HP 7960 vs CANON Pixma 4000

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

OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head. I am replacing
the head for $50 to give the printer to my son.
The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me and
the card slots on the HP don't matter much to me. I like the Canons because
of their single ink tanks.

Any and all opinions of both of these printers would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Matthew
42 answers Last reply
More about 7960 canon pixma 4000
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I have the 7960. Nothing but good things to say about it. Ink cost is
    expensive, really expensive. Started doing 'refills'. Cost is now
    negligible.
    Bill
    -----


    On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:36:08 GMT, "Matthew"
    <thew60nospam@optonline.net> wrote:

    >OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
    >numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
    >the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
    >I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head. I am replacing
    >the head for $50 to give the printer to my son.
    >The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me and
    >the card slots on the HP don't matter much to me. I like the Canons because
    >of their single ink tanks.
    >
    >Any and all opinions of both of these printers would be appreciated!
    >Thanks,
    >Matthew
    >

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

    Matthew wrote:

    >OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
    >numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
    >the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.

    Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.

    A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
    cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
    i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.

    >I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head.

    Out of curiosity, how did you kill the printhead?

    >The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me

    Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. You're
    not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.

    The main reason I bought a Canon was for the easy to refill clear ink
    tanks. Refilling them is very inexpensive, but if you're not refilling,
    then ink costs can be similar across various brands and models.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Matthew wrote:

    > OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
    > numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
    > the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
    > I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head. I am replacing
    > the head for $50 to give the printer to my son.
    > The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me and
    > the card slots on the HP don't matter much to me. I like the Canons because
    > of their single ink tanks.
    >
    > Any and all opinions of both of these printers would be appreciated!
    > Thanks,
    > Matthew
    >
    >

    The Canon's are definitely superior because of the individual ink tanks. Doesn't
    the ip4000 have a much better resolution and droplet size than the HPs.

    --
    Ben Thomas
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    BenOne© wrote:

    >The Canon's are definitely superior because of the individual ink tanks.

    For refilling, the Canons are definitely easier. No argument there.

    > Doesn't
    >the ip4000 have a much better resolution and droplet size than the HPs.

    Resolution is the same 4800x1200. Droplet size is smaller for the C&M
    colours at 2 picoliters on the Canon. However, the HP can use six
    colours instead of four and produces similar if not better photos.

    My friend just bought the HP 6540 (basically the same as 7960 for photo
    prints), and it produces better photos than my i850, which is similar to
    the iP4000 except for the photo black ink.

    I'd like to see side by side comparisons. :)
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    While refilling BCI-6 tanks is definately the least expensive route (and a
    very easy one at that), third party tanks with quality inks are also
    available at a very low price. I use bulk ink and tanks from
    www.alotofthings.com. FWIW, I've had an iP4000 for a few weeks now and it is
    a fantastic printer. It replaced an i950 that gave out on me. The printhead
    wasn't clogged, but it started getting a heavy magenta tint to most prints.
    The same old refilled tanks from the i950 were put in the iP4000 and the
    prints came out beautiful. The same prints were also done using the OEM
    Canon cartridges which came with the iP4000 and no difference in colors
    could be noted.
    --
    Ron Cohen

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:05idnTjQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
    > Matthew wrote:
    >
    >>OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
    >>numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can
    >>get
    >>the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
    >
    > Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.
    >
    > A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
    > cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
    > i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.
    >
    >>I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head.
    >
    > Out of curiosity, how did you kill the printhead?
    >
    >>The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me
    >
    > Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. You're
    > not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.
    >
    > The main reason I bought a Canon was for the easy to refill clear ink
    > tanks. Refilling them is very inexpensive, but if you're not refilling,
    > then ink costs can be similar across various brands and models.


    ---
    AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
    for text, the same as the i860. The iP3000 is the successor to the i850.
    These lack the dye based black, but do have pigmented black for text. The
    iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller droplet
    size of one picoliter.
    --
    Ron Cohen

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:05idnTvQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
    > BenOne© wrote:
    >
    >>The Canon's are definitely superior because of the individual ink tanks.
    >
    > For refilling, the Canons are definitely easier. No argument there.
    >
    >> Doesn't
    >>the ip4000 have a much better resolution and droplet size than the HPs.
    >
    > Resolution is the same 4800x1200. Droplet size is smaller for the C&M
    > colours at 2 picoliters on the Canon. However, the HP can use six
    > colours instead of four and produces similar if not better photos.
    >
    > My friend just bought the HP 6540 (basically the same as 7960 for photo
    > prints), and it produces better photos than my i850, which is similar to
    > the iP4000 except for the photo black ink.
    >
    > I'd like to see side by side comparisons. :)


    ---
    AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:05idnTjQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
    > Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.

    It's new, I've seen it at Costco as well. Very cheap as you noticed.

    > A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
    > cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
    > i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.

    I have the HP Photosmart 7350, and yes, the photo quality is superb.

    > Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. ***You're
    > not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.***

    EXACTL:Y! I bought a Canon i560 just to see if the individual cartridges
    would save me money. It saves me a bit of yellow, but nothing that's
    noticeable. It seems like people get carried away with the whole
    'individual cartridges' deal and fail to realize that unless you print a lot
    of one color (ie. red logo) you will not save that much.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    xNokia3390x wrote:

    >> Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. ***You're
    >> not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.***
    >
    >EXACTL:Y! I bought a Canon i560 just to see if the individual cartridges
    >would save me money. It saves me a bit of yellow, but nothing that's
    >noticeable. It seems like people get carried away with the whole
    >'individual cartridges' deal and fail to realize that unless you print a lot
    >of one color (ie. red logo) you will not save that much.

    I bought a Canon for one primary reason - the clear ink tanks are VERY
    easy to refill. Beyond that, they have no serious advantage. And now I'm
    concerned about its printhead life...
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ron Cohen wrote:

    >The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
    >for text, the same as the i860.

    Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
    printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
    that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
    six colour printers are still the best.

    >iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller droplet
    >size of one picoliter.

    That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
    picoliters like the competition.

    I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
    wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
    the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
    get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
    out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
    get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
    refills.

    Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
    back to HP instead. I don't blame him.

    And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
    about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
    cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
    printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
    certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
    five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
    computer.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    And there's little advantage to single cartridges if refilling. Actually,
    refilling HP cartridges is really easy, it's resetting the ink level
    indicator to 100% that takes the time and can fail to work sometimes causing
    much time to be wasted trying again until it does work.


