which printer ?

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

Hi all, im looking for recomendations for a home printer that does good
quality photo prints but has reasonably cheap ink. is there such a thing ?

TIA

chris
25 answers Last reply
More about which printer
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Before you make up your mind, read the BBC article!
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3626373.stm

    Then go to your local PC store and look at the printers.... ask for samples
    to be printed, only you can choose which you think is the best.
    --
    Cari
    MS-MVP Windows Technologies - Printing/Imaging/Hardware
    www.coribright.com

    "Chris 159" <temp@cdelectrics.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:cavbbf$j3a$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > Hi all, im looking for recomendations for a home printer that does good
    > quality photo prints but has reasonably cheap ink. is there such a thing
    > ?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > chris
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    How good and how cheap? The photo quality only needs to please you, and of
    course only you know how much you are willing to spend on ink.
    Jim
    "Chris 159" <temp@cdelectrics.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:cavbbf$j3a$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > Hi all, im looking for recomendations for a home printer that does good
    > quality photo prints but has reasonably cheap ink. is there such a thing
    ?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > chris
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I've heard this is a great printer for photos, but how is it
    (quality/economy) for everyday document printing?

    "B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
    news:S9IAc.92182$Gx4.67906@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Canon i960. About $169 on sale. Refills around $12 each.
    >
    > B~
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:22:10 GMT, "B. Peg"
    <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote:

    >Canon i960. About $169 on sale. Refills around $12 each.
    >
    >B~
    >

    dont forget the $30 mail in rebate coupon off the canon site....
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:6LGAc.6825$kt1.787@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
    > How good and how cheap? The photo quality only needs to please you, and
    of
    > course only you know how much you are willing to spend on ink.
    > Jim


    not for me - thats the problem. my aunty has asked me to find out which to
    get.

    basically as good as you can get but cheap compared with the likes of
    lexmark (i know - almost everything is cheap compared to them)

    its one of those kind of questions that's difficult to answer really isnt it
    :-/
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Chris 159" (temp@cdelectrics.freeserve.co.uk) writes:
    > "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:6LGAc.6825$kt1.787@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
    >> How good and how cheap? The photo quality only needs to please you, and
    > of
    >> course only you know how much you are willing to spend on ink.
    >> Jim
    >
    >
    > not for me - thats the problem. my aunty has asked me to find out which to
    > get.
    >
    > basically as good as you can get but cheap compared with the likes of
    > lexmark (i know - almost everything is cheap compared to them)
    >
    > its one of those kind of questions that's difficult to answer really isnt it
    > :-/
    >
    >


    Not really, as long as you are willing to do the majority of your printing
    in black and white. Buy whatever ink-jet you want (I'm a Lexmark user and
    don't refill) BUT watch the sales until you find a $100 sale (usually
    after rebate) on a laser. I print one or two color an evening and mostly
    laser for e-mail etc. I only go through a set of Lexmark carts about
    every 6 months and toner once a year. I've found Lexmark to be reliable,
    if expensive to reload, although Target has made it easier with periodic
    $27-$27 sales on all Lexmark carts.

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

    $30 rebate fron Canon or Amazon. Net cost $150. I just bought one. Great
    prints.

    Sabu

    "B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
    news:S9IAc.92182$Gx4.67906@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Canon i960. About $169 on sale. Refills around $12 each.
    >
    > B~
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:22:10 GMT, "B. Peg"
    <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote:

    >Canon i960. About $169 on sale. Refills around $12 each.
    >
    >B~

    !? That's only $245 Australian. From what I've seen, it's double
    that price here. Any Australians here know where to buy it cheaper?

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

    I have been in the toner and inkjet business locally since 1991. The average
    person can't tell the in the picture quality of Canon, Epson and HP. I
    highly recommend the HP inkjet printer for quality and reliability. If
    something goes wrong with a HP printer, it can
    easily be fixed. Notice I don't mention Lexmark...When you don't have
    anything good to say about a printer its better to say nothing. Pete

    PS..If your buying Laser printers..HP is the only answer. Just ask any
    person who repairs printers.


    "Chris 159" <temp@cdelectrics.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:cavbbf$j3a$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > Hi all, im looking for recommendations for a home printer that does good
    > quality photo prints but has reasonably cheap ink. is there such a thing
    ?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > chris
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Pete,

    I do service printers (not as much as 10 years ago, but still do). While
    HP's are definitely the EASIEST to get repaired, I personally feel their
    quality of construction and reliability has fallen dramatically since the
    days of the Series II (SX Engine) days.

