the line
and some are sketchy to begin with
> and will provide you with ink from known manufacturers.
And most will not tell you who.
> If you do decide to go with 3rd party inks, ask around from people who
> have used them, they will know which worked easily and which did not.
> Several Epson groups are around that have members who regularly used
> 3rd party inks.
>
> By the way, most clogs can be cleared with a simple head cleaning done
> by the printer, but if you buy an Epson and you ever need instructions
> to unclogging it, my manual (free) tells you how and using simple
> household items you can do it yourself.
>
>
> Other inkjet printers also clog, but HP has you replace the head each
> cartridge change, and Canon uses only dye inks which don't clog as
> easily. Canon printers do sometimes clog also.
The bottom line problem with this entire industry is that while the
Printer Mfg charge a reasonable price for the printer they do not charge
fair prices for the little bit of ink. The should sell prefilled OEM
carts for $5.00 each. And you should be able to buy an entire set for
$4.00 each. Therefore a set for the IP8500 would be $32.00. That is a
fair price and I believe they would be able to make money on that.
Douglas
These are the opinions of the reviewers. They will vary.
Gee,am I WRONG? Was it NOT you that said PC Magazine said the ip4000 was
best?Just like that is a fact! Are those not just words of another reviewer?
This supports my saying actual use is the only thing to go by.You read a
couple of reviews,and pick out a few positive remarks that do not tell the
WHOLE story!As I said,I HAVE USED the printers I am speaking of!Have you
used the R300,R800,ip8500 or the i9900?I have used all of these and maybe
100 more models.I have used everything from the HP 500 on,all price ranges
from $29 to $25,000.
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_JLde.1638$5o2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Burt
post --- Again, Measekite, the non-Epson using, non-third party ink using,
pseudo expert, comments negatively on a very thoughtful, honest post from
Art who REALLY knows what he is talking about when it comes to Epson
printers, their inks, preventative maintenance, and fixes.
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9SLde.1639$5o2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
£ukasz Ledóchowski
> Hi, all. I have narrowed my choice of best photo printers to Epson or
> Canon. I am having trouble selecting due to some posts in this group,
> such as, Epson printers have printer ink problems, Canon's prints are
> as good as Epson. Can anyone who has a Canon or Epson printer reply
> with their pros and cons so I can make a decision please. I am looking
> in the 200.00 or less range.
I you search for only photo printer, Epson R300 could be good choice -
its photo quality is really excellent (and I think the best for its
price). There are some problems with clogging. The one I used sometimes
stopped printing one color in middle of the printing (happened twice).
Had to clean it few times to continue. Some other clogs also happened
but they weren't permanent, cleaning did the job. When it comes to cost
of use when using OEM inks, it is very expensive. Epsons separate
cartridges are only marketing advantage. When you change every
cartridge, pritner performs cleaning and uses up to 5% of every color!!
When you combine it with not so cheap carts and some cleaning, it is
really expensive. Using non-OEM inks will make exploitation really
cheap but I don't know about quality and fading resistance.
--
# Lukasz Ledóchowski
# GG: 503647 luk...@tlen.pl
# http://www.allegro.pl/show_user_auctions.php?uid=10223
measekite
Douglas wrote:
>measekite wrote
>
>These are the opinions of the reviewers. They will vary.
>
>Gee,am I WRONG? Was it NOT you that said PC Magazine said the ip4000 was
>best?
>
Yes I did. The English interpretation is that was where the article was
printed and that the editor approved it. It was still the opinion of
the reviewer and the Editors Choice is the decision of the editor but I
am sure it is a joint decision.
>Just like that is a fact! Are those not just words of another reviewer?
>This supports my saying actual use is the only thing to go by.You read a
>couple of reviews,and pick out a few positive remarks that do not tell the
>WHOLE story!As I said,I HAVE USED the printers I am speaking of!Have you
>used the R300,R800,ip8500 or the i9900?I have used all of these and maybe
>100 more models.I have used everything from the HP 500 on,all price ranges
>from $29 to $25,000.
