3rd Party Ink - PC World Excerpts
measekite
AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said here. :-)
We found that third-party inks can save you money, and that some produce
prints on a par with the output of printer vendor inks. But we also
encountered third-party inks that produced poor-quality prints and
clogged up printheads. The impact of generic inks on printer warranties
is ambiguous. And if you frequently print photographs, you should steer
clear of these inks: The prints might look fine, but Wilhelm reported
that none of the clone inks he tested came close to matching the
permanence of brand-name inks.
Third-party vendors have already grabbed more than 16 percent of
cartridge sales, Forrest says, and that percentage is growing. Printer
vendors contend that third-party inks can cause myriad problems--some of
which, they say, may surface only after prolonged use of the
generics--ranging from poor print quality and durability to printer
damage. Third-party vendors counter that printer companies simply want
to scare consumers out of straying from the branded inks, which the
third-parties claim are overpriced in order to subsidize the
artificially inexpensive printers.
In general, most of the third-party inks printed text on plain paper as
decently as the printer manufacturers' cartridges did . Results weren't
as good for high-resolution shots on the printer vendors' long-lasting
photo papers, but four out of the nine aftermarket brands we
tested--Amazon Imaging's ink for the Canon, G&G's ink for the Epson, and
Carrot Ink's cartridge and InkTec's cartridge-refill kit for the
HP--yielded prints of comparable quality to those made with printer
manufacturer inks. Of the clones, only the OA100 inks for the Canon
produced photos significantly worse than those made with a brand-name ink.
But some inks, even those that made good-looking pictures, didn't always
work well. All three aftermarket black inks for the Epson C82--OA100
(purchased from PrintPal <http://www.printpal.com/welcome.html>), G&G
(from Computer Friends <http://www.cfriends.com/>), and the no-name ink
whose package had only a rainbow logo (also from Computer
Friends)--plugged up the printhead nozzles so quickly and consistently
that we had to abort some of our tests. But the color inks from these
three companies all worked well in the Epson printer. (We bought a
fourth brand of aftermarket ink, Print-Rite, for the C82 but dropped it
from our tests, as the printer wouldn't install any of the cartridges.)
Clogs and Messes
Several OA100 cartridges purchased from PrintPal, most notably the black
and cyan, frequently plugged the nozzles on the Canon S900's printhead,
causing wide blank stripes in documents.
The HP DeskJet 3820's cartridges integrate the printhead and ink supply
in one unit that can't be replicated legally, so third-party vendors
simply refill used 3820 cartridges. A Printek cartridge we bought from
PrintPal had no ink in the magenta tank, but we were able to complete
our quality and yield tests with other cartridges. Wilhelm was unable to
print all four colors satisfactorily with any of the Printek cartridges
from PrintPal, but was able to test the same brand of cartridges from
another vendor, Top Inkjet <http://www.topinkjet.com/>.
We also tried refilling our own HP cartridges with an InkTec kit that we
bought from Print Country <http://www.printcountry.com/>. What a mess!
It dripped ink everywhere, but when we finally refilled our cartridges
the ink made decent-quality prints. At Wilhelm Imaging Research,
however, the prints produced using the kit were so poor in quality that
Wilhelm did not test them for permanence.
And it was in permanence that third-party inks fell short.
Do-it-yourself refill kits offer the greatest savings, if you're willing
to brave the messy refill process
Often, aftermarket retailers buy prepackaged inks from
manufacturers--many of them in China--which makes it difficult for the
retailers to know exactly what they're getting. But some third-party ink
companies do exercise direct control over their products. Gary Miller,
Amazon Imaging's sales vice president, says his company makes its inks
and uses cartridges made of polypropylene, a high-quality material that
printer vendors use, instead of cheaper plastics that can damage the ink
if it's stored for several months.
*********************************************************************************************
Buying third-party ink online can be frustrating. Some retailers' Web
sites don't identify products by name, only by printer or cartridge
compatibility, so getting a steady supply of an ink you like can be a
challenge. Computer Friends, whose generic inks are unidentified on its
Web site, sent us G&G ink to fill most of our initial order for Epson
C82-compatible ink but completed the order later with a different brand.
*********************************************************************************************
Worth the Risks?
In the meantime, judging from our experience, finding a reasonably
priced substitute for brand-name ink can be a risky business. If top
quality and print longevity aren't of paramount importance, you can save
money using no-name inks--but you may have to spend a lot of time
cleaning clogged printheads. Still, some users may find the savings
justify the hassles.
If print quality--and especially durability--are a top concern, however,
you're better off playing it safe by gritting your teeth and shelling
out for brand-name inks.
Burt
prefer) that none of the people reporting on this NG use. I would welcome
similar tests done by Wilhelm or a similar reputable testing firm comparing
Canon OEM inks vs. Formulabs and MIS inks among others. Measekite quotes
his famous successful "prints laying on his desk for nine months" fade test
with prints done with Canon OEM inks and I can attest to the fact that
prints I have made with MIS inks that are hanging on my wall or displayed in
albums have passed the same test successfully. The prints with these inks
compare very favorably with OEM inks in a side-by-side comparison.
Measekite and I are in agreement that some third party products can cause
problems with print heads. What he doesn't like to acknowledge is that some
third party inks are quite good, have been purchased and used by the people
he demeans by calling us the aftermarket club, and have been purchased over
a period of years from vendors who have proven to be very reliable. He is
relentless in posting negatives about our very positive experience with
third party products and then accuses us of proseltyzing for their use when
we respond to his negatives or answer questions posed on this NG about such
products. Now that I have responded I assume he will proceed to lay out his
liteny of rants about Brand name vs. labels and call the vendors his
usual-innuendo laden, mean-spirited names. Can I save you the trouble and
time of responding, Measekite, by just referring people to your numerous
previous postings about this issue?
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eeake.293$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Frank
Forget it Burt...you know our troll boy didn't comprehend this part...
"but four out of the nine aftermarket brands we tested--Amazon Imaging's
ink for the Canon, G&G's ink for the Epson, and Carrot Ink's cartridge
and InkTec's cartridge-refill kit for the HP--yielded prints of
comparable quality to those made with printer manufacturer inks. Of the
clones, only the OA100 inks for the Canon produced photos significantly
worse than those made with a brand-name ink..."
Can you believe this guy has the downright ignorance to actually post an
article that proves he is wrong yet still doesn't get it. What a moron
he is.
But maybe, the ink & Canon printer manufacturers should give him a
discount (slight) for all the economic support he gives them by
purchasing their overpriced oem carts and all the spam he post in this ng.
On second thought, fuck him.
Frank
measekite
Burt wrote:
>Willhelms tests were done some time ago with ink brands (labels if you
>prefer) that none of the people reporting on this NG use. I would welcome
>similar tests done by Wilhelm or a similar reputable testing firm comparing
>Canon OEM inks vs. Formulabs and MIS inks among others. Measekite quotes
>his famous successful "prints laying on his desk for nine months" fade test
>with prints done with Canon OEM inks and I can attest to the fact that
>prints I have made with MIS inks that are hanging on my wall
>
Behind glass??
>or displayed in
>albums
>
but not laying around in the open
>have passed the same test successfully. The prints with these inks
>compare very favorably with OEM inks in a side-by-side comparison.
