Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need help choosing a printer

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 11:21:35 AM

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

My wife and I are looking for a general purpose color inkjet printer.
It must be able to print on ledger size (tabloid, 11"x17") paper. It
will be used to print a variety of projects, such as resumes/cover
letters, envelopes, certificates, business cards, vector graphic art,
digital photos and scans, greeting cards, web pages, and black & white
newsletters.

We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you have
to feed it expensive photo paper for good results. (Rightfully so,
since it is classified as a photo printer.) We want a printer that can
use good quality inkjet paper to produce good photos and sharp line art
and text, even at small sizes. Speaking of paper, we read where the
i9900 cannot accept paper thicker than 28 lbs., which would rule out
cardstock, wouldn't it?

I wish we had the funds and the space for two separate printers, but we
don't, so we have to settle for one printer for all our printing needs.
Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance to those who help.

- Steve

More about : choosing printer

Anonymous
November 20, 2004 12:55:56 PM

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

Steve Ward wrote:

> We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
> have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.


Each printer must be fed with expensive paper in order to get good results.
You get better results at quality paper with low cost printer than vice
versa...if you want to print photos, then photo paper is the only way to go.
You can't expect really good result on normal plain paper.
In any case, i'm quite happy with mine ip4000, but this is only A4 printer,
so it's too small for your needs... :-(((
November 20, 2004 6:56:10 PM

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

Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare parts are
readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then I had several
Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP after Epson started to
put chips in their cartridges. Notice I didn't mention Lexmark printers.
Pete
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:tEDnd.5845$F6.1286089@news.siol.net...
> Steve Ward wrote:
>
> > We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
> > have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.
>
>
> Each printer must be fed with expensive paper in order to get good
results.
> You get better results at quality paper with low cost printer than vice
> versa...if you want to print photos, then photo paper is the only way to
go.
> You can't expect really good result on normal plain paper.
> In any case, i'm quite happy with mine ip4000, but this is only A4
printer,
> so it's too small for your needs... :-(((
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 7:35:21 PM

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

>>Steve Ward wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
>>>have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.

Canon i9900 is a good printer. There are in fact many good photo paper to choose
from. Have you looked into Costco's Kirkland brand glossy photo paper? That's
one excellent paper to use at $19 for 125 sheets (letter size).
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 8:33:28 PM

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

"Steve Ward" <sward@tulsaconnectspamm.com> wrote in message
news:j8Dnd.3300163$yk.514385@news.easynews.com...

> My wife and I are looking for a general purpose color inkjet printer. It must
> be able to print on ledger size (tabloid, 11"x17") paper. It will be used to
> print a variety of projects, such as resumes/cover letters, envelopes,
> certificates, business cards, vector graphic art, digital photos and scans,
> greeting cards, web pages, and black & white newsletters.

The HP Deskjet 9650 may be a good match. See:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/18972-236...

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 12:01:31 PM

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

Pete wrote:
> Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
> because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare
> parts are readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then I
> had several Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP
> after Epson started to put chips in their cartridges. Notice I didn't
> mention Lexmark printers. Pete

I agree with you about Lexmarks...i'v ehad two (cheap ones)...Carts are damn
expensive.
But, i wouldn't buy HP, too. Their carts are expensive, and they are very
slow when printing photos, like model450Ci, which needs whole 30 minutes to
print A4 photo, while some Canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.

> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:tEDnd.5845$F6.1286089@news.siol.net...
>> Steve Ward wrote:
>>
>>> We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
>>> have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.
>>
>>
>> Each printer must be fed with expensive paper in order to get good
>> results. You get better results at quality paper with low cost
>> printer than vice versa...if you want to print photos, then photo
>> paper is the only way to go. You can't expect really good result on
>> normal plain paper.
>> In any case, i'm quite happy with mine ip4000, but this is only A4
>> printer, so it's too small for your needs... :-(((
November 21, 2004 4:56:47 PM

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

SleeperMan wrote:

>Pete wrote:
>> Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
>> because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare
>> parts are readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then I
>> had several Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP
>> after Epson started to put chips in their cartridges. Notice I didn't
>> mention Lexmark printers. Pete
>
>I agree with you about Lexmarks...i'v ehad two (cheap ones)...Carts are damn
>expensive.
>But, i wouldn't buy HP, too. Their carts are expensive,

People continue to say this, but it's simply not true.