>
>
Do you sell them?
measekite
measekite
Łukasz Ledóchowski wrote:
>Will in SF wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi, all. I have narrowed my choice of best photo printers to Epson or
>>Canon. I am having trouble selecting due to some posts in this group,
>>such as, Epson printers have printer ink problems, Canon's prints are
>>as good as Epson. Can anyone who has a Canon or Epson printer reply
>>with their pros and cons so I can make a decision please. I am looking
>>in the 200.00 or less range.
>>
>>
>
>I you search for only photo printer, Epson R300 could be good choice -
>its photo quality is really excellent (and I think the best for its
>price). There are some problems with clogging. The one I used sometimes
>stopped printing one color in middle of the printing (happened twice).
>Had to clean it few times to continue.
>
I have not had any problems with the IP4000
> Some other clogs also happened
>but they weren't permanent, cleaning did the job. When it comes to cost
>of use when using OEM inks, it is very expensive. Epsons separate
>cartridges are only marketing advantage. When you change every
>cartridge, pritner performs cleaning and uses up to 5% of every color!!
>When you combine it with not so cheap carts and some cleaning, it is
>really expensive. Using non-OEM inks will make exploitation really
>cheap but I don't know about quality and fading resistance.
>
>
>
Sounds like the IP4000 with better business document quality, somewhat
better photo quality, twin paper feeds, duplex printing and lower cost
of operation might be a better bet.
My friend who bought an R300 because CD printing was a main reason for
purchasing another printer said the if the Canon had that function he
would bought the IP4000.
Douglas
Do you sell them?
If you are talking about the printers mentioned,yes,I sell them!
I also USE and service them!That is why I say actual usage is the ONLY way
to
know about a printer!As for the Editors Choice comment,there are many
editors
of PC Magizine! This is the 'choice" of but 1! PC Magazine is not like a
small rural
newspaper,different departments have seperate editors!
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8cOde.12230$J12....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Burt
you, like anyone who sells or repairs anything, is a pimp, whore, huckster,
nogoodnik. Never fear, the rest of us appreciate you helpful information!
"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:MYqdnc1J9q0...@centurytel.net...
Douglas
bad points,and the competition has its good points.
"Burt" <sfbjg...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:2dPde.12262$J12....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
measekite
Ron Baird
WeStink
Tony the Tiger
Douglas
My friend the vigulante was correct. It is difficult to find correct
information on a newsgroup because of plants.
measekite
measekite
IP4000. The only reason to get something else in this price range is if
you live in the States and must have CD printing. Then you have no
choice but to opt for the R300. This was the printer that I was
interested in first but I am glad I found the IP4000.
Ivor Floppy
> The Exposed
>
> Ron Baird
> WeStink
> Tony the Tiger
> Douglas
>
>
> My friend the vigulante was correct. It is difficult to find correct
> information on a newsgroup because of plants.
Nobody's forcing you to stay.....
Chuck
Both produce high quality photo printing.
Both require some tweaking from default values to optimize for specific
paper.
Both will clog with OEM ink (on occasion)
The Epson and the S750 have the head seperate from the inktanks.
The canon has four colors, including black, and the epson six
The canons tanks can be refilled, the Epson uses "chipped tanks. I can reset
the chips, but the tank is designed to frustrate refilling.
Cost per page -- The cannon wins hands down, due to ink cost and usage.
Utility. The epson has the ability to print directly from my camera or a
camera memory card. The memory card can also appear as a system storage
device, and be read by Win XP or PC applications.
Durability The Epson would likely win in a higher usage environment.
Although the Canon is several years old, and has worked well. An older
printer also in use is one of the HP's, which has vary durable mechanics,
integrated tanks and heads, and a not so durable set of electronics.
