Consumer Reports rejects third party ink cartridges

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
quantity.

Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?

best, Aaron in N. Hollywood
26 answers Last reply
More about consumer reports rejects party cartridges
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 7 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0700, aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein)
    wrote:

    >The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
    >inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
    >money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
    >quantity.
    >
    >Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
    >are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?
    >
    >best, Aaron in N. Hollywood

    This just got discussed in dpreview forums. The consensus: BS
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 7 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0700, aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein) wrote:

    >The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
    >inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
    >money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
    >quantity.
    >

    Do they say how much they were bribed to write this?
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Malev wrote:
    > On 7 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0700, aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein)
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
    >> inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
    >> money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
    >> quantity.
    >>
    >
    > Do they say how much they were bribed to write this?

    CU does not need bribes to make irrelevant, misleading, or just plain
    erroneous judgements for their readership. The organization is, after
    all, predicated on people needing someone else telling them what is
    good, bad and indifferent. They find a ready supply of readers who fit
    the profile.

    Q
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    firebirdNOSPAM@exit109..com wrote in
    news:0b6b70d3iu2tuvlanepsvp6np77dqe2f18@4ax.com:

    > Given the limited selection available in
    > stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
    > sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)

    Just my thought... the sources of ink CR used is probably what the average
    consumer would use.

    Atlantic Inkjet, Weink.com, are speciality stores whether or not we like to
    admit it or not.

    --
    Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Lucas Tam wrote:

    >firebirdNOSPAM@exit109..com wrote in
    >
    >> Given the limited selection available in
    >> stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
    >> sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)
    >
    >Just my thought... the sources of ink CR used is probably what the average
    >consumer would use.
    >
    >Atlantic Inkjet, Weink.com, are speciality stores whether or not we like to
    >admit it or not.

    So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources are
    available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?

    Answer: their sponsors wouldn't like it.

    I've read far too many reports from CR that do not reflect the full
    truth, even for average consumers.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Bill <bill@c.a> wrote in news:2sOdnZ8mGe8WmOvd4p2dnA@golden.net:

    > So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources are
    > available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?

    I haven't read the review yet - maybe because the average consumer wouldn't
    buy from an online store?

    --
    Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Bill wrote:
    > Lucas Tam wrote:
    >
    >> firebirdNOSPAM@exit109..com wrote in
    >>
    >>> Given the limited selection available in
    >>> stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
    >>> sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)
    >>
    >> Just my thought... the sources of ink CR used is probably what the
    >> average consumer would use.
    >>
    >> Atlantic Inkjet, Weink.com, are speciality stores whether or not we
    >> like to admit it or not.
    >
    > So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources
    > are available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?
    >
    > Answer: their sponsors wouldn't like it.
    >
    > I've read far too many reports from CR that do not reflect the full
    > truth, even for average consumers.

    CU has a practice of researching only enough for supporting the limited
    thesis in the report. As a result, they tend to miss what even a
    relative novice would find with just a bit of research. One benefit is
    that by doing so, they can never be criticised for errors; omissions
    don't count at CU. CU has been sued repeatedly for errors of omission
    and have been found impervious by the courts, IMO.

    Q
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I don't think Consvmer's Union (pvblisher of CR) takes any kind of
    commercial fvnding. As others have said, they cater to the average gvy,
    not an enthvsiast in whatever they are testing. They also often goof vp
    by not having real expertise in the svbject area themselves.. bvt how
    may people are real afficianados or experts in something like pancake
    mix vnless they work in the indvstry?

    I find I have to read reviews carefvlly, and decide whether their basic
    criteria match mine.

    A classic my father always liked to cite was a review they had of
    electric razors. They downrated the model he vsed becavse the cord was
    too short. My father thovght the cord was in fact too long. The
    article showed the testing room with a bvnch of people shaving in front
    of mirrors and the ovtlets at a normal height above the floor for an
    office, living room, etc. Most bathrooms have ovtlets near the mirror,
    mvch higher than in a regvlar room. So the test conditions jvst didn't
    match normal vse.