While the Canon individual ink tanks are cheaper PER COLOUR, they're not
cheaper when bought in sets of three, which is required if you intend to
print in colour or make photos.

For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.

So when you go to the store and buy a Canon ink tank, you THINK you're
saving money because it only costs you about $20 that one time. But the
next day when the other colours run out and you buy two more of the ink
tanks, you've spent the same amount of money on ink.

Canon is using the ILLUSION of lower individual prices to make is seem
like you're saving money, when in fact you're not. It's all marketing
hype.

> and they are very
>slow when printing photos, like model450Ci, which needs whole 30 minutes to
>print A4 photo, while some Canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.

Before you make blanket statements condemning print speeds, you should
first compare similar models. The 450ci is a mobile printer that's
designed for convenience and portability first, speed second. Of course,
it's not a wide-format printer nor a high-end model like the Canon i9900
either, but we'll ignore those details for now.

As for speed, it's not an issue with any of the brands. There are many
HP printers that can produce a 4x6 photo as fast as 27 seconds, and an
A4 or 8.5x11 in less than 2 minutes.

Compared to my now defunct Canon i850, my new HP 6540 spits out slightly
better 4x6 photos using the same 4 colours, and it does so in about 60
seconds compared to the Canon's 50 seconds. That 10 seconds produces a
better photo though, so I certainly don't mind the minor difference.
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 11:30:03 PM

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

Bill wrote:


> People continue to say this, but it's simply not true.
>
> While the Canon individual ink tanks are cheaper PER COLOUR, they're not
> cheaper when bought in sets of three, which is required if you intend to
> print in colour or make photos.
>
> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>
> So when you go to the store and buy a Canon ink tank, you THINK you're
> saving money because it only costs you about $20 that one time. But the
> next day when the other colours run out and you buy two more of the ink
> tanks, you've spent the same amount of money on ink.
>
> Canon is using the ILLUSION of lower individual prices to make is seem
> like you're saving money, when in fact you're not. It's all marketing
> hype.

Colours don't run out at the same rate, so if they are all in one cartridge then
you're throwing away ink. This makes printers like your 6540 more expensive to
run, because you are replacing the ink cartridge more frequently.

--
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.
November 21, 2004 11:30:04 PM

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

BenOne© wrote:

>Colours don't run out at the same rate, so if they are all in one cartridge then
>you're throwing away ink. This makes printers like your 6540 more expensive to
>run, because you are replacing the ink cartridge more frequently.

Again, that's just hype from the companies promoting individual ink
tanks, and they're all guilty of that, including HP (see their business
inkjets).

Don't forget I had a Canon i850 for well over a year and I know exactly
how much ink was used per colour during that time. With typical prints,
the colours all run out at pretty much the same times, give or take a
few percent.

Sure there will be some occasions, like printing a lot of photos of blue
skies, where cyan will run out before the other two, but that's rare and
non-typical. If you have a need for that type of printing, then sure,
individual ink tanks are the way to go. But if you're a typical user,
then it doesn't make much difference.

And let's face it, when it comes to photos using a printer with genuine
ink and paper it costs A HECK OF A LOT MORE than going to the photo lab
and having them run off a few dozen prints from a CD.
November 22, 2004 8:37:22 AM

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

I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at the
results - it is simply amazing compared to the awful Epson 810 Photo
(heads blocking/chipped cartridges/poor quality) we had, that said the
build quality could be better - time will tell. I was always a fan of
espon until the 810, I still have a 740 in use that gives good
results. We use a hp 1100 laserjet bought cheap off ebay for general
black and white and is generally trouble free. Haven't had a hp since
the 660 which was rubbish. Lexmark are IMO more trouble than they're
worth.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 11:50:02 PM