    HP 4000's are Jam-factories. Rollers don't last any time at all, especially
    pickup rollers.

    Any of their printers that use the instant-on fusers with the mylar covers
    have real-life reliability issues in this area. It takes absolutely nothing
    to tear one of these mylar covers, and HP refuses to sell you a $2
    replacement mylar. The insist on you purchasing a compete fuser at a cost
    of several hundred dollars in the case of the LaserJet 4200.

    And what business HP has putting that fuser in a so-called Corporate,
    workgroup class printer is beyond me.

    Electronically they are sound. Mechanically they have fallen off terribly.

    IMHO.

    -Larry

    "Pete" <ppremock1@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:vO_Ac.361989$M3.71099@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    > I have been in the toner and inkjet business locally since 1991. The
    average
    > person can't tell the in the picture quality of Canon, Epson and HP. I
    > highly recommend the HP inkjet printer for quality and reliability. If
    > something goes wrong with a HP printer, it can
    > easily be fixed. Notice I don't mention Lexmark...When you don't have
    > anything good to say about a printer its better to say nothing. Pete
    >
    > PS..If your buying Laser printers..HP is the only answer. Just ask any
    > person who repairs printers.
    >
    >
    > "Chris 159" <temp@cdelectrics.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:cavbbf$j3a$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > > Hi all, im looking for recommendations for a home printer that does good
    > > quality photo prints but has reasonably cheap ink. is there such a
    thing
    > ?
    > >
    > > TIA
    > >
    > > chris
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Larry wrote:
    > Pete,
    >
    > I do service printers (not as much as 10 years ago, but still do). While
    > HP's are definitely the EASIEST to get repaired, I personally feel their
    > quality of construction and reliability has fallen dramatically since the
    > days of the Series II (SX Engine) days.
    >
    > HP 4000's are Jam-factories. Rollers don't last any time at all, especially
    > pickup rollers.
    >
    > Any of their printers that use the instant-on fusers with the mylar covers
    > have real-life reliability issues in this area. It takes absolutely nothing
    > to tear one of these mylar covers, and HP refuses to sell you a $2
    > replacement mylar. The insist on you purchasing a compete fuser at a cost
    > of several hundred dollars in the case of the LaserJet 4200.
    >
    > And what business HP has putting that fuser in a so-called Corporate,
    > workgroup class printer is beyond me.
    >
    > Electronically they are sound. Mechanically they have fallen off terribly.
    >
    > IMHO.
    >
    > -Larry
    >
    > "Pete" <ppremock1@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
    > news:vO_Ac.361989$M3.71099@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >
    >>I have been in the toner and inkjet business locally since 1991. The
    >
    > average
    >
    >>person can't tell the in the picture quality of Canon, Epson and HP. I
    >>highly recommend the HP inkjet printer for quality and reliability. If
    >>something goes wrong with a HP printer, it can
    >>easily be fixed. Notice I don't mention Lexmark...When you don't have
    >>anything good to say about a printer its better to say nothing. Pete
    >>
    >>PS..If your buying Laser printers..HP is the only answer. Just ask any
    >>person who repairs printers.
    >>
    >>
    >>"Chris 159" <temp@cdelectrics.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    >>news:cavbbf$j3a$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>
    >>>Hi all, im looking for recommendations for a home printer that does good
    >>>quality photo prints but has reasonably cheap ink. is there such a
    >
    > thing
    >
    >>?
    >>
    >>>TIA
    >>>
    >>>chris
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    In the past 8 years I have gone with the first Epson Color Stylus
    600/800 that did the best color photo prints back in 1996. The Epson 750
    Photo was the first photo inkjet printer in the late 90's, then the
    still widly used 1270/80 Photo printers with 6 colors in 1999, the first
    dye ink Photo printer 2000P, the widly use by professionals 2200 Photo
    and now the ink dye R800. I can't wait for the wide format version of
    the R800 and I will be in heaven. I have had them all NEVER once w/
    heavy daily output did one ever give one day of trouble. I had a next
    day replacement policy with the 1270 and late 1280 Photo printers that
    would put new replacement printer in my office if I had one go down.
    Never needed it. I won't use anything else for photos.
    BTW still have my 2200 set up with a Lyson Continuous ink system using
    125 ml bottles for each color they outlast 10 or 12 cartridges. I never
    throw away any cartidges with half full colors.
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=LYBIFS2200&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=284444
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Larry <none@none.com> wrote:

    > HP 4000's are Jam-factories. Rollers don't last any time at all, especially
    > pickup rollers.