    ANyhow, back to sponsors and bribes.. there are a few sovnd alike
    magazines like "consvmer's digest" or "consvmer review" which do allow
    themselves to be qvoted in manvfactvrer's ads and may be pawns of indvstry.

    Bill wrote:


    > Also, CR is well known to have biased reports that favovr certain
    > manvfactvrers needs and wants. There are many an article that reports
    > the exact opposite of the known trvth. This is dve to fvnding
    > issves...they get fvnding for their independent testing from the
    > manvfactvrers, svppliers, and variovs other companies, and charitable
    > organizations. Of covrse, there's a hvge conflict of interest in many of
    > their reports, bvt CR never mentions all the fine details abovt their
    > fvnding in the reports.
    >
    > Imagine a printer company coming to yov with a $100,000 donation and
    > asking yov to do a report on third-party inks. Wovld yov shaft them and
    > lose any fvrther fvnding? I don't think so.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    WELL SAID


    "dp" <perley@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:aYvdnbQMYaEzBvvdRVn-gg@adelphia.com...
    : I don't think Consvmer's Union (pvblisher of CR) takes any kind of
    : commercial fvnding. As others have said, they cater to the average gvy,
    : not an enthvsiast in whatever they are testing. They also often goof vp
    : by not having real expertise in the svbject area themselves.. bvt how
    : may people are real afficianados or experts in something like pancake
    : mix vnless they work in the indvstry?
    :
    : I find I have to read reviews carefvlly, and decide whether their basic
    : criteria match mine.
    :
    : A classic my father always liked to cite was a review they had of
    : electric razors. They downrated the model he vsed becavse the cord was
    : too short. My father thovght the cord was in fact too long. The
    : article showed the testing room with a bvnch of people shaving in front
    : of mirrors and the ovtlets at a normal height above the floor for an
    : office, living room, etc. Most bathrooms have ovtlets near the mirror,
    : mvch higher than in a regvlar room. So the test conditions jvst didn't
    : match normal vse.
    :
    :
    : ANyhow, back to sponsors and bribes.. there are a few sovnd alike
    : magazines like "consvmer's digest" or "consvmer review" which do allow
    : themselves to be qvoted in manvfactvrer's ads and may be pawns of
    indvstry.
    :
    : Bill wrote:
    :
    :
    : > Also, CR is well known to have biased reports that favovr certain
    : > manvfactvrers needs and wants. There are many an article that reports
    : > the exact opposite of the known trvth. This is dve to fvnding
    : > issves...they get fvnding for their independent testing from the
    : > manvfactvrers, svppliers, and variovs other companies, and charitable
    : > organizations. Of covrse, there's a hvge conflict of interest in many of
    : > their reports, bvt CR never mentions all the fine details abovt their
    : > fvnding in the reports.
    : >
    : > Imagine a printer company coming to yov with a $100,000 donation and
    : > asking yov to do a report on third-party inks. Wovld yov shaft them and
    : > lose any fvrther fvnding? I don't think so.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    dp wrote:

    >I don't think Consvmer's Union (pvblisher of CR) takes any kind of
    >commercial fvnding.

    Incorrect. There are pvblished reports of their monetary sovrces, and
    many of them are commercial svppliers which "donate" fvnds to CU. And
    their non-commercial sovrces often have their own agendas, and CU
    complies with them in order to keep their fvnding.

    That is a conflict of interest, one that has been known for many years.

    Lawsvits against CU/CR are actvally common, bvt they vsvally fail not
    becavse of any lack of legal basis, bvt becavse CU has a very large
    legal department that can pvmmel most other companies. Money talks.

    This has gone off topic, so I won't be commenting fvrther. However, if
    yov want to learn more, google for it.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Lucas Tam wrote:

    >Bill <bill@c.a> wrote in news:2sOdnZ8mGe8WmOvd4p2dnA@golden.net:
    >
    >> So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources are
    >> available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?
    >
    >I haven't read the review yet - maybe because the average consumer wouldn't
    >buy from an online store?