>
>Measekite and I are in agreement that some
>
I say many
>third party products can cause
>problems with print heads. What he doesn't like to acknowledge is that some
>third party inks are quite good, have been purchased and used by the people
>he demeans by calling us the aftermarket club, and have been purchased over
>a period of years from vendors who have proven to be very reliable. He is
>relentless in posting negatives about our very positive experience with
>third party products and then accuses us of proseltyzing for their use when
>we respond to his negatives or answer questions posed on this NG about such
>products.
>
Again Read This
measekite
Frank wrote:
Will U stop speaking with a 3rd party cartridge wedged way up your ass
so that it wags your tounge. You are a dumb shit.
Frankie dummy shittie Crankie :-P
CWatters
> AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said here. :-)
>
> We found that third-party inks can save you money, and that some produce
> prints on a par with the output of printer vendor inks. But we also
> encountered third-party inks that produced poor-quality prints and
> clogged up printheads.
Well I haven't seen these problems with the ink I've been using for 6 years
but..
The moral of the story is to buy two printers....
1) An expensive photo printer model which you only use for photos and which
you fit with the manufacturers ink carts.
2) A chepo printer from a company like HP (heads built into carts) that you
refill and use for all your text and general printing.
The money you save using third party ink in 2) should help pay for 1) but I
haven't done the sums.
Ivor Floppy
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eeake.293$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said here. :-)
Anyone who wants to read the original article - its here
http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,111767,00.asp - measekite must
of missed the part that says "Copying, reproduction, retransmission, or
redistribution of any material contained in this PCWorld.com area in whole
or in part or in any medium or form is prohibited without express
permission."
measekite
CWatters wrote:
The problem with that is most people use more ink for photo printing.
>
>
>
>
measekite
Tony wrote:
>For the open minded.
>
>"CAN be frustrating"
>"SOME retailers' Web sites"
>"CAN cause myriad problems"
>"SOME inks, even those that made good-looking pictures"
>"CAN be a risky business"
>
>Lots of "Can's" and "Some's" here - no absolutes in the entire excerpt.
>No surprise of course, many of us repeatedly say that there are good and there
>are bad. Choose the reputable suppliers
>
Suppliers that will not put (in writing on their websites) what they are
selling you and just all their product compatible are not all that
reputable. You never know what you are getting and if you are getting
the same thing as the previous order.
>and you will be no worse off than you
>are with OEM inks,
>
provided you do not have a head clog. If your print fades somewhat
earlier just print another.
>but you will save money! The real cost of ownership for an
>inkjet printer is extremely high and saving money is a non trivial endeavour.
>
>PC World is no less open to persuasion from OEM vendors than any other
>publication, we don't know who prompted this article.
>As in all things read both sides of the story and make a balanced judgement.
>One article does not a gospel make!
>
>Tony
>
>
There is no reputable other side. There are no really independent head
on comparative review by a reputable organization. Consumer Reports may
be one but they have not done an appropriate study. All we have is
about 6 to 12 tinkerers known as the AfterMarket Club who have had some
independent experiences and most claim not to have had trouble.
Mickey
stop feeding the dufus but I see he is still geting his 3 squares a
day. Stop it!
Mickey
measekite
Mickey wrote:
And U need a round one right up the gizoo.
Burt
(snip)
> Suppliers that will not put (in writing on their websites) what they are
> selling you
Wrong - Alotofthings states very clearly that they use Formulabs but you
disparage them without ever having done business with them.
and just all their product compatible are not all that
> reputable. You never know what you are getting and if you are getting the
> same thing as the previous order.
>
>>and you will be no worse off than you are with OEM inks,
>
> provided you do not have a head clog. If your print fades somewhat
> earlier just print another.
>
>>but you will save money! The real cost of ownership for an inkjet printer
>>is extremely high and saving money is a non trivial endeavour.
>>
>>PC World is no less open to persuasion from OEM vendors than any other
>>publication, we don't know who prompted this article.
>>As in all things read both sides of the story and make a balanced
>>judgement. One article does not a gospel make!
>>
>>Tony
>>
>
> There is no reputable other side. There are no really independent head on
> comparative review by a reputable organization. Consumer Reports may be
> one but they have not done an appropriate study. All we have is about 6
> to 12 tinkerers
Tinkerers - Measekite's disparaging term for successful users of third party
inks/carts
6 to 12 third party users reporting successful use as opposed to one
Measekite who has never used any of these third party ink/cart products but
delights in putting down the vendors, products, and people who use them in
an effort to discourage others.
>known as the AfterMarket Club
Aftermarket club - Measekite's disparaging term for users of aftermarket ink
and carts
> who have had some
Wrong - considerable experience, not "some" experience. Many years of use by
several peoples on this NG.
> independent experiences and most claim not to have had trouble.
Wrong - all have had no more problems with selected third party products
than experienced with OEM inks/carts
Measekite's monologue continues!!!!
Frank
when he tried to read it.
I've kill filed him but I can assure you his childish, immature and
obscene replies will be forthcoming.
Frank
measekite
Burt wrote:
>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Cqlke.617$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>(snip)
>
>
>
>>Suppliers that will not put (in writing on their websites) what they are
>>selling you
>>
>>
>
>Wrong - Alotofthings states very clearly that they use Formulabs but you
>disparage them without ever having done business with them.
>
>
Until recently alotofcrap did not do this. Maybe there were enough
prodding to get alotofcrap to do this. It would be nice if those
assholes sold the business to a large reputable company. It would be
nice if Sensinent would be alotofcrap and turn them around and also
change the name.
measekite
Burt wrote:
ATTENTION NEW NG READERS:
If you track all of these success stories about AfterMarket inks on this
NG over a 2 to 3 week period of time you will find that all of these
success stories come from a handful of tinkerers that I have
collectively called the AfterMarket Club. Burt is their president and
Frankie is their parrot.
measekite
Frank wrote:
Frankie Crankie's mom respects the copyright law. There is only one of
him. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-D
Arthur Entlich
copyrighted article, the least you should do (better is getting
permission, if possible) is to state where the information came from and
the author, is given.
Arthur Entlich
subject in the header.
Art
measekite wrote:
> This seems to sum it all up! Of course the card carrying members of the
> AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said here. :-)
>
> We found that third-party inks can save you money, and that some produce
> prints on a par with the output of printer vendor inks. But we also
> encountered third-party inks that produced poor-quality prints and
> clogged up printheads. The impact of generic inks on printer warranties
> is ambiguous. And if you frequently print photographs, you should steer
> clear of these inks: The prints might look fine, but Wilhelm reported
> that none of the clone inks he tested came close to matching the
> permanence of brand-name inks.
>
>CUT<
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> You need to learn to attribute your quotes. If you are going to lift
> a copyrighted article, the least you should do (better is getting
> permission, if possible) is to state where the information came from
> and the author, is given.
Look at the header
Arthur Entlich
Please supply some references.
Art
Mapanari wrote:
>
> That's why that horrible nasty crook, Michael Dell, bought out Lexmark.
> All he wants to do is selling carts for those crappy printers. And he's
> doing really well because the mooing morons who buy Dell, are stupid enough
> to beleive authoratative sounding shill-industry posts like this one and
> continue to buy overpriced carts.