    "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote in message
    news:F63gd.27766$jo2.20416@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
    > news:05idnTjQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
    >> Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.
    >
    > It's new, I've seen it at Costco as well. Very cheap as you noticed.
    >
    >> A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
    >> cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
    >> i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.
    >
    > I have the HP Photosmart 7350, and yes, the photo quality is superb.
    >
    >> Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high.
    >> ***You're
    >> not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.***
    >
    > EXACTL:Y! I bought a Canon i560 just to see if the individual cartridges
    > would save me money. It saves me a bit of yellow, but nothing that's
    > noticeable. It seems like people get carried away with the whole
    > 'individual cartridges' deal and fail to realize that unless you print a
    > lot
    > of one color (ie. red logo) you will not save that much.
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    SteveB wrote:

    >And there's little advantage to single cartridges if refilling. Actually,
    >refilling HP cartridges is really easy, it's resetting the ink level
    >indicator to 100% that takes the time and can fail to work sometimes causing
    >much time to be wasted trying again until it does work.

    I found refilling my old HP cartridges was slow and tedious, and it had
    to be done far too often because of the small cartridges. I switch to
    Canon mainly for the easy refilling.

    I thought the HP cartridges didn't have ink-level chips in them? So how
    does the printer keep track?
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    http://www.alotofthings.com/supportforrefillers/HP565758_rotatingcartridges.html

    Above link describes:
    ROTATING YOUR CARTRIDGES
    HPs built-in reset.
    According to Hewlett Packard documentation the printers using the #56,
    #57 & #58 only retain the information of the last two cartridges that
    were in the printer.

    Article goes on to say if have 3 cartridges (of same type), rotating
    will cause printer to register 100%. I have found that it works on my
    7960 - and refilling doesn't take much time.

    Bill
    -------

    On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:46:19 +0100, "SteveB"
    <sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:

    >And there's little advantage to single cartridges if refilling. Actually,
    >refilling HP cartridges is really easy, it's resetting the ink level
    >indicator to 100% that takes the time and can fail to work sometimes causing
    >much time to be wasted trying again until it does work.
    >
    Bill
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Bill Sumrall wrote:

    >http://www.alotofthings.com/supportforrefillers/HP565758_rotatingcartridges.html
    >
    >Above link describes:
    >ROTATING YOUR CARTRIDGES
    >HPs built-in reset.
    >According to Hewlett Packard documentation the printers using the #56,
    >#57 & #58 only retain the information of the last two cartridges that
    >were in the printer.
    >
    >Article goes on to say if have 3 cartridges (of same type), rotating
    >will cause printer to register 100%. I have found that it works on my
    >7960 - and refilling doesn't take much time.

    That's good info. Thanks.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:S8mdnWOAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
    > Ron Cohen wrote:
    >
    >>The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
    >>for text, the same as the i860.
    >
    > Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
    > printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
    > that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
    > six colour printers are still the best.
    >
    >>iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller
    >>droplet
    >>size of one picoliter.
    >
    > That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
    > picoliters like the competition.
    >
    > I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
    > wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
    > the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
    > get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
    > out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
    > get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
    > refills.
    >
    > Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
    > back to HP instead. I don't blame him.
    >
    > And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
    > about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
    > cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
    > printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
    > certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
    > five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
    > computer.


    considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got your
    moneys worth from the canon. I fortunately bought the 3 year extended
    warranty. Finally, those monthly duty cycles are for 5% coverage not 95%
    (which proper photos are).
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Mr Jessop wrote:

    >> And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
    >> about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
    >> cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
    >> printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
    >> certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
    >> five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
    >> computer.
    >
    >considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got your
    >moneys worth from the canon.

    Perhaps, but that doesn't make me feel any better about Canon quality.

    The printhead should have lasted a lot longer than the measly 2500 pages
    my friend got out of his i550, that's for sure.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:S8mdnWKAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
    > I bought a Canon for one primary reason - the clear ink tanks are VERY
    > easy to refill. Beyond that, they have no serious advantage. And now I'm
    > concerned about its printhead life...

    Yup, I don't refill because the OEM cartridges are cheap enough at Costco.
    I see no advantage either, despite the advertising gimmicks. I had to try
    it for myself, and now I am satisfied that I can go back to HP knowing it's
    good enough until the next line of seriously revamped printers from another
    comapny comes out. I too am getting concerned about the print head life.
    It's very humid here in Hawaii and previous experiences with a Canon BJC5000
    and BJC4300 have left me with a bad impression of Canon's printers. Once it
    dies though, I'm trashing it and not looking back. I am not in the market
    for a disposable printer ;)
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:43:01 GMT, "Mr Jessop" <anonymouse@isp.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:S8mdnWOAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
    >> Ron Cohen wrote:
    >>
    >>>The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
    >>>for text, the same as the i860.
    >>
    >> Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
    >> printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
    >> that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
    >> six colour printers are still the best.
    >>
    >>>iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller
    >>>droplet
    >>>size of one picoliter.
    >>
    >> That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
    >> picoliters like the competition.
    >>
    >> I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
    >> wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
    >> the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
    >> get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
    >> out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
    >> get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
    >> refills.
    >>
    >> Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
    >> back to HP instead. I don't blame him.
    >>
    >> And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
    >> about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
    >> cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
    >> printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
    >> certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
    >> five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
    >> computer.
    >
    >
    >considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got your
    >moneys worth from the canon. I fortunately bought the 3 year extended
    >warranty. Finally, those monthly duty cycles are for 5% coverage not 95%
    >(which proper photos are).
    >


    To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO PRINT
    HEAD ROT, like Cannon..

    Read the Article on Tomshardware web site.

    HP's are not cheap to run as you have to buy a new print head each time you
    need a new Cartridge, but that does get over the head rot thing..


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    <puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
    news:8p33o0927p4clfr1h7lm5502n7jg2tf4ld@4ax.com...
    > To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO
    PRINT
    > HEAD ROT, like Cannon..

    I'm not so sure about that. I have a C84 that has received VERY limited use
    and it has used half the ink in each cartridge already! I've tried leaving
    it on 24/7, or just switching it on and off each day. It makes no
    difference. I'm going to switch out my i560 and start using the C84 as my
    daily printer and see how that works. But so far, I am not impressed. The
    print head cleaning on power-up is overkill.

    > HP's are not cheap to run as you have to buy a new print head each time
    you
    > need a new Cartridge, but that does get over the head rot thing..