    But anyone with a computer and any kind of internet connection could,
    and that is a large portion of the average joes.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PLEASE svpport yovr comments

    Can yov identify the sovrces of yovr OPINIONS.


    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:3Y-dnYTarew7V-vdRVn-hw@golden.net...
    : dp wrote:
    :
    : >I don't think Consvmer's Union (pvblisher of CR) takes any kind of
    : >commercial fvnding.
    :
    : Incorrect. There are pvblished reports of their monetary sovrces, and
    : many of them are commercial svppliers which "donate" fvnds to CU. And
    : their non-commercial sovrces often have their own agendas, and CU
    : complies with them in order to keep their fvnding.
    :
    : That is a conflict of interest, one that has been known for many years.
    :
    : Lawsvits against CU/CR are actvally common, bvt they vsvally fail not
    : becavse of any lack of legal basis, bvt becavse CU has a very large
    : legal department that can pvmmel most other companies. Money talks.
    :
    : This has gone off topic, so I won't be commenting fvrther. However, if
    : yov want to learn more, google for it.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein) wrote:

    >The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
    >inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
    >money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
    >quantity.
    >
    >Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
    >are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?
    >
    >best, Aaron in N. Hollywood

    I have not read the CU article, but I have read what
    www.wilhelm-research.com/ has to say. While I have heard that there
    are a few good third party sources, many if not most, are inferior to
    those provided by the printer manufacturer.
    On the www.wilhelm-research.com/ site there is much information on
    inks in general. Also there you will find a current and specific PDF
    article printed in September of 2003 where third party inks were
    tested. This article may be found at www.wilhelm-research.com/ and
    http://tinyurl.com/xy59 will take you right to the article but you
    must have adobe reader installed to read it. This is a free program
    available here http://tinyurl.com/6ip . Wilhelm mentions the specific
    inks he compared. The brands tested were from:

    1. Amazon Imaging
    2. Carrot Ink
    3. OA100 (PrintPal)
    4. Rainbow logo (a white box with nothing on it except for a rainbow
    logo)
    5. Canon
    6. Epson (information on these last two inks may have been drawn from
    previous testing)

    As many on Usenet have pointed out many times, you pay your money and
    make a choice. The manufacturers ink cost more but items including:

    1. Color balance
    2. Print longevity
    3. Head clogging

    are _usually_ better. If these issues
    are not as important to you as cost then, of course, that is certainly
    your choice.

    YMMV and many will cite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. However,
    until someone presents _ACTUAL TEST DATA_ to refute Wilhelm test data
    (not anecdotal evidence) then I will trust his site. I tried third
    party inks with my Epson and even reported good results here. Except
    for color balance, which had to be drastically changed, I thought they
    were OK. After using the ink a while, I noticed that even with color
    adjustment, the prints did not have the same color balance as Epson
    inks. I also had some trouble with head clogging with one set of these
    inks. Based on personal experience and testing by
    www.wilhelm-research.com/ I have returned to Epson inks.

    What I think would be more useful than replying with "that is BS" or
    "you can not trust CU" etc., would be a list of third party inks that
    are:

    1. Low cost
    2. have accurate color balance
    3. have equal or better print longevity
    4. good at avoiding head clogging

    The third party inks that reportedly do this often cost as much or
    more than the manufacturers own ink.

    Richard
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Richard wrote:

    >I have not read the CU article, but I have read what
    >www.wilhelm-research.com/ has to say.
    >
    >1. Amazon Imaging
    >2. Carrot Ink
    >3. OA100 (PrintPal)
    >4. Rainbow logo (a white box with nothing on it except for a rainbow
    >logo)
    >5. Canon
    >6. Epson (information on these last two inks may have been drawn from
    >previous testing)

    What I didn't like about that article is the lack of quality ink
    suppliers that are available. Not one of the third party inks is of any
    reasonable quality in my opinion.