"Will in SF" <will...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1115087665.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hecate
wrote:
>The Exposed
>
>Ron Baird
>WeStink
>Tony the Tiger
>Douglas
>
>
>My friend the vigulante was correct. It is difficult to find correct
>information on a newsgroup because of plants.
>
Your friend the "vigulante" can't spell for a start.
And the only plant on this newsgroup, at least one with an equivalent
IQ, is you.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Frank
> The Exposed
>
> Ron Baird
> WeStink
> Tony the Tiger
> Douglas
>
>
> My friend the vigulante was correct. It is difficult to find correct
> information on a newsgroup because of plants.
Friends..? You don't have any friends with your inability to socialize.
I bet plants don't even want anything to do with you.
Disgusting!
Frank
Burt
This guy thinks he is on the gardening NG! Maybe that's why he's so busy
spreading bullshit all over the place.
"Frank" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ycTde.9747$fI.325@fed1read05...
David Chien
The thing I like about the Epson printers is that
1) the instant exchange policy works well. No problems getting a broken
printer replaced in the first year.
2) the don't use the rubber hoses of some Canon printers (ala the older
S450 series). these eventually fall apart in a year or so, leak, and
prevent the printer from working (yes, you can fix it yourself,
disassemble, pull old hoses, replace with similar sized lab grade clear
tubing)
3) the colors and contrast of photos have always looked stunningly good
on all of the ones I've owned. No problems unlike some other makes I've
used.
4) printing from flash cards in those printer that support this feature
in Epsons have always worked well - very good prints, quick, no problems.
5) papers are better and cheaper than the other brands.
4x6" premium glossy photo paper from Epson is cheaper per page than any
other brand.
6) drivers from 98 through xp that aren't that big, install easily, and
work well.
7) RX300 model combines excellent 6 color photo printing +
scanner/copier in one <$125 (on sale; see www.fatwallet.com/c/18/) with
all features working very good to excellent.
8) Ink cartridges don't spill or spray inks around like Canons or HPs
when remove them from packaging and the tape/cap off their heads. Epson
doesn't use tapes, doesn't have a spillable design, so hands and shirts
remain clean. Canons are the worst at this - pull the cap off the head,
and ink can go spilling out (most require you to twist the cap off,
while holding the cart, so most times ,you can squeeze the sides hard
enough to get ink out).
9) Papers from HPs smell, and feel funny - not like a 'real' photo at
all. Canon's can vary - their cheaper ones are just yucky - too thin to
be called photo paper, and their best ones are very, very expensive (vs
other brands). Colors also don't pop as well off a Canon print, IMO,
better off HP or Epson papers.
10) HP still uses all-in-one ink cartridges (expensive when only one ink
runs out, which usually occurs), and have the most expensive ink
cartridges of any make in general. Canon is cheapest, in general.
Epson, mid-range.
---
Bascially, when I want a photo print from my digicam, I turn to Epson
printers first.
a) for the premium glossy photo paper - the only one that feels most
like a photo to me, and produces excellent prints with saturated colors.
b) I can easily buy an all-in-one nowadays for <$125 on sale like the
RX300 which not only does prints, but also color copies and scans.
c) Prints well from digicams w/o a PC and does a very good job.
d) No fuss print drivers that aren't huge downloads vs. the others.
Have one of the best scanner drivers around that allow for lots of
tweaking and excellent scans quickly (on the all-in-one models).
e) No hose degredation problems ala Canon.
I used a HP at work, Canon nowadays, Epson at home for many years.
Canon is good for business prints, IMO, but otherwise, ignore for photo
prints if you want colors that pop and papers that really feel like a
photo. HPs are as saturated and colorful as Epsons, so that's a good
choice for photo printing as well, but all-in-one cartridges and the
most expensive carts around make it a second runner up to the Epsons.
That's my thinking behind all of this.
(I'm not concerned too much by the printers from HP that have 9 colors -
honestly, once you get to 6 colors or more, you've got more than enough
to make an excellent photo print. three more colors are good for those
people who make a lot of prints that require the three extra colors, but
most people won't notice the difference, IMO. Can be useful if you're
doing artistic work, but otherwise.... only adds a blue + light gray and
medium gray to the set of 6 standard colors most inkjets use.)