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

Bill wrote:

> BenOne© wrote:
>
>
>>Colours don't run out at the same rate, so if they are all in one cartridge then
>>you're throwing away ink. This makes printers like your 6540 more expensive to
>>run, because you are replacing the ink cartridge more frequently.
>
>
> Again, that's just hype from the companies promoting individual ink
> tanks, and they're all guilty of that, including HP (see their business
> inkjets).
>
> Don't forget I had a Canon i850 for well over a year and I know exactly
> how much ink was used per colour during that time. With typical prints,
> the colours all run out at pretty much the same times, give or take a
> few percent.


I've got a Canon i9950 and 2 friends with i865. We all go through the photo
colours MUCH quicker than the rest. It's NOT manufacturer hype.

I've heard plenty of people report the same experience as my friends and I, so
I'm inclined to think you are not a typical user.
--
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.
November 22, 2004 11:50:03 PM

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

BenOne© wrote:

>> Again, that's just hype from the companies promoting individual ink
>> tanks, and they're all guilty of that, including HP (see their business
>> inkjets).
>>
>> Don't forget I had a Canon i850 for well over a year and I know exactly
>> how much ink was used per colour during that time. With typical prints,
>> the colours all run out at pretty much the same times, give or take a
>> few percent.
>
>I've got a Canon i9950 and 2 friends with i865. We all go through the photo
>colours MUCH quicker than the rest. It's NOT manufacturer hype.

I got news for you...the i865 does NOT use photo colours.

Your friends are likely just towing the Canon line about individual ink
tanks being more economical, when they're not.

I used to think that maybe Canon was right and individual ink tanks
would be better. But after using the i850 for over a year, I know that
was just one of their many marketing tools to help promote sales.

Many people are like sheep...they just follow the shepherd and will
agree that ink usage is lower and the individual carts are saving them
money. All because Canon, Epson, and HP said so.

>I've heard plenty of people report the same experience as my friends and I, so
>I'm inclined to think you are not a typical user.

You did not follow the thread properly, as nothing was ever said about
photo inks.

We all know the photo inks are consumed faster than the other three
colours. But we're talking about the three main colours and the typical
consumption levels.

But since you brought up the subject of photo inks, I can tell you that
even though they get consumed faster, once again their usage is fairly
consistent. And using my HP 6540 as an example, the three main colours
and the photo colours are in separate cartridges, so photo ink usage is
not really relevant to the main colours.

Now if all six colours were in one cartridge, then I would agree with
you, and I wouldn't use such a system. But as it stands, it's not an
issue.
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:28:16 PM

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

Bill wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Pete wrote:
>>> Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
>>> because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare
>>> parts are readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then
>>> I had several Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP
>>> after Epson started to put chips in their cartridges. Notice I
>>> didn't mention Lexmark printers. Pete
>>
>> I agree with you about Lexmarks...i'v ehad two (cheap ones)...Carts
>> are damn expensive.
>> But, i wouldn't buy HP, too. Their carts are expensive,
>
> People continue to say this, but it's simply not true.
>
> While the Canon individual ink tanks are cheaper PER COLOUR, they're
> not cheaper when bought in sets of three, which is required if you
> intend to print in colour or make photos.
>
> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.


You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than those at
HP. And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors, but
separately one one i'm out of.



>
> So when you go to the store and buy a Canon ink tank, you THINK you're
> saving money because it only costs you about $20 that one time. But
> the next day when the other colours run out and you buy two more of
> the ink tanks, you've spent the same amount of money on ink.
>
> Canon is using the ILLUSION of lower individual prices to make is seem
> like you're saving money, when in fact you're not. It's all marketing
> hype.
>
>> and they are very
>> slow when printing photos, like model450Ci, which needs whole 30
>> minutes to print A4 photo, while some Canon does same job in just
>> over 2 minutes.
>
> Before you make blanket statements condemning print speeds, you should
> first compare similar models. The 450ci is a mobile printer that's
> designed for convenience and portability first, speed second. Of
> course, it's not a wide-format printer nor a high-end model like the
> Canon i9900 either, but we'll ignore those details for now.
>
> As for speed, it's not an issue with any of the brands. There are many
> HP printers that can produce a 4x6 photo as fast as 27 seconds, and an
> A4 or 8.5x11 in less than 2 minutes.
>
> Compared to my now defunct Canon i850, my new HP 6540 spits out
> slightly better 4x6 photos using the same 4 colours, and it does so
> in about 60 seconds compared to the Canon's 50 seconds. That 10
> seconds produces a better photo though, so I certainly don't mind the
> minor difference.
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:28:52 PM