    Where are the tests of inks made by Formulabs or any other decent ink
    supplier? Several of the suppliers the article mentions are on the web,
    indicating that users with internet access are included in the userbase.
    This makes me question the agenda of PCWorld to print such an article.
    With all the heavy advertising, that article is most definitely biased
    toward the original manufacturers.

    Instead of reading a money-driven rag to give you pre-formed opinions,
    why not ask the people who actually use these products in day-to-day use
    and can give you first-hand experiences that are relatively unbiased and
    are not driven by monetary gain?

    That would be people like you and I.

    That article reminds me of consumer reports, in that the article lacks
    many alternatives that should have been tested in a fair manner. But
    since there are so many omissions, the tests are only valid for the
    limited choices mentioned. That is not representative of the real world
    though.

    >As many on Usenet have pointed out many times, you pay your money and
    >make a choice. The manufacturers ink cost more but items including:
    >
    >1. Color balance
    >2. Print longevity
    >3. Head clogging
    >
    >are _usually_ better. If these issues
    >are not as important to you as cost then, of course, that is certainly
    >your choice.
    >
    >YMMV and many will cite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. However,
    >until someone presents _ACTUAL TEST DATA_ to refute Wilhelm test data
    >(not anecdotal evidence) then I will trust his site.

    That's the point. The actual test data from Wilhelm lacks any of the
    known good quality ink suppliers, and unfortunately I don't have
    thousands of dollars from advertising revenue to conduct similar tests
    of my own. I also don't have a laboratory. :)

    You can probably trust Wilhelm for the tests they did report, however
    the four third party suppliers is not at all representative of any of
    the good suppliers.

    That begs the question, why?

    The answer is monetary gain. They would not test, say MIS inks, and then
    say it works great and that you should start buying it instead. Why not?
    Because they would have threats from Epson, Canon, and HP saying they
    would pull their advertising. Less advertising from the big boys means
    less cash in their pockets.

    >What I think would be more useful than replying with "that is BS" or
    >"you can not trust CU" etc., would be a list of third party inks that
    >are:
    >
    >1. Low cost
    >2. have accurate color balance
    >3. have equal or better print longevity
    >4. good at avoiding head clogging
    >
    >The third party inks that reportedly do this often cost as much or
    >more than the manufacturers own ink.

    You've got to be kidding.

    Posts of good suppliers are here almost every day. I have posted that
    AtlanticInkjet has good ink that works very well for my Canon i850 and a
    friends i550. Others have posted that MIS, Inkjetgoodies, Alotofthings,
    etc. have good suppliers too.

    I believe all of them meet the four criteria you mention above. The
    biggest factor for using third party ink is cost, and that's where it
    really gets good.

    I can refill my ink tanks for about $1 each, which is $19 less than what
    it costs to buy a new ink tank. Over the life of the cartridge, that's
    about 1/10 the cost when you factor in the cost of a new Canon ink tank
    every ten refills. Using blanks or even compatibles to refill, that cost
    drops even lower.

    As for image quality and permanence, where are the tests of third party
    papers that match the inks better? Since permanence is largely based on
    the match of ink AND paper, it's important to test using other papers as
    well as the original manufacturers paper brands. Let's be honest here,
    if you're going to use third party inks to reduce costs, you're likely
    also going to want third party paper to reduce those costs even further.

    So then is that article trustworthy? Yes and no. The simple fact is the
    article is heavily biased AGAINST using third party supplies, so what
    little advice they do give about buying other inks, is quickly trounced
    by their conclusions that you should stick with the original supplies.
    In essence they say some inks are good, but don't buy them because we
    say so.

    I have my own "anecdotal" reports to offer too. I have photos that I
    printed on my Canon i850 over a year ago. They were printed with
    original Canon ink and Photo Pro paper, AtlanticInkjet ink and Photo Pro
    paper, Canon ink and Office Depot paper, and finally AtlanticInkjet ink
    and Office Depot paper. Lots of different combinations and they all look
    essentially the same.