Will in SF
regarding which is better Canon or Epson. And to make it a little
easier, I am going to answer Arthur Entlich's questions on how I am
going to use the printer.
Basically, I am a novice photo printer. I want a printer is easy to set
up and is as worry free as possible. Of course, I want the costs --
both per print and ink -- as minimal as possible. I have to admit that
I don't know what aftermark and OEM ink are and don't have the
slightest clue about refilling ink cartridges. I would go out buy the
brand's ink and photo paper to ensure the best results or possibly find
a third-party ink and paper that works best with whichever printer I
purchase.
Here are the answers to Arthur's questions. Hopefully, I give enough
info so that it is clear.
Once again, I want to thank EVERYONE who has posted so far. Each post
has given me information that has educated me on printers and inks.
Questions and answers:
Do you have some specific models in mind?
So far, the printers I have in mind are the Canon IP4000 and the Epson
R300. I have a note somewhere about the R800 but again the cost of
printers will be a factor. I am trying to stay under 200.00 for the
printer itself.
What kind of items will you be printing, how large?
The items I will be printing will be no more that 8 1/2 x 11.
How long do they need to last?
The prints I am printing will be for personal use or for giving as
gifts to friends. I am a novice but am trying to be informed enough
about photography/printing to one day be an enthusiast. If I get into
professional photography/printing, I will address the printing options
again.
Will you use OEM or 3rd party inks?
It is possible that I may use 3rd party inks if the cost of ink is high
with a certain printer. As I have said above, I don't know what OEM
stands for. I don't forsee myself refilling inks.
How important is cost per print?
Cost is important since I still am ignorant when it comes to photo
programs that are used to enhance the photos. I still have to research
how to set my Vaio screen and printer settings so I print what I see on
the screen. I don't know anything about printing profiles so I would
use what the printer's software comes with. That's a big factor. Plus,
it doesn't help that I am red-green color blind. :/
Do you need CD printing?
No, I don't need CD printing. I would love to have it since a friend of
is an amateur dj who does mixes on his computer. If the cost of the
printable cds is high, then no I doubt I will need this function.
What types of paper do you plan to use?
I usually use gloss or better to print. Don't know which paper is best
to print on. But, I do want the pictures to look nice in a frame if I
give as a gift.
Will you be selling your work?
At this stage of my knowledge, no I do not plan to sell my work in the
near future. I do entertain the thought of one day selling my work.
But, then again, it's a while before I am experienced enough to do
that.
How many prints a week/month/year whatever do you plan to make?
Prints may total as few as 1 a week to possibly 30 a month. I wouldn't
be printing everyday; And there may be a lapse of a week or two
between print jobs.
So, I hope this helps narrow down the selections. Thanks again. And
please don't beat me up too bad regarding my ignorance of the matter.
Will in SF
Frank
Yeah that it...he's fertilizer.
Frank
Will in SF
is another model that is better in quality and comparable cost.
measekite
Ivor Floppy wrote:
Twice as far with a hershey bar
>
>
>
measekite
Frank wrote:
Maybe you are a plant. I would like to water you Frankie Crankie
measekite
measekite
Frank wrote:
As you can see it is time to pee on Frankie Crankie
measekite
Will in SF wrote:
>Currently, the search has narrowed to ip4000 and the r300. Unless there
>is another model that is better in quality and comparable cost.
>
>
There is an HP model. I think it is in the 8,000 series. Make sure
that all 3 carts can be installed at once so you do not have to play
musical carts. The HP advantage is the printhead is attached to the ink
cart and each time you change the ink you get a new printhead. The
downside is cost and the cart is a tricolor cart so if you use out one
color you may have the remaining 2 colors left over. The speed is
slower than the Canon. May be more like the R300. The photo quality is
supposed to be very good on HP paper which is expensive. I am not sure
what other paper choices work with this printer.