    I haven't found them that expensive to run. I have a DeskJet 930c and a
    Photosmart 7350. Once my i560 dies, I will trash it - and believe me, I
    won't be looking back. I'll just stick with HP. I tried Canon (since the
    new "i" series came out a few years ago, I've heard rave reviews up until
    recently since print heads are starting to die...which is what I was worried
    about, due to previous bad experiences with Canon), tried Epson and will end
    up right where I started with HP.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    <puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
    news:8p33o0927p4clfr1h7lm5502n7jg2tf4ld@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:43:01 GMT, "Mr Jessop" <anonymouse@isp.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
    >>news:S8mdnWOAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
    >>> Ron Cohen wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented
    >>>>black
    >>>>for text, the same as the i860.
    >>>
    >>> Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
    >>> printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
    >>> that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
    >>> six colour printers are still the best.
    >>>
    >>>>iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller
    >>>>droplet
    >>>>size of one picoliter.
    >>>
    >>> That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
    >>> picoliters like the competition.
    >>>
    >>> I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
    >>> wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
    >>> the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
    >>> get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
    >>> out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
    >>> get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
    >>> refills.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
    >>> back to HP instead. I don't blame him.
    >>>
    >>> And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
    >>> about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
    >>> cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
    >>> printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
    >>> certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
    >>> five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
    >>> computer.
    >>
    >>
    >>considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got
    >>your
    >>moneys worth from the canon. I fortunately bought the 3 year extended
    >>warranty. Finally, those monthly duty cycles are for 5% coverage not 95%
    >>(which proper photos are).
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO
    > PRINT
    > HEAD ROT, like Cannon..
    >

    Hmm never had problem with my Canon printheads and even if I did unlike
    Epson my printhead is covered under the Canon warranty.

    > Read the Article on Tomshardware web site.
    >

    Ahh, how I remember the days when Tom's did not appear t be a Ziff Davis
    publication!
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:50:20 GMT, "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote:

    ><puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
    >news:8p33o0927p4clfr1h7lm5502n7jg2tf4ld@4ax.com...
    >> To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO
    >PRINT
    >> HEAD ROT, like Cannon..
    >
    >I'm not so sure about that. I have a C84 that has received VERY limited use
    >and it has used half the ink in each cartridge already! I've tried leaving
    >it on 24/7, or just switching it on and off each day. It makes no
    >difference. I'm going to switch out my i560 and start using the C84 as my
    >daily printer and see how that works. But so far, I am not impressed. The
    >print head cleaning on power-up is overkill.
    >
    >> HP's are not cheap to run as you have to buy a new print head each time
    >you
    >> need a new Cartridge, but that does get over the head rot thing..
    >
    >I haven't found them that expensive to run. I have a DeskJet 930c and a
    >Photosmart 7350. Once my i560 dies, I will trash it - and believe me, I
    >won't be looking back. I'll just stick with HP. I tried Canon (since the
    >new "i" series came out a few years ago, I've heard rave reviews up until
    >recently since print heads are starting to die...which is what I was worried
    >about, due to previous bad experiences with Canon), tried Epson and will end
    >up right where I started with HP.
    >


    Please read the Reviews like the one on Toms web site

    HP is dearer to run, well know fact.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    <puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
    news:8bk3o0lnk67jp29ardh41evtkv0ev6g3j7@4ax.com...
    > Please read the Reviews like the one on Toms web site
    >
    > HP is dearer to run, well know fact.

    I've read many reviews on there, and after having personally tried the
    printer in the reviews I don't always agree with the review. I don't know,
    I'd rather just test it myself or see what others have said about it.

    HP's might be more expensive to run, but you'll have less trouble in the
    long run. What happens when you have a big print job and your print head
    gets clogged? You can't just run down to WalMart and get a new printer
    head, but you *can* get a new cartridge.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    news:PeDgd.165$G15.41@fed1read03...
    > The fact that Canon covers the
    > printhead in that warranty is eveidence that they must feel it IS designed
    > for the life of the printer.

    Or that they know it might fail within 12 months, and if not, they could
    care less because it will fail after the warranty period is over and tough
    luck for the consumer.

    > Talk about flawed figures. What do you do with the remaining ink in that
    > cartridge that one of the colors ran out in? You chuck it in the garbage
    > with the cartridge. That increases cost per page. You buy a $35
    replacement
    > cause one color is out, I buy an $11 replacement (which yilelds more pages
    > per tank than your HP.

    Do you think everyone will have unequal usage, therefore requiring premature
    cartridge replacement? In my first set of Canon cartridges, I found that I
    had just a little more yellow than the rest of my colors. Hardly a savings.
    I'm now on my second set and can see I have about 1/3 more yellow than the
    rest of my colors. Who knows, by the time I use all the ink from this
    second set of cartridges, the yellow may be down to the same levels as the
    other colors. It's not a good assumption that individual cartridges
    automatically save you money. That type of mentality is exactly what the
    marketing folks love. Unless you are constantly printing say, a red logo,
    chances are you'll end up with just a little more yellow than the rest of
    the colors. Whether or not it's a fair trade off is up to the consumer.
    I'd rather just replace the whole thing and get a new printhead so I don't
    have to worry about the print head.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:

    >> It's just scare tactics. My friend's i550 printhead died recently and he
    >> used nothing but genuine Canon ink tanks from day one. Obviously the
    >> printheads are NOT designed "for the life of the printer", and he's
    >> rather ticked off about it, as am I.
    >
    >First let me say this is not a pro or Con 3rd party ink response and then
    >continue by saying this is the kind of deductive thinking that spreads false
    >rumoors.

    Not rumours, actual facts.

    My Canon i850 printhead died yesterday at 16 months and some 5,000
    pages. A friend's i550 printhead died earlier this week, and it too is
    16 months old (one week newer than mine since I bought mine before him),
    but only some 2,500 pages.

    The 16 month period is hopefully just a coincidence, but it's also
    obvious that the printheads are not designed to last.

    I should point out that Canon has been completely uncaring in response
    to the failures, even after pointing out the low page counts, and that
    they both died within days of each other. Out of warranty means you're
    out of luck.

    > The fact that Canon covers the
    >printhead in that warranty is eveidence that they must feel it IS designed
    >for the life of the printer.

    So the life of the printer is only expected to be 12 months?

    Canon originally claimed "life of the printer" for the printheads. Now
    they are claiming 10,000 pages. Neither is anywhere near what we've
    seen, and Canon doesn't seem to care about page counts, just if it's
    under warranty or not.

    >Talk about flawed figures. What do you do with the remaining ink in that
    >cartridge that one of the colors ran out in? You chuck it in the garbage
    >with the cartridge. That increases cost per page. You buy a $35 replacement
    >cause one color is out, I buy an $11 replacement

    And then a few days later you buy another $11 replacement. Then another.
    Hmm...that's $33 dollars, pretty close.

    Don't forget that I've been refilling the ink tanks in my i850 for over
    a year, and I know from first-hand experience that even though the tanks
    run low at different times, overall usage of the three colours is
    roughly the same. All I have to do is put the bulk ink bottles on the
    counter and look at how much is in them - they're all within a few ml of
    each other.

    > (which yilelds more pages per tank than your HP.

    What HP printer? I've been using a Canon i850 for the last 16 months.