    For the heck of it, I've even done re-prints of a few photos to compare
    them to 1 year old prints, and in side by side comparisons, there is no
    noticeable fade or colour cast. Most of my other photos are sitting in
    photo albums, protected from the elements, and in there I suspect they
    will outlast me and possibly those who follow.

    So, long story short, it's bullshit. ;)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:17:25 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

    >What I didn't like about that article is the lack of quality ink
    >suppliers that are available. Not one of the third party inks is of any
    >reasonable quality in my opinion.
    >
    >Where are the tests of inks made by Formulabs or any other decent ink
    >supplier? Several of the suppliers the article mentions are on the web,
    >indicating that users with internet access are included in the userbase.
    >This makes me question the agenda of PCWorld to print such an article.
    >With all the heavy advertising, that article is most definitely biased
    >toward the original manufacturers.

    This is about the only place that someone not in the field can find
    out about quality suppliers. If you look at web sites, they just tell
    you the benefits of whatever they are selling, including the sites
    that specialize in ink for photo and fine art printing. FormulaLabs
    does not seem to sell retail (unless you want a barrel of each color).
    The only reason I know about AtlanticInkJet and FormulaLabs is from
    this newsgroup. The average joe can surf the web all day and not find
    this information. The average joe has never heard of "groups" at
    Google, and wouldn't know what keywords to use.

    Personally, I use Weink because I have one of their Continuous Inking
    Systems for an i9100. Their prices seem to be about $5 more than the
    others in 16 oz (500ml) sizes. On the other hand, I know it works.

    YMMV

    Jim
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    firebirdNOSPAM@exit109..com wrote:

    >On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:17:25 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
    >
    >>What I didn't like about that article is the lack of quality ink
    >>suppliers that are available. Not one of the third party inks is of any
    >>reasonable quality in my opinion.
    >>
    >>Where are the tests of inks made by Formulabs or any other decent ink
    >>supplier? Several of the suppliers the article mentions are on the web,
    >>indicating that users with internet access are included in the userbase.
    >>This makes me question the agenda of PCWorld to print such an article.
    >>With all the heavy advertising, that article is most definitely biased
    >>toward the original manufacturers.
    >
    >This is about the only place that someone not in the field can find
    >out about quality suppliers.

    No it's not...and I mentioned this above already.

    The article I'm talking about was published in PCWorld magazine,
    available to anyone just about anywhere.

    But the article deliberately overlooks the GOOD choices for ink supplies
    that anyone with internet access can obtain. That magazine article does
    no one a service, except the original manufacturers.

    The computer magazines are supposed to be writing articles that help end
    users in their quest to find better sources and improve productivity.
    But many times the articles do nothing but scare the average joe into
    buying genuine parts and supplies at higher costs than needed. That
    doesn't really help us.

    Needless to say, I never buy any of those magazines, but I read many of
    them for free with a quick stop at the library on the weekend. The
    volume of advertising is so heavy, they should be paying us to read the
    mags.

    And some people think these mags are unbiased...not.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:10:16 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

    >And some people think these mags are unbiased...not.

    Yes but ;-)

    What I find the magazines useful; for is to compare stuff I know I
    want to buy ;-)

    E.G. If I want to compare lenses of a particular type and stuff like
    that. I>E> If you want to compare original manufacturers and major
    independents. And some magazines are better than others. In the UK,
    for example, the Amateur Photographer lens tests are generally fair
    and balanced and they will often recommend an independent lens such as
    Sigma or Tamron, over a marque lens.

    But then, the point is surely that you have to have a fair amount of
    knowledge before you can use these tests wisely, which is, I believe
    what you were pointing out above. :)