>
> Basically, when you talk 3rd party ink, you're cutting off the balls of HP
> and the golden parachutes and hundreds of millions of dollars the top execs
> steal straight from the company and shareholders every year in the form of
> "stock options".
> All this is subsidized by the mooing masses of masticating morons who
> believe that shit about 3rd party inks and pay $45 for a $1.20 cartridege
> once a month.
>
Taliesyn
> This seems to sum it all up! Of course the card carrying members of the
> AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said here. :-)
>
And "we" should believe it like you're quoting some unarguable fact.
You're about 10 years behind us in research, "Mr. Research Analyst."
There's nothing here that those of us who have been refilling or buying
generics for the last 10 YEARS don't already know. Perhaps you should
have labeled it "3rd Party Ink Information for Newbies like Me,
Measekite" instead of "This seems to sum it all up!" I read this a
long time ago and disregarded it, as I've already done all the research
I need. The money I now save buying 3rd party ink has already paid for
my next 5 printers. And I think THAT sums it all up, my dear "3rd
party-ink-newbie from muskogee".
-Taliesyn
Burt
it for themselves rather than "cherry-pick" the article to support your
viewpoint and possibly misquote the article when copying the portion you
post.
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:BXnke.1456708$8l.1012942@pd7tw1no...
Burt
For those new to this NG, this is another example of Measekite's childish
responses. Consider the source in reading his advice on this NG.
Burt
>
(snip)
>>
>
> ATTENTION NEW NG READERS:
>
> If you track all of these success stories about AfterMarket inks on this
> NG over a 2 to 3 week period of time you will find that all of these
> success stories come from a handful of tinkerers that I have collectively
> called the AfterMarket Club. Burt is their president and Frankie is their
> parrot.
>
Since Measekite is calling your attention to this issue, you should
absolutely follow his advice and review all of his posts regarding
aftermarket products. You will find that he has never done business with
the vendors he vilifies nor has he ever used any of their products. You
will find very few posts from people that can absolutely attribute their
printer problems to use the third party products (except in the case of some
of the Epson pigmented inks). You will find the majority of his responses,
when he runs out of reasonable comments, to be obscene and child-like - more
like a school yard bully than a reasonable adult. Please read posts from
Arthur Entlich, Tony, Taliesyn, and Ron Cohen for a more balanced view by
people with years of experience with third party inks and carts. You will
also notice that the vast majority of my posts on this issue are responses
to Measekite's mean-spirited, subjective rants on this subject and are
efforts to give a more balanced, informative view based on my actual
experience. His is a one-man campaign to do battle with anyone who reports
success with select vendors and their products.
Burt
(snip)
>>Wrong - Alotofthings states very clearly that they use Formulabs but you
>>disparage them without ever having done business with them.
>>
>
> Until recently alotofcrap did not do this.
Now that they have met your often repeated criterion for proper etrade
business practices (decent web site, sales from their web site, clear
statement of ink mfgr) I don't understand why you continue to disparage
them. You still have it in your craw that you didn't like their response to
your "constructive criticism of their business practices" several months ago
and you dislike that they have a two-tiered price schedule for purchasing
their products from the web site or ebay. Since they are very clear in
their pricing on each site this practice is certainly not unfair or
deceptive. Since this is one of the few firms that do exactly what you
want, why don't you just let it go? Your continual distortion of their name
is at best childish and at worst defamatory and simply mean-spirited.
>Maybe there were enough prodding to get alotofcrap to do this. It would be
>nice if those assholes sold the business to a large reputable company.
People who have done business with them have found them to be absolutely
reputable and reliable. It would REALLY be nice if the asshole who
continues to bitch and moan about them on this NG would quit his
unreasonable ranting.
> It would be nice if Sensinent would be alotofcrap and turn them around and
> also change the name.
For a person who identifies himself on this NG as "Measekite" or ugly one,
your attitude goes beyond Chutzpah in complaining about a company's chosen
name!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does a person who is so often NOT nice try to tell
us what would be NICE for this company to do.
>
(snip)
measekite
Burt wrote:
>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3Gnke.650$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>(snip)
>
>
>>>Wrong - Alotofthings states very clearly that they use Formulabs but you
>>>disparage them without ever having done business with them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Until recently alotofcrap did not do this.
>>
>>
>
>Now that they have met your often repeated criterion for proper etrade
>business practices (decent web site, sales from their web site, clear
>statement of ink mfgr)
>
Because a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is still a Wolfe. Besides, Reverend,
you are an MIS customer so why should you care about an asshole.
> I don't understand why you continue to disparage
>them. You still have it in your craw that you didn't like their response to
>your "constructive criticism of their business practices" several months ago
>and you dislike that they have a two-tiered price schedule for purchasing
>their products from the web site or ebay. Since they are very clear in
>their pricing on each site this practice is certainly not unfair or
>deceptive. Since this is one of the few firms that do exactly what you
>want, why don't you just let it go? Your continual distortion of their name
>is at best childish and at worst defamatory and simply mean-spirited.
>
>
They earn what they get.
measekite
Burt wrote:
>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:EJnke.653$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>(snip)
>
>
>>ATTENTION NEW NG READERS:
>>
>>If you track all of these success stories about AfterMarket inks on this
>>NG over a 2 to 3 week period of time you will find that all of these
>>success stories come from a handful of tinkerers that I have collectively
>>called the AfterMarket Club. Burt is their president and Frankie is their
>>parrot.
>>
>>
>>
>(snip)
>
>Since Measekite is calling your attention to this issue, you should
>absolutely follow his advice and review all of his posts regarding
>aftermarket products. You will find that he has never done business with
>the vendors he vilifies nor has he ever used any of their products. You
>will find very few posts from people that can absolutely attribute their
>printer problems to use the third party products
>
THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!
> (except in the case of some
>of the Epson pigmented inks). You will find the majority of his responses,
>when he runs out of reasonable comments, to be obscene and child-like - more
>like a school yard bully than a reasonable adult. Please read posts from
>Arthur Entlich, Tony, Taliesyn, and Ron Cohen for a more balanced view by
>people with years of experience with third party inks and carts.
>
Are they a few of your Club Members? And some card carrying members of
the AFTERMARKET Club are actual vendors. Since I exposed they they have
not posted much. I wonder why.
>You will
>also notice that the vast majority of my posts on this issue are responses
>to Measekite's mean-spirited, subjective rants on this subject and are
>efforts to give a more balanced, informative view based on my actual
>experience. His is a one-man campaign to do battle with anyone who reports
>success with select vendors and their products.
>
>
I never disputed that you are satisfied with MIS 3rdparty inks and are
content to buy a black box. You know that everytime you order from
inksupply you can never be sure you are getting what you had before.
Just sit on your pompous ass and espout your evangical bullshit.
>
>
>
measekite
has nothing better to do.
Frank
Burt, you're far too intelligent to be arguing with this idiot. As I
said once before, this jackass has psychotic episodes whenever he visits
this ng. He is nothing more than a lying, immature moron who has
absolutely no credibility regarding printers or inks.
Be done with his sorry ass.
Frank
Burt
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:3Gnke.650$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>(snip)
>>
>>>>Wrong - Alotofthings states very clearly that they use Formulabs but you
>>>>disparage them without ever having done business with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Until recently alotofcrap did not do this.