    And do you have special ink tanks? From what I've read on reviews, page
    yield is similar if you use the large cartridges. It seems the
    discrepancy of individual ink tank cost to tri-colour cartridge cost is
    what throws the comparisons out of whack. One review says costs are
    close, another says HP costs 3-4 times as much. That doesn't sit right
    with me.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    xNokia3390x wrote:

    >Do you think everyone will have unequal usage, therefore requiring premature
    >cartridge replacement? In my first set of Canon cartridges, I found that I
    >had just a little more yellow than the rest of my colors. Hardly a savings.

    I concur. I've refilled my ink tanks 6 times out of my bulk bottles, and
    it's easy to see overall usage is very similar.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote in message
    news:jeFgd.32082$Kl3.7404@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    > news:PeDgd.165$G15.41@fed1read03...
    >> The fact that Canon covers the
    >> printhead in that warranty is eveidence that they must feel it IS
    >> designed
    >> for the life of the printer.
    >
    > Or that they know it might fail within 12 months, and if not, they could
    > care less because it will fail after the warranty period is over and tough
    > luck for the consumer.
    >

    My current printers include

    BJC-3000 - 4 years old never a problem
    S520 - 3 years old and never a problem
    i560 - about a year old and is replacement for another S520 that started to
    have intermittent paper feed problems. canon no longer had replacement
    S520's so replaced it with a brand new i560 (never a printhead problem with
    either of these )
    iP4000 - Just purchased about a month ago and runs like a champ.

    As for tough luck for the customer after the warranty is over, well duh!
    most companies do have time periods on their warranties.That is why they
    offer extended service plans (which by the way in Canon's case also covers
    the printhead).

    >> Talk about flawed figures. What do you do with the remaining ink in that
    >> cartridge that one of the colors ran out in? You chuck it in the garbage
    >> with the cartridge. That increases cost per page. You buy a $35
    > replacement
    >> cause one color is out, I buy an $11 replacement (which yilelds more
    >> pages
    >> per tank than your HP.
    >
    > Do you think everyone will have unequal usage, therefore requiring
    > premature
    > cartridge replacement? In my first set of Canon cartridges, I found that
    > I
    > had just a little more yellow than the rest of my colors. Hardly a
    > savings.
    > I'm now on my second set and can see I have about 1/3 more yellow than the
    > rest of my colors. Who knows, by the time I use all the ink from this
    > second set of cartridges, the yellow may be down to the same levels as the
    > other colors. It's not a good assumption that individual cartridges
    > automatically save you money. That type of mentality is exactly what the
    > marketing folks love. Unless you are constantly printing say, a red logo,
    > chances are you'll end up with just a little more yellow than the rest of
    > the colors. Whether or not it's a fair trade off is up to the consumer.
    > I'd rather just replace the whole thing and get a new printhead so I don't
    > have to worry about the print head.
    >
    >

    Yes, the norm is 'unequal' usage. It is a simple matter of how additive and
    subtractive color printing work. You will tend to use more of one color than
    others. If all of your colors are running out simultaneously, you are doing
    some very out of the ordinary printing.
    I prefer the single tanks with a quality printhead that also do not have to
    worry about replacing.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:ye-dnWF5rc5U9x7cRVn-rg@golden.net...
    > PC Medic wrote:
    >
    >>> It's just scare tactics. My friend's i550 printhead died recently and he
    >>> used nothing but genuine Canon ink tanks from day one. Obviously the
    >>> printheads are NOT designed "for the life of the printer", and he's
    >>> rather ticked off about it, as am I.
    >>
    >>First let me say this is not a pro or Con 3rd party ink response and then
    >>continue by saying this is the kind of deductive thinking that spreads
    >>false
    >>rumoors.
    >
    > Not rumours, actual facts.
    >
    > My Canon i850 printhead died yesterday at 16 months and some 5,000
    > pages. A friend's i550 printhead died earlier this week, and it too is
    > 16 months old (one week newer than mine since I bought mine before him),
    > but only some 2,500 pages.
    >
    > The 16 month period is hopefully just a coincidence, but it's also
    > obvious that the printheads are not designed to last.
    >

    And I currently own 5 Canon printers 2 of which are over 4 years old and
    NEVER had a printhead issue.
    I also use 3 of these in heavy printing within our church and estimate over
    8-10,000 pages have passed through them.

    > I should point out that Canon has been completely uncaring in response
    > to the failures, even after pointing out the low page counts, and that
    > they both died within days of each other. Out of warranty means you're
    > out of luck.
    >

    I had to replace a single printer since switching to Canon several years
    ago. It was an S520, was 2 months out of warranty and after explaining that
    the problem (paper feed) had been occuring intermittently for a few months,
    but never bad enough to call about they sent me a replacement over-night at
    no charge. Not only that it was a brand new later model i560 as they no
    longer stocked the S520 I was told.


    >> The fact that Canon covers the
    >>printhead in that warranty is eveidence that they must feel it IS designed
    >>for the life of the printer.
    >
    > So the life of the printer is only expected to be 12 months?
    >

    No, no more than the life of a refrigerator is 12 months or a washer and
    dryer.
    You are twisting to make an argument where there isn't one.
    If you are looking for lifetime warranties you are out of luck.

    > Canon originally claimed "life of the printer" for the printheads. Now
    > they are claiming 10,000 pages. Neither is anywhere near what we've
    > seen, and Canon doesn't seem to care about page counts, just if it's
    > under warranty or not.
    >

    Please point me to these claims. And more importantly the place it states
    this now (or ever) in their warranty or any printer manufactures warranty.
    The fact yours failed prematurely (but out of warranty) is a shame, but it
    happens and I am sure was no grand conspiracy on Canon's part any more than
    it is any other manufactures. You should look into failure vs units sold
    sometime and see just how low they are.

    >>Talk about flawed figures. What do you do with the remaining ink in that
    >>cartridge that one of the colors ran out in? You chuck it in the garbage
    >>with the cartridge. That increases cost per page. You buy a $35
    >>replacement
    >>cause one color is out, I buy an $11 replacement
    >
    > And then a few days later you buy another $11 replacement. Then another.
    > Hmm...that's $33 dollars, pretty close.
    >

    It would be if I had ever experienced having to replace them so closely
    which I never have.
    And even if I did, I am still getting ALL I am paying for as I am not
    throwing away partially filled tanks.

    > Don't forget that I've been refilling the ink tanks in my i850 for over
    > a year, and I know from first-hand experience that even though the tanks
    > run low at different times, overall usage of the three colours is
    > roughly the same. All I have to do is put the bulk ink bottles on the
    > counter and look at how much is in them - they're all within a few ml of
    > each other.
    >

    But of course it is Canon's fault that your printhead failed after only 16
    months of 3rd party refills.