The printer does have other editing features that are more gimicky than
not. What I mean is that when you get more serious about photography
you will gravitate to Photoshop/Elements or another good editor.
The HP does not provide you with dual paper feed and duplex printing
like the Canon. With the Canon IP4000 you can leave your business paper
in the bottom cassette and use the top auto sheet feeder for Photos.
Less fuss when setting the paper guide.
Arthur Entlich
measekite wrote:
> The Exposed
>
> Ron Baird
> WeStink
> Tony the Tiger
> Douglas
>
>
> My friend the vigulante was correct. It is difficult to find correct
> information on a newsgroup because of plants.
>
Holly plants?
Art
Arthur Entlich
Thanks for providing the information you did. I wish every purchaser
had as clear a sense of their needs or wants.
Quite honestly, since the number of images you will printing is small,
the prints are for personal use and gifts, and you can foresee upgrading
when circumstances change down the road in a few years, and you are in
the midst of the steep learning curve, I would suggest you keep you
purchase price down, as you mention, for this first printer.
To answer your question about OEM, it stands for Original Equipment
Manufacturer and that basically means the inks come form the same
company who makes the printer, Epson inks for Epson printer, Canon for
Canon, etc.
This may make some people fall over in disbelief, but I actually think
for your use you should stick to a dye colorant printer, and probably
the cheapest one to run is indeed the Canon IP4000. The reasons are
because the cartridges are cheap and easy to refill, and it uses only 4
colors, plus a pigment black. Not only does that mean you only need to
buy 4 inks, rather than six, but the light cyan and magenta inks are
used in much higher quantities than the full dye loaded darker inks.
The Epson R200 which isn't well built, in my opinion, and the R300 both
use six separate cartridges.
Canon inks tend to be more fade prone, but the 4 color model is probably
more stable for color inks. The lighter dye load inks are more likely
to fade. I would probably lean toward a 3rd party ink, simply because
most are probably more light stable than Canon's own at this point in
time. The Canon head will probably last you past your learning period,
so the cost of the prints can be kept under control due to low ink costs
with refills. You can print on Kirkland paper which is sold at Costco
to further reduce you printing costs. It is a reasonable glossy paper
(rumor has it that it is made by Ilford, although there might be a
Konica connection somewhere. Both are good papers, anyway).
The only real advantage to buying the R300 would be if the printing on
CD is important to you. The ink receptive surfaced CDs are a bit more
costly than the others, but not tremendously so. The R300 will probably
be more costly to run, because the cartridges are difficult to refill,
and require extra devices to be reset and such.
The IP4000's a fast and quite printer, uses only the 4 CMYK colors for
photo printing, plus has one pigment black cartridge for permanent text.
They are offering a $20 US rebate on it right now, and $70 US rebate if
you buy it and a laptop.
Art
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Sounds like a good answer. It sounds like I wrote most of it.
> Hi Will,
>
> Thanks for providing the information you did. I wish every purchaser
> had as clear a sense of their needs or wants.
>
> Quite honestly, since the number of images you will printing is small,
> the prints are for personal use and gifts, and you can foresee
> upgrading when circumstances change down the road in a few years, and
> you are in the midst of the steep learning curve, I would suggest you
> keep you purchase price down, as you mention, for this first printer.
>
> To answer your question about OEM, it stands for Original Equipment
> Manufacturer and that basically means the inks come form the same
> company who makes the printer, Epson inks for Epson printer, Canon for
> Canon, etc.
>
> This may make some people fall over in disbelief, but I actually think
> for your use you should stick to a dye colorant printer, and probably
> the cheapest one to run is indeed the Canon IP4000. The reasons are
> because the cartridges are cheap and easy to refill, and it uses only
> 4 colors, plus a pigment black. Not only does that mean you only need
> to buy 4 inks, rather than six, but the light cyan and magenta inks
> are used in much higher quantities than the full dye loaded darker
> inks. The Epson R200 which isn't well built, in my opinion, and the
> R300 both use six separate cartridges.