>>>
>>
>>Now that they have met your often repeated criterion for proper etrade
>>business practices (decent web site, sales from their web site, clear
>>statement of ink mfgr)
>>
>
> Because a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is still a Wolfe. Besides, Reverend,
> you are an MIS customer so why should you care about an asshole.
A Wolf is a Wolfe?
>
>> I don't understand why you continue to disparage them. You still have it
>> in your craw that you didn't like their response to your "constructive
>> criticism of their business practices" several months ago and you dislike
>> that they have a two-tiered price schedule for purchasing their products
>> from the web site or ebay. Since they are very clear in their pricing on
>> each site this practice is certainly not unfair or deceptive. Since this
>> is one of the few firms that do exactly what you want, why don't you just
>> let it go? Your continual distortion of their name is at best childish
>> and at worst defamatory and simply mean-spirited.
>>
>
> They earn what they get.
in your distorted, complaining, mean-spirited, obscene-laden-commented,
name-calling view - not shared by anyone else in this NG or any other forum
I've seen on printers, inks, or carts. You are the guy who insists that you
are the only person in step and the entire army marching with you is out of
step. Get real.
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>> This seems to sum it all up! Of course the card carrying members of
>> the AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said here. :-)
>>
>
> And "we" should believe it like you're quoting some unarguable fact.
I guess the "we" is an ommission that you are a member also.
>
> You're about 10 years behind us in research, "Mr. Research Analyst."
>
> There's nothing here that those of us who have been refilling or buying
> generics for the last 10 YEARS
Since you were 7?
Burt
> When is the Reverend going to put me in his delete file? The old fart has
> nothing better to do.
Too bad we have to follow your posts constantly to prevent your nonsensical
misinformation from appearing to be anything but your own rant from personal
bias.
measekite
measekite wrote:
Who is US????? You mean the AfterMarket Club don't you Reverend?
>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
Taliesyn
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> This seems to sum it all up! Of course the card carrying members of
>>> the AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said here. :-)
>>>
>>
>> And "we" should believe it like you're quoting some unarguable fact.
>
>
>
> I guess the "we" is an ommission that you are a member also.
I don't know what your problem is to people saving money and getting
satisfactory print results. Is it jealousy? Do you envy the fact that
I'm doing it and you can't? Does it bother you that I stick all kinds
of "unknown substances" in my printer and still manage to keep printing?
Do you wish you had the guts? Why are you trying to force me to use OEM
inks if I don't want to? Do you work for Canon, or is that self-
explanatory? Because I personally don't give a damn what you stick in
your goddam little used printer.
Those who use 3rd party inks have long ago compared results with OEM
inks and discovered that the differences were either not there or were
small enough that they didn't justify using OEM ink that cost a hell of
a lot more. As I have said many times ... I can refill with bulk ink at
a cost of $5 (for all 5 cartridges) or buy 5 cartridges at a cost of
$125 (Wal-Mart) Canadian dollars. The difference in print output is very
small to negligible, and certainly not worth the $120 difference - or
more that half the cost of my printer. Half the cost of the printer is
pure theft on the part of Canon. I don't like my pockets being picked.
Charge me a reasonable price and I'll buy OEM ink. What is reasonable?
Hmmmmm..... $5 CDN a cartridge, or about $4 US. At that rate it's about
10% of the cost of the printer (with Canadian taxes). That's fair.
>
>>
>> You're about 10 years behind us in research, "Mr. Research Analyst."
>>
>> There's nothing here that those of us who have been refilling or buying
>> generics for the last 10 YEARS
>
>
> Since you were 7?
No, but your juvenile response to a serious argument shows us your IQ.
-Taliesyn
measekite
Taliesyn wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>> This seems to sum it all up! Of course the card carrying members
>>>> of the AfterMarket Club will not agree with most of what is said
>>>> here. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> And "we" should believe it like you're quoting some unarguable fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess the "we" is an ommission that you are a member also.
>
>
> I don't know what your problem is to people saving money and getting
> satisfactory print results. Is it jealousy? Do you envy the fact that
> I'm doing it and you can't?
You must me a young idiot. What is stopping me?
> Does it bother you that I stick all kinds
> of "unknown substances" in my printer and still manage to keep printing?
I do not care if you piss in the carts.
> Do you wish you had the guts? Why are you trying to force me to use OEM
> inks if I don't want to?
You can use what you want to. If you like doing business with these
hawkers. I guess if I printed that much I might have to consider
something also.
> Do you work for Canon, or is that self-
> explanatory? Because I personally don't give a damn what you stick in
> your goddam little used printer.
What makes you thing God dammed my printer. How do you know there is a
God. And if so you do not even know if God created man or Man created God.
>
> Those who use 3rd party inks have long ago compared results with OEM
> inks and discovered that the differences were either not there or were
> small enough that they didn't justify using OEM ink that cost a hell of
> a lot more.
I never said Canon, HP, and Epson inks were priced fair in relation to
the costs of production.
> As I have said many times ... I can refill with bulk ink at
> a cost of $5 (for all 5 cartridges) or buy 5 cartridges at a cost of
> $125 (Wal-Mart) Canadian dollars. The difference in print output is very
> small to negligible, and certainly not worth the $120 difference - or
> more that half the cost of my printer. Half the cost of the printer is
> pure theft on the part of Canon.
Yes it is. And don't forget about Epson and HP.
> I don't like my pockets being picked.
If she was beautifule and she picked real hard you might like it.
> Charge me a reasonable price and I'll buy OEM ink.
I agree with that.
> What is reasonable?
> Hmmmmm..... $5 CDN a cartridge, or about $4 US. At that rate it's about
> 10% of the cost of the printer (with Canadian taxes). That's fair.
So you would pay more than $1.00 a cart ($4.00 CN) for OEM ink. Must be
a reason for that.
I even think $5.00 US is fair.
Frank
Hey Taliesyn, this guy is a real sicko, wacko moron. Nobody believes any
of his bullshit.
Frank
measekite
Frank wrote:
You are a PRICK
Ivor Floppy
[..]
>> Hey Taliesyn, this guy is a real sicko, wacko moron. Nobody believes any
>> of his bullshit.
>> Frank
He's a typical usenet troll - when anything resembling a reasoned argument
fails; result to abuse.
> You are a PRICK
See what I mean?
measekite
Ivor Floppy wrote:
Your nose is brown from kissing Frankie Crankie's Ass
Frank
brains and this ng is his total life, besides owning only two printers.
I've never seen anything intelligent come out of his pathetic mouth.
His childish bullshit responses is the best he can do.
Frank
Hecate
wrote:
>Do you work for Canon, or is that self-
>explanatory?
C'mon, even Canon won't employ 5 year olds..
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
measekite
Hecate wrote:
>On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:43 -0400, Taliesyn <tali...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Do you work for Canon, or is that self-
>>explanatory?
>>
>>
>
>C'mon, even Canon won't employ 5 year olds..
>
>
Were you 8 before you were7?
Burt
>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:43 -0400, Taliesyn <tali...@netscape.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Do you work for Canon, or is that self-
>>>explanatory?
>>
>>C'mon, even Canon won't employ 5 year olds..
>>
>
> Were you 8 before you were7?
I think that was my first "dirty joke." I believe I was just about seven or
eight years old at the time. The lack of maturity of your responses shows
more with each of your stupid one liners. I think you found the fountain of
youth and you have nearly regressed to the level of ma-ma and da-da. Keep
it up and perhaps we will be rid of you soon.