    >> (which yilelds more pages per tank than your HP.
    >
    > What HP printer? I've been using a Canon i850 for the last 16 months.
    >

    Check out the subject of the thread.

    > And do you have special ink tanks? From what I've read on reviews, page
    > yield is similar if you use the large cartridges. It seems the
    > discrepancy of individual ink tank cost to tri-colour cartridge cost is
    > what throws the comparisons out of whack. One review says costs are
    > close, another says HP costs 3-4 times as much. That doesn't sit right
    > with me.

    I am sure it wouldn't
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:

    >And I currently own 5 Canon printers 2 of which are over 4 years old and
    >NEVER had a printhead issue.
    >I also use 3 of these in heavy printing within our church and estimate over
    >8-10,000 pages have passed through them.

    I know someone with a Canon s520 as well, and it has been going strong
    for a long time too. That's part of the reason I was willing to try
    Canon. But that does not negate the fact that we're starting to hear of
    printhead failures for printers that were supposed to last for years.

    >Please point me to these claims. And more importantly the place it states
    >this now (or ever) in their warranty or any printer manufactures warranty.

    It's well known that Canon promoted the i-series as such. Contact Canon
    for the info, or simply read any review.

    They have since changed their claims, and now say the life is expected
    to be 5,000-10,000 pages depending on printer model.

    > You should look into failure vs units sold
    >sometime and see just how low they are.

    So you have inside knowledge of this from Canon? I tried to get more
    info from them, but they were unwilling to share such info.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us.

    >But of course it is Canon's fault that your printhead failed after only 16
    >months of 3rd party refills.

    You failed to catch the part where I said a friend's i550 also failed
    using Canon ink tanks. So yes, it _IS_ Canon's fault. :)

    Canon makes great cameras and I have thousands invested in glass, but
    I've been soured on their printers and won't try them again. I hear
    mostly bad experiences, and only one case (s520) where they like the
    printer...so there it is...
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:dZedndYpE6p0YR7cRVn-1w@golden.net...
    > PC Medic wrote:
    >
    >>And I currently own 5 Canon printers 2 of which are over 4 years old and
    >>NEVER had a printhead issue.
    >>I also use 3 of these in heavy printing within our church and estimate
    >>over
    >>8-10,000 pages have passed through them.
    >
    > I know someone with a Canon s520 as well, and it has been going strong
    > for a long time too. That's part of the reason I was willing to try
    > Canon. But that does not negate the fact that we're starting to hear of
    > printhead failures for printers that were supposed to last for years.
    >

    No but what does is the fact of where most of this comes from.
    What percentage of consumers do you suppose visit a site or newsgroup to
    tell others of their positive experience with a product?
    What percent do you think report this positive experience to friends or
    family members unless asked 'how do you like your brand X product'?

    Now how many do you think convey negative experiences to these same groups
    without being asked?

    >>Please point me to these claims. And more importantly the place it states
    >>this now (or ever) in their warranty or any printer manufactures warranty.
    >
    > It's well known that Canon promoted the i-series as such. Contact Canon
    > for the info, or simply read any review.
    >
    > They have since changed their claims, and now say the life is expected
    > to be 5,000-10,000 pages depending on printer model.
    >

    Never have I seen any such claim, care to point out a reference to one. Care
    to point out the Canon literature that states 5k-10k page life?

    >> You should look into failure vs units sold
    >>sometime and see just how low they are.
    >
    > So you have inside knowledge of this from Canon? I tried to get more
    > info from them, but they were unwilling to share such info.
    >

    May want to watch trade publications. While it takes compilation of
    different resource articles, it is not hard to get accurate approximations.
    And I am not referring to just Canon.

    > Perhaps you can enlighten us.
    >
    >>But of course it is Canon's fault that your printhead failed after only 16
    >>months of 3rd party refills.
    >
    > You failed to catch the part where I said a friend's i550 also failed
    > using Canon ink tanks. So yes, it _IS_ Canon's fault. :)
    >

    I did not fail nor ignore that part, it still proves no grand conspiracy to
    manufacture products with the mythical timebomb that goes off rendering them
    useless X number of months outside warranty. Products fail, it happens, but
    it is a small (VERY SMALL) percentage of units sold.


    > Canon makes great cameras and I have thousands invested in glass, but
    > I've been soured on their printers and won't try them again. I hear
    > mostly bad experiences, and only one case (s520) where they like the
    > printer...so there it is...

    I guess then you hear what you choose to hear as I alone have mentioned my
    5+ good experiences.
    I will agree with one thing you have said though. They do make good cameras.
    I have an A70, Rebel 2000 and my new Digital Rebel which are best of the
    best in my book.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    news:KxMgd.36121$_g6.1793@okepread03...
    > As for tough luck for the customer after the warranty is over, well duh!
    > most companies do have time periods on their warranties.That is why they
    > offer extended service plans (which by the way in Canon's case also covers
    > the printhead).

    What exactly was your original point? That Canon includes the printhead in
    their *extended* warranties? Big deal.

    > Yes, the norm is 'unequal' usage. It is a simple matter of how additive
    and
    > subtractive color printing work. You will tend to use more of one color
    than
    > others. If all of your colors are running out simultaneously, you are
    doing
    > some very out of the ordinary printing.
    > I prefer the single tanks with a quality printhead that also do not have
    to
    > worry about replacing.

    Your usage determines the norm? Hah! That's a laugh. "Quality printhead"
    eh? I can't comment on that, but I'll find out down the line how that goes.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote in message
    news:iaSgd.25863$hN1.4026@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    > news:KxMgd.36121$_g6.1793@okepread03...
    >> As for tough luck for the customer after the warranty is over, well duh!
    >> most companies do have time periods on their warranties.That is why they
    >> offer extended service plans (which by the way in Canon's case also
    >> covers
    >> the printhead).
    >
    > What exactly was your original point? That Canon includes the printhead
    > in
    > their *extended* warranties? Big deal.
    >
    >> Yes, the norm is 'unequal' usage. It is a simple matter of how additive
    > and
    >> subtractive color printing work. You will tend to use more of one color
    > than
    >> others. If all of your colors are running out simultaneously, you are
    > doing
    >> some very out of the ordinary printing.
    >> I prefer the single tanks with a quality printhead that also do not have
    > to
    >> worry about replacing.
    >
    > Your usage determines the norm? Hah! That's a laugh. "Quality
    > printhead"
    > eh? I can't comment on that, but I'll find out down the line how that
    > goes.
    >

    Never said 'my usage determines the norm', but owning 5 myself and working
    in the computer and peripheral service industry where I deal with theses
    printers on a daily basis, I can say that running out of all colors
    simultaneously is not. Does it happen, probably, but hardly the 'norm'
    anymore than the fact that because a handful of folks out of the millions of
    units sold come to a newsgroup whining about there dead printhead or other
    problem indicates that the companies knowingly produce bad printheads.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    news:KxMgd.36122$_g6.10059@okepread03...
    > I had to replace a single printer since switching to Canon several years
    > ago. It was an S520, was 2 months out of warranty and after explaining
    that
    > the problem (paper feed) had been occuring intermittently for a few
    months,
    > but never bad enough to call about they sent me a replacement over-night
    at
    > no charge. Not only that it was a brand new later model i560 as they no
    > longer stocked the S520 I was told.