    That is not the case with the ones I support, LJ4050s with a few 4000s
    thrown in. The 4050 is the same as the 4000 except for a faster
    formatter. On these printers, I see very few jams, except with 3x5
    cards which they don't like much. Anything larger or not as thick does
    fine: 8.5x11 card stock or 4x6 paper, no problem.

    Rollers tend to get longer-than-rated life; many don't need replacement
    at the standard 200,000 page service period. Fusers usually don't quite
    make it to 200,000 pages; often more like 170,000-180,000. Fuser film
    usually wrinkles and tears on the left border.

    The busiest of these printers see around 20,000 pages per month. How
    does that compare to the ones you're seeing problems on?

    --
    Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:16:42 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >In the past 8 years I have gone with the first Epson Color Stylus
    >600/800 that did the best color photo prints back in 1996. The Epson 750
    >Photo was the first photo inkjet printer in the late 90's, then the
    >still widly used 1270/80 Photo printers with 6 colors in 1999, the first
    >dye ink Photo printer 2000P, the widly use by professionals 2200 Photo
    >and now the ink dye R800. I can't wait for the wide format version of
    >the R800 and I will be in heaven. I have had them all NEVER once w/
    >heavy daily output did one ever give one day of trouble. I had a next
    >day replacement policy with the 1270 and late 1280 Photo printers that
    >would put new replacement printer in my office if I had one go down.
    >Never needed it. I won't use anything else for photos.
    >BTW still have my 2200 set up with a Lyson Continuous ink system using
    >125 ml bottles for each color they outlast 10 or 12 cartridges. I never
    >throw away any cartidges with half full colors.
    >http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=LYBIFS2200&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=284444

    LOL. You just mentioned owing 7 or 8 epsons in eight years, but not
    one ever gave one day of trouble? Hm... If I bought a new car every
    year, I could probably say the same thing about those too... : )
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Just Allan wrote:
    > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:16:42 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In the past 8 years I have gone with the first Epson Color Stylus
    >>600/800 that did the best color photo prints back in 1996. The Epson 750
    >>Photo was the first photo inkjet printer in the late 90's, then the
    >>still widly used 1270/80 Photo printers with 6 colors in 1999, the first
    >>dye ink Photo printer 2000P, the widly use by professionals 2200 Photo
    >>and now the ink dye R800. I can't wait for the wide format version of
    >>the R800 and I will be in heaven. I have had them all NEVER once w/
    >>heavy daily output did one ever give one day of trouble. I had a next
    >>day replacement policy with the 1270 and late 1280 Photo printers that
    >>would put new replacement printer in my office if I had one go down.
    >>Never needed it. I won't use anything else for photos.
    >>BTW still have my 2200 set up with a Lyson Continuous ink system using
    >>125 ml bottles for each color they outlast 10 or 12 cartridges. I never
    >>throw away any cartidges with half full colors.
    >>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=LYBIFS2200&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=284444
    >
    >
    > LOL. You just mentioned owing 7 or 8 epsons in eight years, but not
    > one ever gave one day of trouble? Hm... If I bought a new car every
    > year, I could probably say the same thing about those too... : )