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

Dave wrote:
> I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
> quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at the
> results - it is simply amazing


Agreed 101 %!
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:28:53 PM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:<mU0pd.6013$F6.1287364@news.siol.net>...
> Dave wrote:
> > I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
> > quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at the
> > results - it is simply amazing
>
>
> Agreed 101 %!


I agree with what the others suggested-it should be a great weekend to
check out some of the after thanksgiving sales-I'd suggest stopping by
staples and see what kind of deals they have in the store or online.
November 24, 2004 6:39:18 PM

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

SleeperMan wrote:

>> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
>> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
>> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>
>You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than those at
>HP.

Yes you're right, they do hold more.

But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The type
of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all affect
page yields.

> And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors, but
>separately one one i'm out of.

Yes, but a few days later when you've bought a total of three ink tanks
and spent $50 anyway, you're back at square one.

Hehehe...I know this may not apply, but you do realize that each time
you go out to buy the other two colours, you use more gas to get there
and back?
:) 

The whole point of this is that ink usage is not a valid reason to
choose one brand over the other, Canon or HP. Buy the printer that best
suits your needs.
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 9:11:23 PM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:z-SdnbsPffXrbDncRVn-1Q@golden.net...
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>>> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
>>> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
>>> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>>
>>You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than those at
>>HP.
>
> Yes you're right, they do hold more.
>
> But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
> costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
> ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The type
> of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all affect
> page yields.
>

Your point?


>> And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors, but
>>separately one one i'm out of.
>
> Yes, but a few days later when you've bought a total of three ink tanks
> and spent $50 anyway, you're back at square one.
>

Awful big assumtion on your part. I (and most others I know can go weeks
between changing another tank after replacing a different one.

> Hehehe...I know this may not apply, but you do realize that each time
> you go out to buy the other two colours, you use more gas to get there
> and back?
> :) 
>

Give me a break! I certainly hope that smiley is an indication of what a
rediculous point this would be (if it were one at all).


> The whole point of this is that ink usage is not a valid reason to
> choose one brand over the other, Canon or HP. Buy the printer that best
> suits your needs.

Which is the one that gives me the best quality print and costs the least to
operate because I can change individual ink tanks.
Hey, that's my Canon!!
November 24, 2004 10:06:38 PM

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

PC Medic wrote:

>> But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
>> costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
>> ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The type
>> of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all affect
>> page yields.
>
>Your point?

No point...just blathering on about nothing again...
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 12:51:59 AM

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

Bill wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>>> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
>>> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink
>>> tanks is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>>
>> You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than
>> those at HP.
>
> Yes you're right, they do hold more.
>
> But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
> costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
> ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The
> type of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all
> affect page yields.
>
>> And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors,
>> but separately one one i'm out of.
>
> Yes, but a few days later when you've bought a total of three ink
> tanks and spent $50 anyway, you're back at square one.
>
> Hehehe...I know this may not apply, but you do realize that each time
> you go out to buy the other two colours, you use more gas to get there
> and back?
> :) 
>
> The whole point of this is that ink usage is not a valid reason to
> choose one brand over the other, Canon or HP. Buy the printer that
> best suits your needs.

When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then i
decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read some
reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print A4
photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes. And better than
HP...In any case, since i refill, Canons are easiest to refill (you must
admit that) and with it, costs are way lowest among all printers. Even with
canon inks, costs (according to review) are cheapest. So....i guess at the
end, each says my is the best and, as you said, you buy what you need...
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 12:52:00 AM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038

> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then i
> decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read some
> reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print A4
> photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.