>
> Canon inks tend to be more fade prone,
Maybe but after 8 months my prints using Canon OEM inks have not faded.
And they are normally exposed.
> but the 4 color model is probably more stable for color inks. The
> lighter dye load inks are more likely to fade. I would probably lean
> toward a 3rd party ink, simply because most are probably more light
> stable than Canon's own at this point in time. The Canon head will
> probably last you past your learning period, so the cost of the prints
> can be kept under control due to low ink costs with refills. You can
> print on Kirkland paper which is sold at Costco to further reduce you
> printing costs.
Great paper. 98% as good as Canon Photo Paper Pro considered the best.
> It is a reasonable glossy paper (rumor has it that it is made by
> Ilford, although there might be a Konica connection somewhere. Both
> are good papers, anyway).
>
> The only real advantage to buying the R300 would be if the printing on
> CD is important to you.
In the USA that is true.
Frank
Other than insult Arthur, what exactly did you add to his answer?
Oh I see, that's really all you added.
Loser!
Frank
measekite
Frank wrote:
> Loser!
> Frank
Oh YES
Arthur Entlich
Art
measekite wrote:
<cut>
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Yeah, but you didn't, I did, which makes it credible ;-)
But that goes to show that there are assholes in this group like Frankie
Crankie, Burtie Ferdie, and Tony da Tiger.
Burt
Arthur, should he wish to be identified with this illustrious group) I wear
you disdain and derisive comments as a badge of honor! Keep it coming,
Messy, as it permits people new to this NG to see the woeful level of your
advice, wit, and humor.
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fwqee.12874$J12....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
measekite
Burt wrote:
>Burtie Ferdie here - Together with Frankie Crankie and Tony da Tiger
>
The Three MuskatAssholes
Frank
> Burtie Ferdie here - Together with Frankie Crankie and Tony da Tiger (and
> Arthur, should he wish to be identified with this illustrious group) I wear
> you disdain and derisive comments as a badge of honor! Keep it coming,
> Messy, as it permits people new to this NG to see the woeful level of your
> advice, wit, and humor.
hahahaha...He didn't even have to duck for that one as it was so far
over his head. :-)
Frank
measekite
Frank wrote:
> Burt wrote:
>
>> Burtie Ferdie here - Together with Frankie Crankie and Tony da Tiger
>> (and Arthur, should he wish to be identified with this illustrious
>> group) I wear you disdain and derisive comments as a badge of
>> honor! Keep it coming, Messy, as it permits people new to this NG
>> to see the woeful level of your advice, wit, and humor.
>
>
> Frank the Dickie Head
Arthur Entlich
"discourse" has slid to a new low here, and I want no part of it, and
would ask that someone get tired enough of it to let it go.
If this keeps up, there won't be any issues about new members to the NG,
because soon there will be no members here, as we all get fed up with
the noise level.
Please....
Art
Burt
wallow in the mud by himself.
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:y1Jee.69059$3V3.27408@edtnps89...
measekite
Burt wrote:
>Well stated. We should just ignore the taunts and crude retorts and let MK
>wallow in the mud by himself.
>
>
You will not be able to resist the fact that you provide the advice of a
floor flusher and you partonized a hawker one time and then sing the
praise of the moron. I do not expect to respond to this but over time
you will surely fail.
Frank
>
> You will not be able to resist the fact that you provide the advice of a
> floor flusher and you partonized a hawker one time and then sing the
> praise of the moron. I do not expect to respond to this but over time
> you will surely fail.
WTF does that answer mean? You've now become totally incoherent.
Frank
measekite
Frank wrote:
You are really dummer than Burtie Ferdie Huh Frankie Crankie. Why don't
you finger you asshole and then smell it. The hole is near your nose
anyway. Ha Ha Ha :-D :-D :-D 8-)
Will in SF
question. As for the ranting, this has turned me off this newsgroup
and, to be honest, makes me question whether or not the non-rant posts
are credible. Measkite you need to chill.