    --

    Hecate
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    veni, vidi, reliqui
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Quaoar" (quaoar@tenthplanet.net) writes:
    > Bill wrote:
    >> Lucas Tam wrote:
    >>
    >>> firebirdNOSPAM@exit109..com wrote in
    >>>
    >>>> Given the limited selection available in
    >>>> stores, CR's report is accurate and not misleading. (Although they
    >>>> sometimes have a sidebar for the more intelligent.)
    >>>
    >>> Just my thought... the sources of ink CR used is probably what the
    >>> average consumer would use.
    >>>
    >>> Atlantic Inkjet, Weink.com, are speciality stores whether or not we
    >>> like to admit it or not.
    >>
    >> So that begs the question, why doesn't CR mention that other sources
    >> are available that are as good as OEM stuff at lower cost?
    >>
    >> Answer: their sponsors wouldn't like it.
    >>
    >> I've read far too many reports from CR that do not reflect the full
    >> truth, even for average consumers.
    >
    > CU has a practice of researching only enough for supporting the limited
    > thesis in the report. As a result, they tend to miss what even a
    > relative novice would find with just a bit of research. One benefit is
    > that by doing so, they can never be criticised for errors; omissions
    > don't count at CU. CU has been sued repeatedly for errors of omission
    > and have been found impervious by the courts, IMO.
    >
    > Q
    >
    >


    If CU had included refilled ink carts in one of thwir annual surveys,
    which can be "biased" by asking (or not asking) this or that question but
    are based on the expereinces of real people, what do you suppose they
    would have found? There have been plenty of bad results reported here
    (one just tonight) along with the good, and based on those I decided that
    the cost of "saving" isn't just based on money. Refills that don't work,
    colors that don't match makers' ink, etc. (woes I'm sure the cognoscente
    will claim can be avoided) led me to conclude I was better off buying a
    cheap laser and using my ink-jet only when color is called for.

    Brendan
    --
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Brendan R. Wehrung wrote:

    >> CU has a practice of researching only enough for supporting the limited
    >> thesis in the report. As a result, they tend to miss what even a
    >> relative novice would find with just a bit of research. One benefit is
    >> that by doing so, they can never be criticised for errors; omissions
    >> don't count at CU. CU has been sued repeatedly for errors of omission
    >> and have been found impervious by the courts, IMO.

    Well not entirely.

    Their massive legal department scares off most lawsuits. But some of the
    more intensive lawsuits have won and there are others in the works right
    now. One of them is related to the "SUV's are dangerous" report they
    issued some time ago. And many probably know about Bose going after them
    with their huge lawyer-base.

    No, the only reason CU/CR has done so well is because they have a large
    gamut of lawyers covering their asses. If they didn't have such a huge
    defensive capability, they would have been pummelled long ago.

    >If CU had included refilled ink carts in one of thwir annual surveys,
    >which can be "biased" by asking (or not asking) this or that question but
    >are based on the expereinces of real people, what do you suppose they
    >would have found? There have been plenty of bad results reported here
    >(one just tonight) along with the good, and based on those I decided that
    >the cost of "saving" isn't just based on money. Refills that don't work,
    >colors that don't match makers' ink, etc.

    That's why research before buying products is a good thing.

    Before I bought my Canon i850, I was a firm believer in HP products.
    They worked well, they were solidly built, and they had cartridges with
    printheads in them so they could be easily replaced if they clogged or
    failed. I refilled them with aftermarket ink to reduce costs, but they
    only last a while before the heads die anyway.

    After using HP printers for several years, and weighing the costs of
    consumables, it was clear to me that switching to a better system was
    the way to go when it came time to upgrade.

    So when I started shopping for a new printer, I looked at everything
    available, and researched every model. Some of my requirements included
    reliability, good quality, fast speed, and ease of refilling. It didn't
    take long to realize the best choice was the Canon i series.

    I also wanted to find a good source of third party ink, and found that
    easily enough.

    > led me to conclude I was better off buying a
    >cheap laser and using my ink-jet only when color is called for.

    Everyone has their own preferences.