I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread the
review. Was this in an April 1 issue?

- Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 12:53:28 AM

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

Helena wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:<mU0pd.6013$F6.1287364@news.siol.net>...
>> Dave wrote:
>>> I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
>>> quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at
>>> the results - it is simply amazing
>>
>>
>> Agreed 101 %!
>
>
> I agree with what the others suggested-it should be a great weekend to
> check out some of the after thanksgiving sales-I'd suggest stopping by
> staples and see what kind of deals they have in the store or online.

Yep, some are lucky...in USA these printers are about 50% cheaper than
here...but still, from i've seen, ip4000 is best bet. That extra photo black
does wonderfull job indeed!
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 11:08:32 PM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038
>
>> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But,
>> then i decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i
>> just read some reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole
>> 30 minutes to print A4 photo, while canon does same job in just over
>> 2 minutes.
>
> I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread
> the review. Was this in an April 1 issue?
>
haha...
nope....2 weeks ago...
Can you explain a bit more? I mean, for quite a time now there's common
knowledge that Canon printers have the cheapest price per page... And i also
saw the "speed" of HP at my friend's...it was not a photo, just normal color
page and it took so looooooooooooong to print...
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 1:43:33 AM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:o 4qpd.6120$F6.1287946@news.siol.net...

> Can you explain a bit more? I mean, for quite a time now there's common
> knowledge that Canon printers have the cheapest price per page...

Common knowledge? Can you point to any data based on actual measurements (as
opposed to mfg spec's)? There are certainly a range of products from both
manufacturers, with a range of speed and price per page. I suspect the HP
Business Inkjet 1200 series has better real world cost per page than any under
$200 color printer available. It has seperate ink tanks. See:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/18972-236...

As for speed, I suppose it is possible to find a very old HP printer, perhaps
driven by a 66 Mhz 486sx that could take thirty minutes to print, but five
minutes is more typical for best mode for printers sold in this millenia.
Certainly any recent HP Photo printer will be closer to three minutes than
thirty minutes for a best mode full size photo print.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP


> And i also saw the "speed" of HP at my friend's...it was not a photo, just
> normal color page and it took so looooooooooooong to print...
>
>
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 7:04:01 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:54:28 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
wrote:

>
>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038
>
>> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then i
>> decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read some
>> reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print A4
>> photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.
>
>I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread the
>review. Was this in an April 1 issue?
>
> - Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
<g> 30 mins may be stretching it a bit, but I've seen 22 mins for a
best quality photo coming out of an HP.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 12:09:57 PM

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

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rnadq0tm5m3q4qr3vn04u06mhnnooj07tq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:54:28 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038
>>
>>> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then
>>> i
>>> decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read
>>> some
>>> reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print
>>> A4
>>> photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.
>>
>>I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread the
>>review. Was this in an April 1 issue?
>>
>> - Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>>
> <g> 30 mins may be stretching it a bit, but I've seen 22 mins for a
> best quality photo coming out of an HP.
>

I can not quote the time for an HP and here is why.....
I was recently in my local CompUSA and overheard the HP Rep telling a
potential customer how the HP he was demonstrating "would beat the
competition hands-down in both speed and quality", since they were about to
take this at face value (and knowing my iP4000 prints a pretty damn quick
image) I had to ask, 'can you give us a demonstration?'. Sure he said and
proceeded to load a piece of photo paper and press the button to get a
sample print. After about 3-4 minutes I simply stated 'my printer would have
print two or three by now' and walked away. His potential customer caught up
with me a few minutes later stating it still had not finished and asked what
printer I had. I told him about my iP4000. He thanked me and went and picked
up an iP6000D from the shelf. I kin of felt like coming back when the Canon
guy was there and asking for my cut of the sale! :0)
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 12:13:07 PM