    You got lucky. My Canon BJC5000 was eight months old when the BC-21e
    printhead failed. I didn't print much, and used only OEM cartridges. I
    asked Canon what they could do, and they said I had to mail the old one back
    at MY cost (and it's a big printer, bigger than the average printer) and
    then they'd see if they can do anything. Why not just send me a printhead?
    I threw the printer away, went to Costco and bought a HP DeskJet 930c. The
    HP is a workhorse and some people claim 100,000+ pages from it - with a
    cleaning/service at 50,000 pages. I'm at 4,000 pages so I expect to have
    the printer for a long time to come. The 45/78 cartridge combo is excellent
    and I don't need to replace the cartridges very often.

    > No, no more than the life of a refrigerator is 12 months or a washer and
    > dryer.

    What was your point in mentioning the printhead was covered in the 12 month
    warranty?

    > It would be if I had ever experienced having to replace them so closely
    > which I never have.
    > And even if I did, I am still getting ALL I am paying for as I am not
    > throwing away partially filled tanks.

    Does it matter if your printhead fails in a few years? I'm willing to pay a
    bit more for convenience, which in this case means I don't have to worry
    about the printhead.

    > But of course it is Canon's fault that your printhead failed after only 16
    > months of 3rd party refills.

    Where exactly does he blame Canon? I do see him blaming Canon for the
    failure of his friend's printhead @ 5,000 pages after using OEM ink, which
    is definitely understandable.

    As far as yields for the cartridges, I'll do a quick comparison between my
    HP 930c and my i560. I replace the cartridges in my HP about every 8 months
    when I used it as my primary printer - the color is rated at 900 pages
    (double capacity) and the black is rated up to 933 pages. I do a lot of
    text printing. On the Canon, I've gone through 2.5 black cartridges in
    eight months, as well as almost two sets of color cartridges. Costs for the
    HP are $50 (double capacity color) +$ 21 = $71 and the Canon is $30 ($12 x
    2.5) + $40.50 ($27 x 1.5) = $70.50. Like I said, this is based on my usage.
    It's a hassle on the Canon to keep changing cartridges so often, once every
    eight months sounds good to me.

    BTW, I also owned a Canon i320. It failed a few months after the warranty
    had expired. I stored it for a month before giving it to a relative, and it
    just would not print ANYTHING. Multiple deep cleanings yielded nothing. I
    stored my HP 930c for about four months before giving it to another relative
    to borrow, and it worked like a charm right out of the box. My storing of
    the printer is what killed it, but I mean, one month? I guess if anybody
    plans on moving, you might as well throw away the Canon printer ;)
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote in message
    news:ixSgd.25865$hN1.13062@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    > news:KxMgd.36122$_g6.10059@okepread03...
    >> I had to replace a single printer since switching to Canon several years
    >> ago. It was an S520, was 2 months out of warranty and after explaining
    > that
    >> the problem (paper feed) had been occuring intermittently for a few
    > months,
    >> but never bad enough to call about they sent me a replacement over-night
    > at
    >> no charge. Not only that it was a brand new later model i560 as they no
    >> longer stocked the S520 I was told.
    >
    > You got lucky. My Canon BJC5000 was eight months old when the BC-21e
    > printhead failed. I didn't print much, and used only OEM cartridges. I
    > asked Canon what they could do, and they said I had to mail the old one
    > back
    > at MY cost (and it's a big printer, bigger than the average printer) and
    > then they'd see if they can do anything. Why not just send me a
    > printhead?

    No I did not get lucky, I am referring to a unit released within the past 4
    years that has a warranty which covered the printhead.
    You are referring to an older printer with old technology and a 'consumable'
    printhead which carried no warranty. I seriously doubt they meant for you to
    send the entire printer to check a consumable printhead when all they would
    need is the printhead.

    > I threw the printer away, went to Costco and bought a HP DeskJet 930c.
    > The
    > HP is a workhorse and some people claim 100,000+ pages from it - with a
    > cleaning/service at 50,000 pages. I'm at 4,000 pages so I expect to have
    > the printer for a long time to come. The 45/78 cartridge combo is
    > excellent
    > and I don't need to replace the cartridges very often.
    >

    I'm happy that your happy.

    >> No, no more than the life of a refrigerator is 12 months or a washer and
    >> dryer.
    >
    > What was your point in mentioning the printhead was covered in the 12
    > month
    > warranty?
    >

    If it needs to be explained to you, then it probably does not matter as
    chances are you would not undersatnd (or admit it if you did)

    >> It would be if I had ever experienced having to replace them so closely
    >> which I never have.
    >> And even if I did, I am still getting ALL I am paying for as I am not
    >> throwing away partially filled tanks.
    >
    > Does it matter if your printhead fails in a few years? I'm willing to pay
    > a
    > bit more for convenience, which in this case means I don't have to worry
    > about the printhead.
    >
    >> But of course it is Canon's fault that your printhead failed after only
    >> 16
    >> months of 3rd party refills.
    >
    > Where exactly does he blame Canon? I do see him blaming Canon for the
    > failure of his friend's printhead @ 5,000 pages after using OEM ink, which
    > is definitely understandable.
    >
    > As far as yields for the cartridges, I'll do a quick comparison between my
    > HP 930c and my i560. I replace the cartridges in my HP about every 8
    > months
    > when I used it as my primary printer - the color is rated at 900 pages
    > (double capacity) and the black is rated up to 933 pages. I do a lot of
    > text printing. On the Canon, I've gone through 2.5 black cartridges in
    > eight months, as well as almost two sets of color cartridges. Costs for
    > the
    > HP are $50 (double capacity color) +$ 21 = $71 and the Canon is $30 ($12 x
    > 2.5) + $40.50 ($27 x 1.5) = $70.50. Like I said, this is based on my
    > usage.
    > It's a hassle on the Canon to keep changing cartridges so often, once
    > every
    > eight months sounds good to me.
    >
    > BTW, I also owned a Canon i320. It failed a few months after the warranty
    > had expired. I stored it for a month before giving it to a relative, and
    > it
    > just would not print ANYTHING. Multiple deep cleanings yielded nothing.
    > I
    > stored my HP 930c for about four months before giving it to another
    > relative
    > to borrow, and it worked like a charm right out of the box. My storing of
    > the printer is what killed it, but I mean, one month? I guess if anybody
    > plans on moving, you might as well throw away the Canon printer ;)
    >

    I don't know, I have several, some which get used very infrequently and
    never had a problem nor do I have to run all these cleanings. Now you don't
    suppose you got a bad one? Nah...that could never happen. I mean really a
    manufacturer sell millions of units and have some exhibit problems! That
    simply can't be. By the way, did you hear the news that HP has closed their
    call center and will be discontinuing technical support because you have
    never had an issue with their printer!
  33. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:

    >> So you have inside knowledge of this from Canon? I tried to get more
    >> info from them, but they were unwilling to share such info.
    >
    >May want to watch trade publications. While it takes compilation of
    >different resource articles, it is not hard to get accurate approximations.
    >And I am not referring to just Canon.