    If you had your own business where you run a minimum of 3 printers daily
    8 hours a day, with two crews then you might be able to park your
    mommies car and purchase your own new. Between photo restoration and
    chromakey photo shoots (which you probably never heard of) at local
    Sears, Pennys and other malls we keep our printers making money at the
    location, during photo packet shoots and the pictures are handed to
    customers on the spot. Our printers are a tool not a toy, thats why we
    use continous ink supply systems. Thats also why we only use 100 year
    archival dye-ink printers not a cheaper pigment ink that will fade in a
    couple years. My 2200 has turned out over thousands of prints. My new
    week old R800 has already done over 150 8x10 prints now.
    BTW I own 3 vehicles, two being brand new. Has nothing to do with
    purchasing something it's all about using what you have. I guess you
    were LOL while eating a balony sandwhich purchased w/ food stamps. This
    newsgroup is full of entrepreneurs in printing, try learning a
    profession not skulking around a newsgroup dribbling worthless posts.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "sundance" <sundancekid17@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:d4idnbRHXIThtEjdRVn-gQ@warpdrive.net...
    > Just Allan wrote:
    > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:16:42 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>In the past 8 years I have gone with the first Epson Color Stylus
    > >>600/800 that did the best color photo prints back in 1996. The Epson 750
    > >>Photo was the first photo inkjet printer in the late 90's, then the
    > >>still widly used 1270/80 Photo printers with 6 colors in 1999, the first
    > >>dye ink Photo printer 2000P, the widly use by professionals 2200 Photo
    > >>and now the ink dye R800. I can't wait for the wide format version of
    > >>the R800 and I will be in heaven. I have had them all NEVER once w/
    > >>heavy daily output did one ever give one day of trouble. I had a next
    > >>day replacement policy with the 1270 and late 1280 Photo printers that
    > >>would put new replacement printer in my office if I had one go down.
    > >>Never needed it. I won't use anything else for photos.
    > >>BTW still have my 2200 set up with a Lyson Continuous ink system using
    > >>125 ml bottles for each color they outlast 10 or 12 cartridges. I never
    > >>throw away any cartidges with half full colors.
    >
    >>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=LYBIFS2200&is
    =REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=284444
    > >
    > >
    > > LOL. You just mentioned owing 7 or 8 epsons in eight years, but not
    > > one ever gave one day of trouble? Hm... If I bought a new car every
    > > year, I could probably say the same thing about those too... : )
    >
    > If you had your own business where you run a minimum of 3 printers daily
    > 8 hours a day, with two crews then you might be able to park your
    > mommies car and purchase your own new. Between photo restoration and
    > chromakey photo shoots (which you probably never heard of) at local
    > Sears, Pennys and other malls we keep our printers making money at the
    > location, during photo packet shoots and the pictures are handed to
    > customers on the spot. Our printers are a tool not a toy, thats why we
    > use continous ink supply systems. Thats also why we only use 100 year
    > archival dye-ink printers not a cheaper pigment ink that will fade in a
    > couple years. My 2200 has turned out over thousands of prints. My new
    > week old R800 has already done over 150 8x10 prints now.
    > BTW I own 3 vehicles, two being brand new. Has nothing to do with
    > purchasing something it's all about using what you have. I guess you
    > were LOL while eating a balony sandwhich purchased w/ food stamps. This
    > newsgroup is full of entrepreneurs in printing, try learning a
    > profession not skulking around a newsgroup dribbling worthless posts.