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

"Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com> wrote in message
news:10qdk4nr97n7u50@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:o 4qpd.6120$F6.1287946@news.siol.net...
>
>> Can you explain a bit more? I mean, for quite a time now there's common
>> knowledge that Canon printers have the cheapest price per page...
>
> Common knowledge? Can you point to any data based on actual measurements
> (as opposed to mfg spec's)? There are certainly a range of products from
> both manufacturers, with a range of speed and price per page. I suspect
> the HP Business Inkjet 1200 series has better real world cost per page
> than any under $200 color printer available. It has seperate ink tanks.
> See:
> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/18972-236...
>
> As for speed, I suppose it is possible to find a very old HP printer,
> perhaps driven by a 66 Mhz 486sx that could take thirty minutes to print,
> but five minutes is more typical for best mode for printers sold in this
> millenia. Certainly any recent HP Photo printer will be closer to three
> minutes than thirty minutes for a best mode full size photo print.
>

Not my response and experience in a local store. While I can't say it took
30 minutes (which would seem extreme) I can say it had nothing to do with PC
performance as these samples come from little boxes with image files
contained in a ROM so little/no overhead involved. Wish I could remember the
model, but assume it was fairly recent if was being touted by the sales
person from HP.
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 12:14:40 PM

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

"PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
news:p RGpd.6868$T02.3608@lakeread06...
[snip]
> Wish I could remember the model, but assume it was fairly recent if was
> being touted by the sales person from HP.

I would really like to know which model, since the data you suggest does not
match with reality for any of the printers I have dealt with, which includes
nearly all the recent DeskJet and Photosmart models.

This entire thread contains an overabundance of misinformation.

- Bob Headrick
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 8:29:15 PM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:o 4qpd.6120$F6.1287946@news.siol.net...
>
>> Can you explain a bit more? I mean, for quite a time now there's
>> common knowledge that Canon printers have the cheapest price per
>> page...
>
> Common knowledge? Can you point to any data based on actual
> measurements (as opposed to mfg spec's)? There are certainly a range
> of products from both manufacturers, with a range of speed and price
> per page. I suspect the HP Business Inkjet 1200 series has better
> real world cost per page than any under $200 color printer available.
> It has seperate ink tanks. See:
> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/18972-236...


Yeah, dream on...
model was HPdeskjet 450 Ci, time was 30 min, 30 sec, while Canon i865 time
was 2 min 30 sec.


>
> As for speed, I suppose it is possible to find a very old HP printer,
> perhaps driven by a 66 Mhz 486sx that could take thirty minutes to
> print, but five minutes is more typical for best mode for printers
> sold in this millenia. Certainly any recent HP Photo printer will be
> closer to three minutes than thirty minutes for a best mode full size
> photo print.


PC has NOTHING to do with it...all needed info is in printer's memory

>
> Regards,
> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
>
>> And i also saw the "speed" of HP at my friend's...it was not a
>> photo, just normal color page and it took so looooooooooooong to
>> print...
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 8:29:16 PM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:lRIpd.6195$F6.1288250@news.siol.net...
> Yeah, dream on...
> model was HPdeskjet 450 Ci, time was 30 min, 30 sec, while Canon i865 time
> was 2 min 30 sec.

The DeskJet 450 is a portable printer, designed for battery operation rather
than speed, but I would still bet that even in best mode it would take less
than six or seven minutes for a full print.