Frank
weight...somewhere around 7 oz's.
Frank
measekite
Burt wrote:
>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:r7uke.865$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Hecate wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:43 -0400, Taliesyn <tali...@netscape.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you work for Canon, or is that self-
>>>>explanatory?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>C'mon, even Canon won't employ 5 year olds..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Were you 8 before you were7?
>>
>>
>
>I think that was my first "dirty joke." I believe I was just about seven or
>eight years old at the time. The lack of maturity of your responses shows
>more with each of your stupid one liners. I think you found the fountain of
>youth and you have nearly regressed to the level of ma-ma and da-da. Keep
>it up and perhaps we will be rid of you soon.
>
>
Up Urs
measekite
Frank wrote:
Your dick is half of that and your brain is inside your dick.
heheheheheHAHAHAHAHA :-D :-D :-D
Burt
Another Measekite "brilliant" response. Take note, all NG participants, of
the infantile character we deal with here.
Burt
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:r7uke.865$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:43 -0400, Taliesyn <tali...@netscape.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you work for Canon, or is that self-
>>>>>explanatory?
>>>>>
>>>>C'mon, even Canon won't employ 5 year olds..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Were you 8 before you were7?
>>>
>>
>>I think that was my first "dirty joke." I believe I was just about seven
>>or eight years old at the time. The lack of maturity of your responses
>>shows more with each of your stupid one liners. I think you found the
>>fountain of youth and you have nearly regressed to the level of ma-ma
>>and da-da. Keep it up and perhaps we will be rid of you soon.
>>
>
> Up Urs
When logic fails him he resorts to infantile, crude, innane verbal jabs.
Sad.
measekite
Burt wrote:
I thought the evangelist was going to put me in his do not read file but
I just intrigue him too much.
>
>
>
measekite
Frank
We now have a running office betting pool based on his idiotic
responses. Weekly the one who guesses most correctly the number of his
limited, predictable responses wins the most money. Then we have a
second place and a third place.
This turns out to be great office entertainment and a very good
distraction. They use lunch time to view his limited repertoire of postings.
I’ve disqualified myself because I seem to elicit many of his responses,
but I can and wager on the ability of others to compete.
Who would have thought one could make money on this crap! :-)
Frank
Burt
Disgust is more like it. Nothing you have posted is intrigueing. Don't pat
yourself on the back.
>
>>
>>
Burt
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z%yke.975$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Burt
"Frank" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:UQzke.2777$tp.574@fed1read05...
Frank - perhaps your pool should include the count on various words and
phrases such as dick, schmuck, asshole, shit, etc. Come to think of it, his
entire pattern of responses centers somewhere between the naval and knees.
Definitely from traumatic toilet training (possibly still in progress)
and/or bed wetting. Sigmond Freud, himself, would have a lifetime study of
this psycho.
>
Irwin Peckinloomer
meas...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
> > Burt wrote:
> >
For me the math is pretty simple: I bought a Canon i960 4 months ago for
$89 + $20 shipping. I've done 7 cartridge refills at half a buck each
(labeled and dated tru-color ink from alotofthings.com). Photos look
exactly like they did on the original Canon ink. Figuring $10 for Canon
cartridges, I'll be $199 ahead when the warranty runs out, so if my head
dies on the 366th day, I can buy a new printer & still be 90 bucks or so
ahead. If it dies before then, I'm covered by warranty, and even better
off. Every day it lasts past 1 year, I'm still farther ahead. I don't
see a downside to this, except for the effort of refilling (about as
hard & messy as putting gas in the car)!
Arthur Entlich
this company which both provokes you, and also seems to make you think
you have the right to disparage the company's name and reputation?
To date, I believe the only thing you've stated is you didn't like how
their website was designed, and you may have had a discussion with
someone on the phone which didn't go your way.
As I also understand it, you have no actual experience with either their
product or their delivery of goods. Besides that they probably have
every right to sue you for libel, or at least get a court injunction
against you to cease and desist, I would like you to explain publicly
why you continue to libel the company in this forum.
Just to be clear, libel is the defamation of an individual or entity or
the crime of publishing such statements. The law goes further in that
if damages can be proven when a business is libeled and it's reputation
or sales are harmed by an individual who speaks untruthfully about an
entity in a public forum or in any other published manner, they can sue
to recover those damages believed to be or anticipated to be a result of
such activities, plus punitive amounts.
I will remind you that P&G successfully had the group of people involved
in libeling them put in jail, as well as fined.
Art
measekite wrote:
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Cqlke.617$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Suppliers that will not put (in writing on their websites) what they
>>> are selling you
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong - Alotofthings states very clearly that they use Formulabs but
>> you disparage them without ever having done business with them.
>>
>>
>
> Until recently alotofcrap did not do this. Maybe there were enough
> prodding to get alotofcrap to do this. It would be nice if those
> assholes sold the business to a large reputable company. It would be
Arthur Entlich
1) Many who use after market inks successfully just have no interest in
bothering in your petty little war.
2) You seem to represent the other side of this battle relatively on
your own, and you have No experience at all with 3rd party inks, nor do
you have more than apocryphal stories without any valid research or
statistics, making your statements nothing more than your opinion. So
in an argument between an individual with neither any personal
experience nor any valid science versus a group of individuals who have
used both OEM and 3rd party inks over a period of years, your viewpoint
(along with it's libelous statements) don't appear to carry any weight
whatsoever.
If you were reasoned at all about this, and stated that some 3rd party
inks are inferior to OEM and may not justify the price differential, I
don't think anyone could fault you. However, you make blanket
statements which cannot be backed up with fact. And even when the so
called "branding" you "demand" of 3rd party vendors is revealed, rather
than seeing this as a step toward better communications between the
vendor and his clients, and having resolved one of the issue you claim
to have with 3rd party ink vendors, you continue to libel the company in
question. That, in itself, points to your taking a vindictive stand
against one or more companies, which once again points to libel.
I would strongly suggest that you reconsider continuing what has become
a vendetta against a few smaller vendors who you have neither knowledge
or basis to make accusations or derogatory statements about.
Art
measekite wrote:
> ATTENTION NEW NG READERS:
>
> If you track all of these success stories about AfterMarket inks on this
> NG over a 2 to 3 week period of time you will find that all of these
> success stories come from a handful of tinkerers that I have
> collectively called the AfterMarket Club. Burt is their president and
> Frankie is their parrot.
>
Arthur Entlich
fact, you republished the majority of, if not the complete copyrighted
article without permission from the copyright owner.
Quoting a small section of a work, be it a book, website, or article,
may be covered under "fair use" within the copyright legislation if it
is used to illustrate, educate or editorialize upon. But your use would
not fall into that category. It's straight copyright violation.
I'd suggest more care in the future. You could have, and probably
should have used a link.
Art
measekite wrote:
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> You need to learn to attribute your quotes. If you are going to lift
>> a copyrighted article, the least you should do (better is getting
>> permission, if possible) is to state where the information came from
>> and the author, is given.