    Not to pick a nit or anything, but don't you have your Dye and Pigment a bit
    confused.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    DSphotog wrote:
    > "sundance" <sundancekid17@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:d4idnbRHXIThtEjdRVn-gQ@warpdrive.net...
    >
    >>Just Allan wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:16:42 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>In the past 8 years I have gone with the first Epson Color Stylus
    >>>>600/800 that did the best color photo prints back in 1996. The Epson 750
    >>>>Photo was the first photo inkjet printer in the late 90's, then the
    >>>>still widly used 1270/80 Photo printers with 6 colors in 1999, the first
    >>>>dye ink Photo printer 2000P, the widly use by professionals 2200 Photo
    >>>>and now the ink dye R800. I can't wait for the wide format version of
    >>>>the R800 and I will be in heaven. I have had them all NEVER once w/
    >>>>heavy daily output did one ever give one day of trouble. I had a next
    >>>>day replacement policy with the 1270 and late 1280 Photo printers that
    >>>>would put new replacement printer in my office if I had one go down.
    >>>>Never needed it. I won't use anything else for photos.
    >>>>BTW still have my 2200 set up with a Lyson Continuous ink system using
    >>>>125 ml bottles for each color they outlast 10 or 12 cartridges. I never
    >>>>throw away any cartidges with half full colors.
    >>
    >>>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=LYBIFS2200&is
    >
    > =REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=284444
    >
    >>>
    >>>LOL. You just mentioned owing 7 or 8 epsons in eight years, but not
    >>>one ever gave one day of trouble? Hm... If I bought a new car every
    >>>year, I could probably say the same thing about those too... : )
    >>
    >>If you had your own business where you run a minimum of 3 printers daily
    >>8 hours a day, with two crews then you might be able to park your
    >>mommies car and purchase your own new. Between photo restoration and
    >>chromakey photo shoots (which you probably never heard of) at local
    >>Sears, Pennys and other malls we keep our printers making money at the
    >>location, during photo packet shoots and the pictures are handed to
    >>customers on the spot. Our printers are a tool not a toy, thats why we
    >>use continous ink supply systems. Thats also why we only use 100 year
    >>archival dye-ink printers not a cheaper pigment ink that will fade in a
    >>couple years. My 2200 has turned out over thousands of prints. My new
    >>week old R800 has already done over 150 8x10 prints now.
    >>BTW I own 3 vehicles, two being brand new. Has nothing to do with
    >>purchasing something it's all about using what you have. I guess you
    >>were LOL while eating a balony sandwhich purchased w/ food stamps. This
    >>newsgroup is full of entrepreneurs in printing, try learning a
    >>profession not skulking around a newsgroup dribbling worthless posts.
    >
    >
    > Not to pick a nit or anything, but don't you have your Dye and Pigment a bit
    > confused.
    >
    >
    Thanks for the correction, I whipped that reply out at 1am and it was a
    long day at a day long photo shoot at Pamida Shopping Center. Just
    yesterday I would say between the two photo printers we took with us
    they together put out over 200 8x10s (averaged 20 different 8x10s in a
    hour at the peak) which may not sound fast but each print was enhanced
    and I have countless packages of 5x7s and wallet sheets to print up
    starting Monday. I know there are lots of ppl that post negative on
    Epsons but I can't, "not yet"!
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:06:54 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    > Thats also why we only use 100 year
    >archival dye-ink printers not a cheaper pigment ink that will fade in a
    >couple years.

    You sure you've got that right. Don't you man use pigment not dye? The
    figures I've seen show dye lasting a lot less time than pigment.

    --

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

    Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e8kcd0h37g2ss5r0ao1negnf3ad572l01h@4ax.com>...
    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:06:54 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Thats also why we only use 100 year
    > >archival dye-ink printers not a cheaper pigment ink that will fade in a
    > >couple years.
    >
    > You sure you've got that right. Don't you man use pigment not dye? The
    > figures I've seen show dye lasting a lot less time than pigment.

    If you like glossy prints, the difference isn't that big. Canon
    dye inks (BCI-6 series) rate 38 years while Epson 2200 pigments
    is rated 50 years on their corresponding glossy papers. Both
    numbers in the same article with info from Wilhelm:

    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,105461,pg,3,00.asp

    Mike

    p.s. - Canon dye ink cartrides cost about the same as Epson pigment
    cartridges (roughly $10 ea). Don't know if print-yield is
    different.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 21 Jun 2004 09:54:59 -0700, gewgle@yahoo.com (Anoni Moose) wrote:


    >> You sure you've got that right. Don't you man use pigment not dye? The
    >> figures I've seen show dye lasting a lot less time than pigment.
    >
    >If you like glossy prints, the difference isn't that big. Canon
    >dye inks (BCI-6 series) rate 38 years while Epson 2200 pigments
    >is rated 50 years on their corresponding glossy papers. Both
    >numbers in the same article with info from Wilhelm:
    >
    >http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,105461,pg,3,00.asp
    >
    Interesting, though I'm not entirely convinced by Wilhelm.

    >
    >p.s. - Canon dye ink cartrides cost about the same as Epson pigment
    > cartridges (roughly $10 ea). Don't know if print-yield is
    > different.

    I do know, however, that my Permajet CIS has approximately 8.9 times
    as much ink per bottle for only 2.5 times the price ;-)

    --

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

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:09:04 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:06:54 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> Thats also why we only use 100 year
    >>archival dye-ink printers not a cheaper pigment ink that will fade in a
    >>couple years.
    >
    >You sure you've got that right. Don't you man use pigment not dye? The
    >figures I've seen show dye lasting a lot less time than pigment.

    Exactly - he just got excited because someone proved the error in his
    logic. I don't care HOW many thousand of prints he ran off in WHAT
    business environment. The fact remains he said he's had no failures,
    but has owned 7 or 8 printers in a few years. Ane now he justifies
    why the printers failed, or no longer produced the quality they did
    when new, effectively saying:

    1. They don't fail. I've had no trouble.
    2. The reason I've had no trouble is because I buy a new one every 12
    months.