    With refills, printing text is as cheap as a laser if not less. And
    printing in colour is so inexpensive, I only think about black text when
    I want to make it more durable (Canon i850 uses pigmented black ink).
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:20:36 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

    >Brendan R. Wehrung wrote:
    >
    >>> CU has a practice of researching only enough for supporting the limited
    >>> thesis in the report. As a result, they tend to miss what even a
    >>> relative novice would find with just a bit of research. One benefit is
    >>> that by doing so, they can never be criticised for errors; omissions
    >>> don't count at CU. CU has been sued repeatedly for errors of omission
    >>> and have been found impervious by the courts, IMO.
    >
    >Well not entirely.
    >
    >Their massive legal department scares off most lawsuits. But some of the
    >more intensive lawsuits have won and there are others in the works right
    >now. One of them is related to the "SUV's are dangerous" report they
    >issued some time ago. And many probably know about Bose going after them
    >with their huge lawyer-base.
    >
    >No, the only reason CU/CR has done so well is because they have a large
    >gamut of lawyers covering their asses. If they didn't have such a huge
    >defensive capability, they would have been pummelled long ago.
    >
    >>If CU had included refilled ink carts in one of thwir annual surveys,
    >>which can be "biased" by asking (or not asking) this or that question but
    >>are based on the expereinces of real people, what do you suppose they
    >>would have found? There have been plenty of bad results reported here
    >>(one just tonight) along with the good, and based on those I decided that
    >>the cost of "saving" isn't just based on money. Refills that don't work,
    >>colors that don't match makers' ink, etc.
    >
    >That's why research before buying products is a good thing.
    >
    >Before I bought my Canon i850, I was a firm believer in HP products.
    >They worked well, they were solidly built, and they had cartridges with
    >printheads in them so they could be easily replaced if they clogged or
    >failed. I refilled them with aftermarket ink to reduce costs, but they
    >only last a while before the heads die anyway.
    >
    >After using HP printers for several years, and weighing the costs of
    >consumables, it was clear to me that switching to a better system was
    >the way to go when it came time to upgrade.
    >
    >So when I started shopping for a new printer, I looked at everything
    >available, and researched every model. Some of my requirements included
    >reliability, good quality, fast speed, and ease of refilling. It didn't
    >take long to realize the best choice was the Canon i series.
    >
    >I also wanted to find a good source of third party ink, and found that
    >easily enough.
    >
    >> led me to conclude I was better off buying a
    >>cheap laser and using my ink-jet only when color is called for.
    >
    >Everyone has their own preferences.
    >
    >With refills, printing text is as cheap as a laser if not less. And
    >printing in colour is so inexpensive, I only think about black text when
    >I want to make it more durable (Canon i850 uses pigmented black ink).

    Come on! So which third party ink did you settle on for your Canon? I've
    recently purchased the i960 and am interested in refilling.

    Thanks!

    John H

    On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
    on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    John H wrote:

    >>With refills, printing text is as cheap as a laser if not less. And
    >>printing in colour is so inexpensive, I only think about black text when
    >>I want to make it more durable (Canon i850 uses pigmented black ink).
    >
    >Come on! So which third party ink did you settle on for your Canon? I've
    >recently purchased the i960 and am interested in refilling.

    I use AtlanticInkjet up here in Canada. They have a US site and a sister
    company called Re-Inks. I hear MIS, Inkjetgoodies, and Alotofthings are
    good as well.

    First I bought the refill kits, which included everything I needed to
    get up and running, ink, syringes, outlet seal clips, refill hole plugs,
    and even a pair of gloves for sloppy people. :)

    Refilling is very easy with the clear Canon ink tanks. As soon as the
    yellow exclamation point pops up indicating a low level for one of the
    tanks, I remove all of them and refill them (this keeps the sponge from
    drying).

    The first refill takes the longest, partly because it's a new
    experience, and also because you have to remove the tape and plastic
    ball seal. Once you get past that, every refill after is a snap. I can
    refill an ink tank in just a couple of minutes.

    Refilling is very inexpensive, about $1.50 per ink tank with the kits.
    After your initial refill kits get low, you can order bulk ink to
    replace the little bottles and costs drop again, to about $1 per tank.