>
>
>
> Look at the header
>
>>
>
measekite
Burt wrote:
That is where your wife's head is Burtie Furtie. Just think if your name
was Bartie
measekite
Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>In article <N8fke.341$kS3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>meas...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>Frank wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Burt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>For me the math is pretty simple: I bought a Canon i960 4 months ago for
>$89 + $20 shipping. I've done 7 cartridge refills at half a buck each
>(labeled and dated tru-color ink from alotofthings.com).
>
alotofcrap
>Photos look
>exactly like they did on the original Canon ink. Figuring $10 for Canon
>cartridges, I'll be $199 ahead when the warranty runs out, so if my head
>dies on the 366th day, I can buy a new printer & still be 90 bucks or so
>ahead. If it dies before then, I'm covered by warranty, and even better
>off. Every day it lasts past 1 year, I'm still farther ahead. I don't
>see a downside to this, except for the effort of refilling (about as
>hard & messy as putting gas in the car)!
>
>
And that is Bullshie. Burt welcomes Mr Pecker to the AfterMarket Club
as a new member.
Arthur Entlich
newsgroup and respond to them individually in the order in which they
were received.
I'm noticing that you have come to some of the very same conclusions I
have, on numerous issues this past day or two, although you responded
sooner than I to them.
Just so measekite doesn't get paranoid, Burt and I did not have any
interchange regarding these issues, we just seem to have come to the
same conclusions at about the same time, coincidentally.
Art
Burt wrote:
> Better yet, it is more than sufficient to post the link and let people read
> it for themselves rather than "cherry-pick" the article to support your
> viewpoint and possibly misquote the article when copying the portion you
> post.
>
> "Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:BXnke.1456708$8l.1012942@pd7tw1no...
>
>>The attribution should be in the body of the message, not just in the
>>subject in the header.
>>
>>Art
>>
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> However, you neglect to mention the other side of this coin.
>
> 1) Many who use after market inks successfully just have no interest
> in bothering in your petty little war.
>
> 2) You seem to represent the other side of this battle relatively on
> your own, and you have No experience at all with 3rd party inks, nor
> do you have more than apocryphal stories without any valid research or
> statistics, making your statements nothing more than your opinion. So
> in an argument between an individual with neither any personal
> experience nor any valid science versus a group of individuals who
> have used both OEM and 3rd party inks over a period of years, your
> viewpoint (along with it's libelous statements) don't appear to carry
> any weight whatsoever.
>
> If you were reasoned at all about this, and stated that some 3rd party
> inks are inferior
I said most not all and that is true. The vast majority of the public
do not refill carts.
Arthur Entlich
that doesn't excuse your boorish behavior and libelous comments toward a
company you have no right to be criticizing. I don't use them either,
in fact I have never even spoken to them or visited their website and
yet, it offends me also.
The point is they haven't "earned" what you are up to, and you are
apparently lacking the judgment to be making that decision.
Art
measekite wrote:
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3Gnke.650$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>>> Wrong - Alotofthings states very clearly that they use Formulabs but
>>>> you disparage them without ever having done business with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Until recently alotofcrap did not do this.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Now that they have met your often repeated criterion for proper etrade
>> business practices (decent web site, sales from their web site, clear
>> statement of ink mfgr)
>>
>
> Because a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is still a Wolfe. Besides, Reverend,
> you are an MIS customer so why should you care about an asshole.
>
>> I don't understand why you continue to disparage them. You still have
>> it in your craw that you didn't like their response to your
>> "constructive criticism of their business practices" several months
>> ago and you dislike that they have a two-tiered price schedule for
>> purchasing their products from the web site or ebay. Since they are
>> very clear in their pricing on each site this practice is certainly
>> not unfair or deceptive. Since this is one of the few firms that do
>> exactly what you want, why don't you just let it go? Your continual
>> distortion of their name is at best childish and at worst defamatory
>> and simply mean-spirited.
>>
>>
>
> They earn what they get.
>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe there were enough prodding to get alotofcrap to do this. It
>>> would be nice if those assholes sold the business to a large
>>> reputable company.
>>>
>>
>>
>> People who have done business with them have found them to be
>> absolutely reputable and reliable. It would REALLY be nice if the
>> asshole who continues to bitch and moan about them on this NG would
>> quit his unreasonable ranting.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It would be nice if Sensinent would be alotofcrap and turn them
>>> around and also change the name.
>>>
>>
>>
>> For a person who identifies himself on this NG as "Measekite" or ugly
>> one, your attitude goes beyond Chutzpah in complaining about a
>> company's chosen name!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does a person who is so often
>> NOT nice try to tell us what would be NICE for this company to do.
>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> He cares because regardless of who a customer might use as their
> source, that doesn't excuse your boorish behavior and libelous
> comments toward a company you have no right to be criticizing. I
> don't use them either, in fact I have never even spoken to them or
> visited their website and yet, it offends me also.
>
> The point is they haven't "earned"
yes they have
Frank
any particular post which most of the time does not exist but is simply
some unintelligible drivel.
Frank
Burt
Measekite. Makes sense to me.
"Irwin Peckinloomer" <semi...@spamforYahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfc74f38...@news.aracnet.com...
Burt
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> He cares because regardless of who a customer might use as their source,
>> that doesn't excuse your boorish behavior and libelous comments toward a
>> company you have no right to be criticizing. I don't use them either, in
>> fact I have never even spoken to them or visited their website and yet,
>> it offends me also.
>>
>> The point is they haven't "earned"
>
> yes they have
The pouting response or a petulent child. No explanation, no reference to
reason. Too bad we don't have it on webcam as we would see foot stamping or
a temper tantrum while lying on the floor with feet and fists flailing.
Burt
a self-stated grad of lthe Stanford MBA program.
"Frank" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MDIke.2833$tp.226@fed1read05...
>>>I致e disqualified myself because I seem to elicit many of his responses,
measekite
Burt wrote:
>Forgot to add to the pool misspelled words and errors in syntax. This from
>a self-stated grad of lthe Stanford MBA program.
>
>
You are not worth anymore wirkie.
>>>>I’ve disqualified myself because I seem to elicit many of his responses,
David Chien
degree by the makers of printers who advertise in their magazines.
Really now - one look at the CIS Continuous Ink Cartridge feed system or
the B&W Pizeography system and the many, many satisfied users (see Yahoo
Groups -> Epson inkjet forum and elsewhere), and you'd realize that with
properly made 3rd party inks, you can get excellent, trouble-free results.
---
I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
Why?
Before the reported Epson 870/etc. Orange Fading incident
(www.p-o-v-image.com has info), they reported prints to last for years
from these printers -- yet, in fact, many users immediately found, like
I did, that prints faded within weeks, even indoors!
Heck, even Epson called up many 870/etc. owners then to offer a FULL
buyback of the affected printers as a result (even me).
Naturally, after this 'incident', Wilhelm 'adjusted' all of their
results saying their old 'methods' were not so good because it didn't
take into account some of these environmental factors.
Well, gosh, darn -- you'd think any company that's been hired by Kodak
and others to test print longevity for years earlier would have sat some
Ph.D down for a moment, okay, a few minutes, and think things through!
Like where are the prints most likely displayed and kept by a consumer?
That alone would have made them realize that they'd have humidity,
ozone, and other factors -- like really! how many people do keep their
prints and negatives in a cold-room, temp & humidity controlled forever?!?
Just unrealistic.