    Sorry, I don't work in the industry like you, and have little time to
    follow it up.

    Since you don't seem interested in providing any evidence yourself, you
    can find your own references.

    But I will repeat a hint (again)...read any review about Canon i-series
    printers. If they don't mention the life expectancy of the printhead,
    I'll poke a pencil in my eye. *

    >>>But of course it is Canon's fault that your printhead failed after only 16
    >>>months of 3rd party refills.
    >>
    >> You failed to catch the part where I said a friend's i550 also failed
    >> using Canon ink tanks. So yes, it _IS_ Canon's fault. :)
    >
    >I did not fail nor ignore that part, it still proves no grand conspiracy to
    >manufacture products with the mythical timebomb that goes off rendering them
    >useless X number of months outside warranty. Products fail, it happens, but
    >it is a small (VERY SMALL) percentage of units sold.

    I'm sorry...I must be an idiot...I don't recall stating anything about a
    "grand conspiracy".

    Perhaps you can quote my words for me since my comprehension skills are
    lacking?

    >> Canon makes great cameras and I have thousands invested in glass, but
    >> I've been soured on their printers and won't try them again. I hear
    >> mostly bad experiences, and only one case (s520) where they like the
    >> printer...so there it is...
    >
    >I guess then you hear what you choose to hear as I alone have mentioned my
    >5+ good experiences.

    I read what you wrote...but decided that bragging about my own positive
    experiences with printer life does not greatly add to the discussion
    about failures.

    >I will agree with one thing you have said though. They do make good cameras.
    >I have an A70, Rebel 2000 and my new Digital Rebel which are best of the
    >best in my book.

    I like Nikon too, but don't own and never will own, any of their glass
    or bodies. Does that make me evil in some way? Perhaps it does, and if
    so, then so be it...


    * - ok, I'm not really going to do that.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:52:26 GMT, "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote:

    ><puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
    >news:8bk3o0lnk67jp29ardh41evtkv0ev6g3j7@4ax.com...
    >> Please read the Reviews like the one on Toms web site
    >>
    >> HP is dearer to run, well know fact.
    >
    >I've read many reviews on there, and after having personally tried the
    >printer in the reviews I don't always agree with the review. I don't know,
    >I'd rather just test it myself or see what others have said about it.
    >
    >HP's might be more expensive to run, but you'll have less trouble in the
    >long run. What happens when you have a big print job and your print head
    >gets clogged? You can't just run down to WalMart and get a new printer
    >head, but you *can* get a new cartridge.
    >


    Epson only clog on startup not when they are running, I should know I am on my
    3rd model..

    Its idiots that let them clog, Epson's are for people with Brains like me.

    You could not even give me a HP..

    Epson heads do not ROT..


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
  35. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:NdKdndT8vKo73RncRVn-qg@golden.net...
    > PC Medic wrote:
    >
    >>> So you have inside knowledge of this from Canon? I tried to get more
    >>> info from them, but they were unwilling to share such info.
    >>
    >>May want to watch trade publications. While it takes compilation of
    >>different resource articles, it is not hard to get accurate
    >>approximations.
    >>And I am not referring to just Canon.
    >
    > Sorry, I don't work in the industry like you, and have little time to
    > follow it up.
    >
    > Since you don't seem interested in providing any evidence yourself, you
    > can find your own references.
    >
    > But I will repeat a hint (again)...read any review about Canon i-series
    > printers. If they don't mention the life expectancy of the printhead,
    > I'll poke a pencil in my eye. *
    >

    And I am sure all of these reviewers printed 5000-10000 pages to confirm
    this.
    This is also quite different than the implication that canon was making such
    an absurd statement.


    >>>>But of course it is Canon's fault that your printhead failed after only
    >>>>16
    >>>>months of 3rd party refills.
    >>>
    >>> You failed to catch the part where I said a friend's i550 also failed
    >>> using Canon ink tanks. So yes, it _IS_ Canon's fault. :)
    >>
    >>I did not fail nor ignore that part, it still proves no grand conspiracy
    >>to
    >>manufacture products with the mythical timebomb that goes off rendering
    >>them
    >>useless X number of months outside warranty. Products fail, it happens,
    >>but
    >>it is a small (VERY SMALL) percentage of units sold.
    >
    > I'm sorry...I must be an idiot...I don't recall stating anything about a
    > "grand conspiracy".
    >
    > Perhaps you can quote my words for me since my comprehension skills are
    > lacking?
    >
    >>> Canon makes great cameras and I have thousands invested in glass, but
    >>> I've been soured on their printers and won't try them again. I hear
    >>> mostly bad experiences, and only one case (s520) where they like the
    >>> printer...so there it is...
    >>
    >>I guess then you hear what you choose to hear as I alone have mentioned my
    >>5+ good experiences.
    >
    > I read what you wrote...but decided that bragging about my own positive
    > experiences with printer life does not greatly add to the discussion
    > about failures.
    >
    >>I will agree with one thing you have said though. They do make good
    >>cameras.
    >>I have an A70, Rebel 2000 and my new Digital Rebel which are best of the
    >>best in my book.
    >
    > I like Nikon too, but don't own and never will own, any of their glass
    > or bodies. Does that make me evil in some way? Perhaps it does, and if
    > so, then so be it...
    >
    >
    > * - ok, I'm not really going to do that.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:

    >> But I will repeat a hint (again)...read any review about Canon i-series
    >> printers. If they don't mention the life expectancy of the printhead,
    >> I'll poke a pencil in my eye. *
    >
    >And I am sure all of these reviewers printed 5000-10000 pages to confirm
    >this.

    Perhaps...perhaps not. But since you're the one in the know, I'm sure
    you have the answer, and this is some kind of test.

    However, I'm confident the reviewer's statement about printhead life is
    garnered from press releases and/or technical info from Canon given to
    the reviewing staff. I seriously doubt they just make it up for fun.

    >This is also quite different than the implication that canon was making such
    >an absurd statement.