- Bob Headrick
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 8:30:26 PM

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

PC Medic wrote:
> "Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:rnadq0tm5m3q4qr3vn04u06mhnnooj07tq@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:54:28 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:uv6pd.6038
>>>> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too.
>>>> But, then i
>>>> decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just
>>>> read some
>>>> reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to
>>>> print A4
>>>> photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.
>>>
>>> I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have
>>> misread the review. Was this in an April 1 issue?
>>>
>>> - Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>>>
>> <g> 30 mins may be stretching it a bit, but I've seen 22 mins for a
>> best quality photo coming out of an HP.
>>
>
> I can not quote the time for an HP and here is why.....
> I was recently in my local CompUSA and overheard the HP Rep telling a
> potential customer how the HP he was demonstrating "would beat the
> competition hands-down in both speed and quality", since they were
> about to take this at face value (and knowing my iP4000 prints a
> pretty damn quick image) I had to ask, 'can you give us a
> demonstration?'. Sure he said and proceeded to load a piece of photo
> paper and press the button to get a sample print. After about 3-4
> minutes I simply stated 'my printer would have print two or three by
> now' and walked away. His potential customer caught up with me a few
> minutes later stating it still had not finished and asked what
> printer I had. I told him about my iP4000. He thanked me and went and
> picked up an iP6000D from the shelf. I kin of felt like coming back
> when the Canon guy was there and asking for my cut of the sale! :0)

Now THIS is talking!!!
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 11:08:54 PM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:lRIpd.6195$F6.1288250@news.siol.net...
>> Yeah, dream on...
>> model was HPdeskjet 450 Ci, time was 30 min, 30 sec, while Canon
>> i865 time was 2 min 30 sec.
>
> The DeskJet 450 is a portable printer, designed for battery operation
> rather than speed, but I would still bet that even in best mode it
> would take less than six or seven minutes for a full print.
>
> - Bob Headrick

Well, according to German magazine "Stiftung warentest", which is
add-free,so independent, not. They tested some 20 printers and HP was far
behind all. Some other times are: HP photosmart 7960: 8 min 30, HP deskjet
5652 8 min 10, HP Photosmart 7260 11 min 20, Epson Stylus C64 9 min, HP
deskjet 3650 22 min, Lexmark P707 21 min, Lexmark Z705 23 min 30, Epson C44
plus 29 min 10. All Canons from 2 to 4 min, Epson Stylus Photo R300 2 min...
Test was made for all printers on SAME PC,SAME config, SAME photo, SAME max
quality, photo paper etc. Now, say that they are liars and you're right...
Not that i tested any of HP's, but i just happen to believe independent
magazines. Shoot me...
As a side info, Epson's R800 was told to be the best among tested models for
photos, while fastest (but most expenisive) was Canon i990, which printed A4
photo in 1 min 30 sec. Recomended model (as best value for money) was Canon
i560.
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 11:08:55 PM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:%aLpd.6209$F6.1288340@news.siol.net...
> Well, according to German magazine "Stiftung warentest", which is add-free,so
> independent, not. They tested some 20 printers and HP was far behind all.
> Some other times are: HP photosmart 7960: 8 min 30, HP deskjet 5652 8 min
> 10, HP Photosmart 7260 11 min 20, Epson Stylus C64 9 min, HP deskjet 3650
> 22 min, Lexmark P707 21 min, Lexmark Z705 23 min 30, Epson C44 plus 29 min
> 10.

OK, a few comments:
1. It is not particularly reasonable to compare the lowest end printers with
high end printers that cost 5-10x as much. The DeskJet 3650 is a very low end
DeskJet.
2. Based on your data I do not see "HP far behind all".
3. HP "Best" mode is about 2x faster than the numbers shown for "max
quality". The max quality setting is probably using the 4800 dpi mode, which
really does not provide noticeably better quality but does take twice as long.

- Bob Headrick
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 5:21:07 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:09:57 -0500, "PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote:


>> <g> 30 mins may be stretching it a bit, but I've seen 22 mins for a
>> best quality photo coming out of an HP.
>>
>
>I can not quote the time for an HP and here is why.....
>I was recently in my local CompUSA and overheard the HP Rep telling a
>potential customer how the HP he was demonstrating "would beat the
>competition hands-down in both speed and quality", since they were about to
>take this at face value (and knowing my iP4000 prints a pretty damn quick
>image) I had to ask, 'can you give us a demonstration?'. Sure he said and
>proceeded to load a piece of photo paper and press the button to get a
>sample print. After about 3-4 minutes I simply stated 'my printer would have
>print two or three by now' and walked away. His potential customer caught up
>with me a few minutes later stating it still had not finished and asked what
>printer I had. I told him about my iP4000. He thanked me and went and picked
>up an iP6000D from the shelf. I kin of felt like coming back when the Canon
>guy was there and asking for my cut of the sale! :0)
>
>
LOL! We just purchased an iP4000 for a relative, although we use
Epson 2100/2200s. Certainly, for general A4-sized usage, I'd
certainly pick the Canon.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 8:03:45 PM