---
Anyways, despite what Wilhelm has said about all of the latest photo
printers, thankfully, Japanese computer magazines are much more
objective -- the recent Digital Camera magazine tests this year have
placed the latest photo printers from Epson and Canon to the test in
both indoor and outdoor lit conditions.
What did they find?
In under three months, all of them faded! Canon's had noticable orange
fading; even the clear-coated Epson prints (the printers that apply a
final clear coat) had a measurable degree of fading.
---
Keep in mind that chemically and physically, ALL dye-based inks like
they use in most printers today will break down quickly when exposed to
light, humidity, etc. Even pigmented inks will break down, too.
(Here, thankfully, companies like www.inkjetmall.com are realistic and
report the degree of fading found in their 3rd party archival inks --
they don't pull wool over your eyes and make you believe you can get
decades of non-fade prints.)
---
As for the 3rd party inks. Keep in mind that printers are often cheaper
than new ink cartridge sets, selling for <$50 on sale (see
www.fatwallet.com/c/18/). If you don't refill, why buy new cartridges?
Just replace the printer, which comes with new carts!
Or if you are printing quite a lot, continuous ink feed systems are the
way to go aside from a color laser printer at $299+.
Ivor Floppy
"David Chien" <chi...@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:d6vrob$o24$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
[..]
> Keep in mind that chemically and physically, ALL dye-based inks like they
> use in most printers today will break down quickly when exposed to light,
> humidity, etc. Even pigmented inks will break down, too.
>
Also keep in mind that traditional photos produced using chemicals only have
an estimated lifespan of 20 years or so - which in practice is often much
shorter when exposed to light.
My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away to
nothing.
Frank
>>>>Who would have thought one could make money on this crap! :-)
>>>>Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>Frank - perhaps your pool should include the count on various words and
>>>phrases such as dick, schmuck, asshole, shit, etc. Come to think of it,
>>>his entire pattern of responses centers somewhere between the naval and
>>>knees. Definitely from traumatic toilet training (possibly still in
>>>progress) and/or bed wetting. Sigmond Freud, himself, would have a
>>>lifetime study of this psycho.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That's one subject and other is the factual relevance of his answer to any
>>particular post which most of the time does not exist but is simply some
>>unintelligible drivel.
>>Frank
>
>
>
Yeah he is definitely nothing more than a high school drop-out education
wise.
What a loser.
Frank
Hecate
wrote:
>PC World, like other magazines, is probably 'influenced' to a large
>degree by the makers of printers who advertise in their magazines.
>
>Really now - one look at the CIS Continuous Ink Cartridge feed system or
>the B&W Pizeography system and the many, many satisfied users (see Yahoo
>Groups -> Epson inkjet forum and elsewhere), and you'd realize that with
> properly made 3rd party inks, you can get excellent, trouble-free results.
>
>---
>
>I'd take any of Wilhelm-Research's results with a grain of salt.
>
Which is why I prefer:
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
Hecate
wrote:
>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away to
>nothing.
>
That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
measekite
Hecate wrote:
>On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:48:30 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Iv...@somewhere.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away to
>>nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
>prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
>
>
I did not think you were that old? ;-)
Ivor Floppy
"Hecate" <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1oa791tn3h4sh4bt8...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:48:30 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Iv...@somewhere.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away to
>>nothing.
>>
> That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
> prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
>
Indeed you *can*, but don't expect all prints to last that sort of time. The
B/W prints were processed correctly (I know - I helped print them) - they
were printed on regular RC paper, developed, fixed (Ilford Hypam) and washed
for the recommended time - in other words just standard processing. Other
prints from around the same time (and same chemicals/processing) have been
stored in cardboard boxes and are still as good as the day they were
printed, its simply the action of light / ozone etc. that has faded these
big prints.
Oh, and they are behind glass too.
Burt
>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:48:30 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Iv...@somewhere.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My parents have some colour photos displayed in a frame on the wall - it
>>>gets no direct sun, yet there is noticeable fading and colour shift.. and
>>>its only about 4 years old. They also have a 16"x20" B/W photo printed on
>>>Ilford RC paper about 20 years ago.. and that too has almost faded away
>>>to nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>That suggests incredibly bad processing of the print. You can get B&W
>>prints from the 1860's which are still as clear as a bell.
>>
>
> I did not think you were that old? ;-)
Another stupid one-liner that contributes nothing to the NG.
Arthur Entlich
valid criticism of your comments. You choose to answer only that which
suits you.
A perfect example is the response you provided below. You make one
rather meaningless comment which doesn't address the vast majority of
the issues I brought into the debate, and you think that satisfies a
response.
Well, it does not. You have made some very specific and inaccurate
comments which you cannot defend by then indicating " I said most not
all and that is true. The vast majority of the public do not refill carts."
This is a complete red herring, and has little to do with the falsehoods
you continue to attempt to spread.
You had better bone up on your debating skills, because you are very
likely going to need them shortly.
The fact that you mislead people in this newsgroup regularly with your
intentionally incorrect postings is bad enough. The fact that you
continue to malign not only a whole business sector, but specific
vendors which whom you have no personal buying experience with may well
end up costing you dearly.
Art
Arthur Entlich
can judge the authenticity to your claim. You have publicly denigrated
several 3rd party ink companies here for months, but have provided not
one shred of evidence that these statements have any credence whatsoever.
The accusations you make have to have some equity to the up till now
unrevealed slight you claim occurred. So far, I see no veracity to your
claim, and in fact, numerous others state your claim is misguided based
upon their own experience with the same companies.
Libel can also be an exaggeration of opinion to the point where it harms
the profitability of a business.
Art
m...@privacy.net
<hec...@newsguy.com> writes
>Which is why I prefer:
>http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
Is anyone aware of any (sensible) research comparing inkjet technologies
with laser for their longevity. Anecdotally I can say that the output
of the colour lasers I have had (QMS Magicolor 2200, Xerox Phaser
8200[1] and Canon CLC950[2]) survive sunlight much better than the Epson
Stylus 600 I had. What is the difference now with more up to date
inkjets?
I had an overlap between the QMS and the Epson so I was able to compare
the two, and an overlap between the QMS and the Xerox, and finally an
overlap between the Canon and the Xerox.
[1] Solid ink
[2] Two part system with toner and developer.
--
Timothy
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I buy OEM inks because I know who made them. I buy OEM inks because I
can get them in a variety of places; Costco, Office Depot, Staples, and
online. I find that the prices are about the same all over except for
Costco.
I do not buy no name inks from website that do not and will not disclose
what they are selling. Like your Raimbow minimum labeled cartridges
with are filled with a rumoured ink.
There are many people who have trouble with a non OEM ink. They then go
to another web vendor and buy some other compatible and also have
trouble. They have no idea that it may be the same product under
different names. You cannot track this in the market place.
This industry at a whole sucks and it fosters a bunch of people hiding
behind websites making claims.
Burt
No, Measekite, it is you who hide behind a false name (unless you mother
either really hated you or had a terribly warped sense of humor) and spew
invective, libelous statements, insults to posters wives and mothers, and
infantile obscene comments when your wholely biased opinions are challenged.