    No implication at all...it's in black and white print for all to see.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    news:RpUgd.1048$ep3.972@lakeread02...
    > printhead which carried no warranty. I seriously doubt they meant for you
    to
    > send the entire printer to check a consumable printhead when all they
    would
    > need is the printhead.

    Well I'm glad you know what they told me. What would I know, I just talked
    to them. I didn't have an extra printhead to test the printer (nor was I
    about to spend $50 to find out) and for all I know it was the printer
    itself. They wanted the entire printer mailed back to them on my dime, I
    refused and trashed it.

    > If it needs to be explained to you, then it probably does not matter as
    > chances are you would not undersatnd (or admit it if you did)

    You're very arrogant. As if your experience with computers makes you
    almighty. Give me a break.

    > I don't know, I have several, some which get used very infrequently and
    > never had a problem nor do I have to run all these cleanings. Now you
    don't
    > suppose you got a bad one? Nah...that could never happen. I mean really a
    > manufacturer sell millions of units and have some exhibit problems! That

    You keep stating the obvious, it only shows your ignorance.

    > simply can't be. By the way, did you hear the news that HP has closed
    their
    > call center and will be discontinuing technical support because you have
    > never had an issue with their printer!

    Really? All I've read just says they opened up a call center in India. I
    guess you conveniently forgot that eh? I wouldn't mind a link to an article
    that says HP has closed their call center(s) and no longer offers technical
    support. What's that? Can't find anything? Ha ha...good one.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    news:yFUgd.1049$ep3.7@lakeread02...
    > I guess then you hear what you choose to hear as I alone have mentioned my
    > 5+ good experiences.

    WOW! Five whole years... That is just absolute proof of how good Canon's
    printers are!
  39. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    news:ZcUgd.1047$ep3.84@lakeread02...
    > Never said 'my usage determines the norm', but owning 5 myself and working
    > in the computer and peripheral service industry where I deal with theses
    > printers on a daily basis, I can say that running out of all colors
    > simultaneously is not. Does it happen, probably, but hardly the 'norm'
    > anymore than the fact that because a handful of folks out of the millions
    of
    > units sold come to a newsgroup whining about there dead printhead or
    other
    > problem indicates that the companies knowingly produce bad printheads.

    I don't care what you consider the "norm" to be, I'm just stating my
    experiences because you seem to think that your experiences are the usual.
    As far as people coming here to whine, well, I guess you're too pro-Canon to
    realize that there are problems just like any other printer company. All
    you seem to be doing is defending Canon. Do you work for them? My HP's are
    slightly more expensive to run, my Epson uses slightly more ink on each
    printhead cleaning and my Canon may not last as long. I'm not so incredibly
    biased as you are toward one particular brand.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    >> simply can't be. By the way, did you hear the news that HP has closed
    > their
    >> call center and will be discontinuing technical support because you have
    >> never had an issue with their printer!
    >
    > Really? All I've read just says they opened up a call center in India. I
    > guess you conveniently forgot that eh? I wouldn't mind a link to an
    > article
    > that says HP has closed their call center(s) and no longer offers
    > technical
    > support. What's that? Can't find anything? Ha ha...good one.
    >
    >

    I rest my case
  41. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote in message
    news:C90hd.30196$jo2.28934@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
    > news:yFUgd.1049$ep3.7@lakeread02...
    >> I guess then you hear what you choose to hear as I alone have mentioned
    >> my
    >> 5+ good experiences.
    >
    > WOW! Five whole years... That is just absolute proof of how good Canon's
    > printers are!
    >
    >

    Hmmm, do you see the word 'years' in my statement?? That is two consecutive
    posts which you have not read what you are replying to.

    I have actually owned Canon printers for about 11 years now with a BJC-600e
    being my first.
    Had an HP or two over the years as well (before and after my first Canon
    purchase, but choose to no longer use them as both I had failed as did their
    tech support.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Canons print heads just die.
    Epsons clog
    Hp replaces it print heads with every cart and charges the price of the
    printer to replace them. Even more if you go for the extra photocart.

    Considering the overall running costs of my printer i can easily afford a
    new printhead. every 10,000 pages. How much would ink carts cost for canon
    and hp over that period. Enough to buy a print head or two from canon i'll
    bet. As for clogs the easily removeable print head cures most of those
    problems not that i've had any that a simple deep clean didn't cure. I
    cannot say that for epson. However, epson will send a man in person to
    collect your printer and drop off a new one at their expense.

    Epson
    All in all the epson customer service strategy seems to be the best at least
    for the first year of ownership. If they are using their overpriced inks to
    subsidise this fantastic service then the few extra quid over the canons may
    seem worth it.

    I don't know what the current state of affairs is with epson and the chipped
    carts. Do this years models have that problem?

    I see epson have embraced the individual ink tank system too. Toms hardware
    calculated the cost of ownership over five years. the cost per page was
    down to o.04 per six by four. thats 4 cents. Considering they are doing 5
    and 6 colour printers for the price of canons 4 i think that is impressive.
    Quality wise epsons have had the edge. They are now picking up on speed.
    However their individual tanks.

    Canon
    Canons optical ink tank system is the best. No guessing and can be visually
    checked if you really don't believe the software. I've also had apart
    canon, epson hp and lexmark. only canon tanks are full of real ink not just
    foam. Then there is the low cost. No attempts to stop refilling. Canons
    have concentrated on speed but now have caught up with epson on systems with
    more colours. Even the rabidly devout epson owners at the photo club i'm a
    member of admit that epsons drivers are terrible. Some even resort to third
    party written drivers.

    As for neil slade i agree, if you are serious about your printing then get
    at least a £100 printer and find the running costs lower.

    Canon paper until the last 6 months has been over priced. Their claims for
    longevity are far in excess of the truth. Their customer service could be
    better too.

    HP.
    Print quality has come along way. Their 5 ink system are getting good.
    Their cost per page is astonishingly bad.
    If you want quality at any price then go to a lab.

    Lexmark
    harumph!!!

    As far as a4 printing and is concerned and cheap text i would only suggest
    inkjets as a cheap all rounder.

    For 6x4 at home get a dye sub. Quality, longevity, no printheads at all.

    A4 and bigger are astonishingly expensive but should improve.

    A3. Astonishingly expensive. Inkjets come into their own at this point.
    But massive initial outlay, massive space requirements. i still read the
    reviews and research but still haven't bought one.

    I could buy alot of A3 lab prints for that price. If i was honest i don't
    have too many prints worthy of A3 enlargement.

    (leaving myself open for snide comments there but that will be just as
    telling about anyone making them).

    Mono laser (yes even hp) are good buys these days. Then go to the lab for
    your 6x4 in bulk and occasional enlargements make the most financial sense.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Pixma Hewlett Packard Canon Peripherals