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:%aLpd.6209$F6.1288340@news.siol.net...
>> Well, according to German magazine "Stiftung warentest", which is
>> add-free,so independent, not. They tested some 20 printers and HP
>> was far behind all. Some other times are: HP photosmart 7960: 8 min
>> 30, HP deskjet 5652 8 min 10, HP Photosmart 7260 11 min 20, Epson
>> Stylus C64 9 min, HP deskjet 3650 22 min, Lexmark P707 21 min,
>> Lexmark Z705 23 min 30, Epson C44 plus 29 min 10.
>
> OK, a few comments:
> 1. It is not particularly reasonable to compare the lowest end
> printers with high end printers that cost 5-10x as much. The DeskJet
> 3650 is a very low end DeskJet.
> 2. Based on your data I do not see "HP far behind all".
> 3. HP "Best" mode is about 2x faster than the numbers shown for "max
> quality". The max quality setting is probably using the 4800 dpi
> mode, which really does not provide noticeably better quality but
> does take twice as long.
> - Bob Headrick

Could be...but printing with 4800 dpi mode with my Canon takes just over 2
minutes for A4 page...
And at last, all above are not my conclusions...
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:58:44 AM

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

Hi Bill!

I refuse to "tow" the Canon line1

Some of the other posters may "toe" the Canon line.

It's still freedom of choice.


"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:NNmdndafD8S79z_cRVn-2g@golden.net...
> BenOne© wrote:
>
>>> Again, that's just hype from the companies promoting individual ink
>>> tanks, and they're all guilty of that, including HP (see their business
>>> inkjets).
>>>
>>> Don't forget I had a Canon i850 for well over a year and I know exactly
>>> how much ink was used per colour during that time. With typical prints,
>>> the colours all run out at pretty much the same times, give or take a
>>> few percent.
>>
>>I've got a Canon i9950 and 2 friends with i865. We all go through the
>>photo
>>colours MUCH quicker than the rest. It's NOT manufacturer hype.
>
> I got news for you...the i865 does NOT use photo colours.
>
> Your friends are likely just towing the Canon line about individual ink
> tanks being more economical, when they're not.
>
> I used to think that maybe Canon was right and individual ink tanks
> would be better. But after using the i850 for over a year, I know that
> was just one of their many marketing tools to help promote sales.
>
> Many people are like sheep...they just follow the shepherd and will
> agree that ink usage is lower and the individual carts are saving them
> money. All because Canon, Epson, and HP said so.
>
>>I've heard plenty of people report the same experience as my friends and
>>I, so
>>I'm inclined to think you are not a typical user.
>
> You did not follow the thread properly, as nothing was ever said about
> photo inks.
>
> We all know the photo inks are consumed faster than the other three
> colours. But we're talking about the three main colours and the typical
> consumption levels.
>
> But since you brought up the subject of photo inks, I can tell you that
> even though they get consumed faster, once again their usage is fairly
> consistent. And using my HP 6540 as an example, the three main colours
> and the photo colours are in separate cartridges, so photo ink usage is
> not really relevant to the main colours.
>
> Now if all six colours were in one cartridge, then I would agree with
> you, and I wouldn't use such a system. But as it stands, it's not an
> issue.
December 8, 2004 6:36:28 AM

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

"Panos Popadopalous" <panos@athens.net> wrote in message
news:cp49e301d6c@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Hi Bill!
>
> I refuse to "tow" the Canon line1
>
> Some of the other posters may "toe" the Canon line.
>
> It's still freedom of choice.
>
I freely chose the Epson C84 and compatible carts from Printpal.com
They do a great job for the regular household printing.
Cost is very low.
!