By your attempts to dissuade people from believing what I and others post
about selected third party inks and vendors you have raised this issue from
a few side comments that most people would pay attention to or ignore as
they saw fit to a major discussion on this NG. The unintended consequence
of your attempts to discredit our information is that more people are now
aware that there are some EXCELLENT third party inks available from some
RELIABLE vendors. You have, by causing us to respond repeatedly to you
biased and unfair opinions, been the absolute best advertisement these
vendors and their products could have received! I've enjoyed the many
favorable comments on this issue that I have received, both on the NG and by
email, and I notice the paucity of positive responses you get for your
efforts - namely zero - for the crude, rude, biased info you post to the NG.
About the vendors you so adamantly criticize - They have addresses and phone
numbers plainly stated on their sites. I have called and spoken to the
owner of more than one of these firms. No one is hiding from me, but I
would understand why they would hide from you! You're the guy who tried to
tell one of them how to run his business. I'm surprised that he didn't tell
you to "shove it." Or, maybe he did and that's why you are angry with him.
measekite
Burt wrote:
Poor Poor Frankie Crankie. He lost. You are now ASSHOLE OF THE WEEK.
AND A HOLY ASSHOLE AT THAT.
>By your attempts to dissuade people from believing what I and others post
>
>
ARE YOU JEALOUS
>about selected third party inks and vendors you have raised this issue from
>a few side comments that most people would pay attention to or ignore as
>they saw fit to a major discussion on this NG.
>
THAT IS WHAT THE HOLY ONE DID YOU DUMBELL
>The unintended consequence
>of your attempts to discredit our information is that more people are now
>aware that there are some EXCELLENT third party inks available from some
>RELIABLE vendors.
>
THAT IS YOUR OPINION. I DO NOT SHARE THAT. YOU NEVER KNOW IF YOU GET
THE SAME THING ON MULTIPLE PURCHASES A FEW MONTHS APART AND HAVE NO WAY
TO PROVE THAT YOU DID. THAT IS THE TRUTH YOU DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT. =-O
>You have, by causing us to respond repeatedly
>
YOU RESPOND BECAUSE YOU WANT TO AND BECAUSE YOU ARE DUMB. STOP
RESPONING AND MAYBE I WILL NOT HAVE TO WRITE AS MUCH.
>to you
>biased and unfair opinions, been the absolute best advertisement these
>vendors and their products could have received! I've enjoyed the many
>favorable comments on this issue that I have received, both on the NG and by
>email, and I notice the paucity of positive responses you get for your
>efforts - namely zero - for the crude, rude, biased info you post to the NG.
>
>
THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WHO READ THE TRUTH OF WHAT I SAY AND
NEVER COME BACK TO YOUR AFTERMARKET CONTROLLED NG.
>About the vendors you so adamantly criticize - They have addresses and phone
>numbers plainly stated on their sites.
>
IF YOU LOOK FOR THEM AND SOME DISCOURAGE PHONE CALLS WHOOPEE
>I have called and spoken to the
>owner of more than one of these firms. No one is hiding from me, but I
>would understand why they would hide from you! You're the guy who tried to
>tell one of them how to run his business.
>
PEOPLE HERE TRY TO TELL EPSON HOW TO RUN THEIRS. IF THEY WANT TO HAVE
CHIPS IN THEIR CARTRIDGES TO PROTECT AFTERMARKET INKS FROM COSTING THEM
WARRANTY REPAIRS THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT LIKE THAT
THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BUY EPSON.
Burt
I see you stamping your feet and shaking your fists, having another childish
tantrum. Perhaps you've heard the little child's response to this sort of
garbage that goes, "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will
never hurt me." Keep up the good work, fool, and people will continually be
reminded that your posts are not to be believed.
Frank
Great! I see you've got our local asshole yelling and screaming which
means he really lost his cool and I'm now in this weeks pool running to
win it all!
Good work Burt and thanks! :-)
Frank
Burt
use of more-than-one sylable words and compound sentences. I would expect
that Stanford MBA grads should be able to do more than grunt monosylabic
profanities and express themselves better than in subject-verb-object,
simple, first person singular, present tense sentences.
"Frank" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ei7le.6594$tp.6464@fed1read05...
Frank
My guess it that you'll only need one hand to count with an still have
enough fingers left over to communicate in sign language.
Frank
Burt
"Frank" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:xH7le.6604$tp.61@fed1read05...
Frank
> Only need one finger for communicating with Measekite!
:-D
Frank
Hecate
wrote:
I'm not surprised if they weren't archivally processed. They'll fade
just as much as any other "standard" prints.
Irwin Peckinloomer
trying to type), since I have refilled some cartridges, and you have
not, I have some experience, and you have none. You are entitled to your
opinion about refilling, but you and the readers of your posts should
realize that it is an uninformed opinion (sometimes called a
superstition).
In article <0uFke.1027$rY6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
meas...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>
> >For me the math is pretty simple: I bought a Canon i960 4 months ago for
> >$89 + $20 shipping. I've done 7 cartridge refills at half a buck each
> >(labeled and dated tru-color ink from alotofthings.com).
> >Photos look
> >exactly like they did on the original Canon ink. Figuring $10 for Canon
> >cartridges, I'll be $199 ahead when the warranty runs out, so if my head
> >dies on the 366th day, I can buy a new printer & still be 90 bucks or so
> >ahead. If it dies before then, I'm covered by warranty, and even better
> >off. Every day it lasts past 1 year, I'm still farther ahead. I don't
> >see a downside to this, except for the effort of refilling (about as
> >hard & messy as putting gas in the car)!
> >
> >
> And that is Bullshie. Burt welcomes Mr Pecker to the AfterMarket Club
> as a new member.
>
Irwin Peckinloomer
In article <l5Kke.952$kS3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
sfbjg...@pacbell.net says...
> Irwin - almost word-for-word my post just a short time ago in response to
> Measekite. Makes sense to me.
>
>
>
Arthur Entlich
may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as not
being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
Tektronix/Xerox machines).
Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
Art
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
> may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as
> not being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
> Tektronix/Xerox machines).
The real pros told me it was very permanent.
m...@privacy.net
<e-prin...@mvps.org> writes
>I cannot point to any research at the moment (when I have more time I
>may be able to track some down), but evidence points to solid ink as
>not being very permanent (if you mean the wax based inks used in the
>Tektronix/Xerox machines).
>
>Color toner based laser systems have very good fade resistance relative
>to most other technologies. Probably superior to most inkjet, but may
>not be up to the highest end (for permanence) inkjet inks.
>
seems to be quite a bit comparing different inkjet with photography, but
not laser longevity. Or could it be that those paying for the research
don't want inkjet longevity shown up.
--
Timothy
Arthur Entlich
You wouldn't know a "real pro" if they sat on you.
From:
Preservation of Ink Jet Hardcopies
An Investigation by Martin C. Jürgens
for the Capstone Project, Cross-Disciplinary Studies,
at Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
"Due to the waxy nature of the thermoplastic vehicle, oil
soluble basic dyes are needed for the ink. These dyes are
naturally quite waterfast, but they tend to show a lesser
lightfastness."
Art
Burt
since he is preoccupied with rants about whores and hawkers.
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:KkYme.1526260$8l.45119@pd7tw1no...
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> You wouldn't know a "real pro" if they sat on you.
I do know you are not.
Hecate
wrote:
More likely it's because lasers can't produce the continuous tone
quality of inkjets and are therefore not much use as photo printers
and it's in that filed where longevity matters.