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

    On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:46:06 +1000, Just Allan
    <justallan@COLDhotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:09:04 +0100, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:06:54 -0500, sundance <sundancekid17@yahoo.com>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thats also why we only use 100 year
    >>>archival dye-ink printers not a cheaper pigment ink that will fade in a
    >>>couple years.
    >>
    >>You sure you've got that right. Don't you man use pigment not dye? The
    >>figures I've seen show dye lasting a lot less time than pigment.
    >
    >Exactly - he just got excited because someone proved the error in his
    >logic. I don't care HOW many thousand of prints he ran off in WHAT
    >business environment. The fact remains he said he's had no failures,
    >but has owned 7 or 8 printers in a few years. Ane now he justifies
    >why the printers failed, or no longer produced the quality they did
    >when new, effectively saying:
    >
    >1. They don't fail. I've had no trouble.
    >2. The reason I've had no trouble is because I buy a new one every 12
    >months.
    >
    Allan, that would be a logical assumption unless, of course, he's say
    eight printers, four of which he used for the 4 years, and then four
    new ones which he used for the next four years. ;-)

    --

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

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:16:01 GMT, "DSphotog"
    <dsmith5knot@optonline.net> wrote:

    >Not to pick a nit or anything, but don't you have your Dye and Pigment a bit
    >confused.

    You weren't nitpicking. (Neither was I by the way - the simple fact
    is, his logic doesn't hold water.) Obviously the printers DID have a
    day of trouble, or they wouldn't have been replaced by 7, 6, 5, 4, 3,
    2, 1 - new printers.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I don't have page counts, but they aren't that high.

    I'm glad someone has few issues with these things :)

    -Larry

    "Warren Block" <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote in message
    news:slrncdb6up.2pj2.wblock@speedy.wonkity.com...
    > Larry <none@none.com> wrote:
    >
    > > HP 4000's are Jam-factories. Rollers don't last any time at all,
    especially
    > > pickup rollers.
    >
    > That is not the case with the ones I support, LJ4050s with a few 4000s
    > thrown in. The 4050 is the same as the 4000 except for a faster
    > formatter. On these printers, I see very few jams, except with 3x5
    > cards which they don't like much. Anything larger or not as thick does
    > fine: 8.5x11 card stock or 4x6 paper, no problem.
    >
    > Rollers tend to get longer-than-rated life; many don't need replacement
    > at the standard 200,000 page service period. Fusers usually don't quite
    > make it to 200,000 pages; often more like 170,000-180,000. Fuser film
    > usually wrinkles and tears on the left border.
    >
    > The busiest of these printers see around 20,000 pages per month. How
    > does that compare to the ones you're seeing problems on?
    >
    > --
    > Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Just Allan <justallan@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9ehhd0hv4p8606prduop2s0s6tjs8tl20h@4ax.com>...
    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:16:01 GMT, "DSphotog"
    > <dsmith5knot@optonline.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Not to pick a nit or anything, but don't you have your Dye and Pigment a bit
    > >confused.
    >
    > You weren't nitpicking. (Neither was I by the way - the simple fact
    > is, his logic doesn't hold water.) Obviously the printers DID have a
    > day of trouble, or they wouldn't have been replaced by 7, 6, 5, 4, 3,
    > 2, 1 - new printers.

    Unless he was using them for commercial production work. Printers like
    the 2200, I think, are intended for home use where the total number
    of prints in the life the printer is fairly modest. That's probably
    why Epson makes multi-kilobuck inkjets for commercial use (that has lower
    dpi, etc as well) that have larger ink cartridges, etc. He could just
    be using them for other than their intended use.

    Possibly, anyway.

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

    They may have been replaced due to the need or desire for faster models,
    or improved printing characteristics or ink types available.

    Art

    Just Allan wrote:

    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:16:01 GMT, "DSphotog"
    > <dsmith5knot@optonline.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Not to pick a nit or anything, but don't you have your Dye and Pigment a bit
    >>confused.
    >
    >
    > You weren't nitpicking. (Neither was I by the way - the simple fact
    > is, his logic doesn't hold water.) Obviously the printers DID have a
    > day of trouble, or they wouldn't have been replaced by 7, 6, 5, 4, 3,
    > 2, 1 - new printers.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Photo Peripherals