Will in SF
online. any suggestions?
Ron Cohen
the consensus. I am more than pleased with the one I have. Since your
username indicates you are over on the future Nevada coastline, you might
want to visit a local Fry's. I've seen postings that indicate after rebates
the net cost is $79.00. As often noted here get your paper at Costco. You
can really hold the cost of ink down by refilling. www.alotofthings.com is
an excellent vendor who sells both cartridges and bulk Formulabs ink. The
prices are a little less on their eBay store.
http://search.stores.ebay.com/search/search.dll?GetResult&sid=8015426&query=canon+bci-6+i860&fp=0&srchdesc=yI use their products and they are outstanding - both in quality service andquality product.Other good sources for the printer are www.newegg.com and even circuit city($109.99 after rebate).Ron"Will in SF" <will...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:1116350800.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> now the only choice left is where the best place to get a good deal> online. any suggestions?>
measekite
Ron Cohen wrote:
>I tried going back over the thread and from the looks of it, the iP4000 was
>the consensus. I am more than pleased with the one I have. Since your
>username indicates you are over on the future Nevada coastline, you might
>want to visit a local Fry's. I've seen postings that indicate after rebates
>the net cost is $79.00. As often noted here get your paper at Costco. You
>can really hold the cost of ink down by refilling. www.alotofthings.com is
>an excellent vendor
>
They are not professional! They do sell a BRAND of ink. If you can
find Sensinet someplace else I would look into that.
Ron Cohen
party ink vendor, let alone Alotofthings.com, how about sharing your reasons
why they are "unprofessional" for those of us who have only done business
with them for the past three years, which isn't a long time as they have
been in the ink business for 11 years. Is it because they don't sell a
'branded ink' or tell you who makes their ink? Oops, can't be that one. Are
their prices are too high? Nope, not that one either since they have lower
prices than anyone else I've been able to find. Knowing how enthusiastic you
are about your lightly used iP4000, which is understandable considering that
it is a great little printer, I think it will be interesting to hear you
proclaiming to the newsgroup world how great refilling is and what a
wonderful vendor alotofthings.com is. All that would be needed for this to
come about would be to place an order with them and then do a refill or two.
OTOH, I think I've caught on to your tactics. Instead of spamming the
newsgroups with ads for the ink vendors, you are using the Rush Limbaugh
method of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. All very tongue in cheek.
It's a great way for these vendors to get free advertising without appearing
to be spammers. Alotofthings and WeInk must be paying you a bundle for all
the hard work you do for them.
Ron
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k9sie.18353$J12....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Frank
> Since you have never refilled a cartridge or done business with any 3rd
> party ink vendor, let alone Alotofthings.com, how about sharing your reasons
> why they are "unprofessional" for those of us who have only done business
> with them for the past three years, which isn't a long time as they have
> been in the ink business for 11 years. Is it because they don't sell a
> 'branded ink' or tell you who makes their ink? Oops, can't be that one. Are
> their prices are too high? Nope, not that one either since they have lower
> prices than anyone else I've been able to find. Knowing how enthusiastic you
> are about your lightly used iP4000, which is understandable considering that
> it is a great little printer, I think it will be interesting to hear you
> proclaiming to the newsgroup world how great refilling is and what a
> wonderful vendor alotofthings.com is. All that would be needed for this to
> come about would be to place an order with them and then do a refill or two.
> OTOH, I think I've caught on to your tactics. Instead of spamming the
> newsgroups with ads for the ink vendors, you are using the Rush Limbaugh
> method of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. All very tongue in cheek.
> It's a great way for these vendors to get free advertising without appearing
> to be spammers. Alotofthings and WeInk must be paying you a bundle for all
> the hard work you do for them.