    If you buy replacement Canon cartridges after ten refills, the overall
    cost is about 1/10 of buying originals all the time. Makes printing very
    cheap. Using third party photo paper, I can make my own prints for less
    than what it costs to go to Wal-Mart!
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:34:48 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

    >John H wrote:
    >
    >>>With refills, printing text is as cheap as a laser if not less. And
    >>>printing in colour is so inexpensive, I only think about black text when
    >>>I want to make it more durable (Canon i850 uses pigmented black ink).
    >>
    >>Come on! So which third party ink did you settle on for your Canon? I've
    >>recently purchased the i960 and am interested in refilling.
    >
    >I use AtlanticInkjet up here in Canada. They have a US site and a sister
    >company called Re-Inks. I hear MIS, Inkjetgoodies, and Alotofthings are
    >good as well.
    >
    >First I bought the refill kits, which included everything I needed to
    >get up and running, ink, syringes, outlet seal clips, refill hole plugs,
    >and even a pair of gloves for sloppy people. :)
    >
    >Refilling is very easy with the clear Canon ink tanks. As soon as the
    >yellow exclamation point pops up indicating a low level for one of the
    >tanks, I remove all of them and refill them (this keeps the sponge from
    >drying).
    >
    >The first refill takes the longest, partly because it's a new
    >experience, and also because you have to remove the tape and plastic
    >ball seal. Once you get past that, every refill after is a snap. I can
    >refill an ink tank in just a couple of minutes.
    >
    >Refilling is very inexpensive, about $1.50 per ink tank with the kits.
    >After your initial refill kits get low, you can order bulk ink to
    >replace the little bottles and costs drop again, to about $1 per tank.
    >
    >If you buy replacement Canon cartridges after ten refills, the overall
    >cost is about 1/10 of buying originals all the time. Makes printing very
    >cheap. Using third party photo paper, I can make my own prints for less
    >than what it costs to go to Wal-Mart!

    Thanks, Bill. I appreciate the info. What is MIS?

    John H

    On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
    on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    (Canon i850 uses pigmented black ink).
    >
    > Come on! So which third party ink did you settle on for your Canon? I've
    > recently purchased the i960 and am interested in refilling.
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > John H
    >
    > On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
    > on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


    I settled on MIS (http://www.inksupply.com ) inks...they were the best
    of the several I tried, including the touted Atlantic Ink Jet, these
    did not work at all for me. Also tried a few other obscure
    cheapos...but MIS was the best,
    very good, so I am done looking for now.
    all the best,
    Mike
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    John H wrote:

    >>I use AtlanticInkjet up here in Canada. They have a US site and a sister
    >>company called Re-Inks. I hear MIS, Inkjetgoodies, and Alotofthings are
    >>good as well.
    >
    >Thanks, Bill. I appreciate the info. What is MIS?

    Oh sorry, my bad.

    http://www.inksupply.com/

    I forgot they don't use their name as their website. :)
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:34:39 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

    >John H wrote:
    >
    >>>I use AtlanticInkjet up here in Canada. They have a US site and a sister
    >>>company called Re-Inks. I hear MIS, Inkjetgoodies, and Alotofthings are
    >>>good as well.
    >>
    >>Thanks, Bill. I appreciate the info. What is MIS?
    >
    >Oh sorry, my bad.
    >
    >http://www.inksupply.com/
    >
    >I forgot they don't use their name as their website. :)

    Thanks again!

    John H

    On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
    on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Aaron Epstein" <aaronep@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:8cf398a0.0404072119.3aa193c1@posting.google.com...
    > The latest issue of Consumer Reports says that while initial cost of
    > inks marketed by non-printer makers may be lower, they do not save
    > money because their colors are inaccurate and inks are less in
    > quantity.
    >
    > Do those reading this share the same opinion as Consumer Reports or
    > are there some third party ink makers who do market a quality product?

    Consumer Reports' suspect reputation has reached even Australia. The local
    knock-off, Australia Consumers' Assocation, is no better.

    The April 2004 edition of Australian PC User tested genuine vs Chinese
    cheapies and found the cheapies indistinguishable from the genuine - and
    recommended buying the cheapies. One cheap HP was slightly worse than
    genuine.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Hollywood Peripherals