Duhhh...let me guess...you're dealing with that wacko whom I and many
others have already kill-filed and your using intellectually based logic
to try and understand his absence of any cohesive thought patterns in
his postings that you or any other normal human being could possibly
understand.
FORGET IT! You, me and everyone else with a normally functioning brain
will never be able to comprehend his posting of childish, obscene
irreverent retorts to questions that have no relevance.
Best you kill-file this sucker and forget him.
He's brain dead and not worth reviving.
Peace.
Frank
measekite
Ron Cohen wrote:
>Since you have never refilled a cartridge or done business with any 3rd
>party ink vendor, let alone Alotofthings.com, how about sharing your reasons
>why they are "unprofessional" for those of us who have only done business
>with them for the past three years, which isn't a long time as they have
>been in the ink business for 11 years.
>
Then they must have been selling 3rd party ink for fountain pens. I
had, prior to market release by HP, one of the first HP Deskjet printers
available for review. Also had the laserjet 1. Hard to believe they
were selling refills for that one. At the time Epson was a dot matrix
company along with okidata and Canon was the print engine maker for HP.
>Is it because they don't sell a
>'branded ink' or tell you who makes their ink? Oops, can't be that one. Are
>their prices are too high? Nope, not that one either since they have lower
>prices than anyone else I've been able to find. Knowing how enthusiastic you
>are about your lightly used iP4000, which is understandable considering that
>it is a great little printer, I think it will be interesting to hear you
>proclaiming to the newsgroup world how great refilling is and what a
>wonderful vendor alotofthings.com is. All that would be needed for this to
>come about would be to place an order with them and then do a refill or two.
>OTOH, I think I've caught on to your tactics. Instead of spamming the
>newsgroups with ads for the ink vendors, you are using the Rush Limbaugh
>method of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. All very tongue in cheek.
>It's a great way for these vendors to get free advertising without appearing
>to be spammers. Alotofthings and WeInk must be paying you a bundle for all
>the hard work you do for them.
>
>
alotofcrap and WeStink are behind in their bills. :-(
Ron Cohen
> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>>Since you have never refilled a cartridge or done business with any 3rd
>>party ink vendor, let alone Alotofthings.com, how about sharing your
>>reasons why they are "unprofessional" for those of us who have only done
>>business with them for the past three years, which isn't a long time as
>>they have been in the ink business for 11 years.
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tOAie.402$mK....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Then they must have been selling 3rd party ink for fountain pens. I had,
> prior to market release by HP, one of the first HP Deskjet printers
> available for review. Also had the laserjet 1. Hard to believe they were
> selling refills for that one. At the time Epson was a dot matrix company
> along with okidata and Canon was the print engine maker for HP.
>
<snipped>
Would you be so kind as to state the year when you first got the Deskjet and
Laserjet? Also do the math. Eleven years ago was what year?
Ron
Ron Cohen
news:%pxie.6973$Db6.939@okepread05...
<snipped>
>
> Duhhh...let me guess...you're dealing with that wacko whom I and many
> others have already kill-filed and your using intellectually based logic
> to try and understand his absence of any cohesive thought patterns in his
> postings that you or any other normal human being could possibly
> understand.
> FORGET IT! You, me and everyone else with a normally functioning brain
> will never be able to comprehend his posting of childish, obscene
> irreverent retorts to questions that have no relevance.
> Best you kill-file this sucker and forget him.
> He's brain dead and not worth reviving.
> Peace.
> Frank
He's behaving a little better lately. Most of his postings are still less
than accurate, but the language isn't as obscene.
Ron
measekite
Ron Cohen wrote:
I am trying not to respond to Frankie Crankie. I am watching Frankie
Crankie make an ASSHOLE (and that he is) while he name calls Oli when
Oli responds to Tony Da Tiger or is it Tony Da Weber aka Tony Da
Testicle. I cannot tell anymore. 8-)
>
>
>
Burt
Sources, please. Otherwise we can all consider this simply defamation.