Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Don't buy HP -anything-

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
December 16, 2004 3:04:51 PM

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

I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
years. It seems rather obvious to me that if a company does not expect
its products to have a chance of lasting 5 years, and then won't sell
or discuss parts availibility, then that comapany deserve the business
of no one. That company is Hewlett Packard and I strongly advise
anyone to not bother themselves with their products.

This was a high-end laserjet printer when it was new, unlike the newer,
more 'disposable' and cheaper inkjet printers.

Only a fool would buy HP knowing their policy is to make short lived
junk which they won't support.

Other companies, with other policies and principles, deserve your
business. HP does not.

More about : buy

December 16, 2004 11:26:37 PM

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

"grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103227491.012682.179350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
> on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
> than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
> years. It seems rather obvious to me that if a company does not expect
> its products to have a chance of lasting 5 years, and then won't sell
> or discuss parts availibility, then that comapany deserve the business
> of no one. That company is Hewlett Packard and I strongly advise
> anyone to not bother themselves with their products.
>

I'm bored with products after 3 years, never mind 5 - get shot of it and buy
a new one.

Si.
December 16, 2004 11:26:38 PM

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

>
> I'm bored with products after 3 years, never mind 5 - get shot of it and
buy
> a new one.
>
> Si.
>
>
Si
So you scrap and junk an otherwise good, or slightly repairable item?
Isn't that just changing for change sake?
No wonder the world is polluted!
We take the opposite view and take pride in how 'long' something can last.
Our clothes dryer, for example, is 44 years old. We've repaired it ourselves
about seven times, only twice was it anything major and the cost of all
seven repairs spread out over those 44 years was a total of less than the
third of the cost, now, of a new one. So I'm much money in hand.
Most people, not capable of fixing something as simple as dryer, would have
had three or four machines in that length of time! It works perfectly. Right
alongside the washer which is about 25+ years old which I rebuilt about six
or seven years oago.
My son, who first helped repair the dryer when it was 31 and he was age 12,
is aiming to get it the 50 year mark!
BTW I'm current repairing a Hewlett Packard VTVM (Vacuum Tube Voltmeter);
it's got some tubes in it, but heck it's nice machine and will work fine
when I'm finished; at a total cost of less than $10.
Terry.
Related resources
December 16, 2004 11:26:39 PM

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

> So you scrap and junk an otherwise good, or slightly repairable item?
> Isn't that just changing for change sake?
> No wonder the world is polluted!
> We take the opposite view and take pride in how 'long' something can last.
> Our clothes dryer, for example, is 44 years old. We've repaired it ourselves
> about seven times, only twice was it anything major and the cost of all
> seven repairs spread out over those 44 years was a total of less than the
> third of the cost, now, of a new one. So I'm much money in hand.
> Most people, not capable of fixing something as simple as dryer, would have
> had three or four machines in that length of time! It works perfectly. Right
> alongside the washer which is about 25+ years old which I rebuilt about six
> or seven years oago.
> My son, who first helped repair the dryer when it was 31 and he was age 12,
> is aiming to get it the 50 year mark!
> BTW I'm current repairing a Hewlett Packard VTVM (Vacuum Tube Voltmeter);
> it's got some tubes in it, but heck it's nice machine and will work fine
> when I'm finished; at a total cost of less than $10.
> Terry.

I bet that 44year old dryer is so energy inefficient that it costs you
more a year
to run than a new energy efficient model that really will help cut
pollutions
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 16, 2004 11:53:14 PM

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

On 16-Dec-2004, "grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
> on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
> than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
> years.

I quite agree, they don't make any info available, to protect their
franchised agents and repairers, and it's VERY PROFITABLE
for them if you have to junk the product, when a component of
negligable value like a resistor or capacitor fails. Just vote
with your feet (or in this case wallet).
December 17, 2004 12:00:06 AM

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

I'm currently using an HP inkjet printer that's close to 6 years old. I had
another one (HP inkjet) that I gave away to a family member, and which as
far as I know is still being used, and should be close to 10 years old. HP
printers are the best I found. I also found that same HP inkjet model
(should be about 10 years old) being used at my library. It's rediculous to
think a printer should last only 3 or so years. Let's stop the waste.


"Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cpsr18$i2s$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1103227491.012682.179350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
>> on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
>> than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
>> years. It seems rather obvious to me that if a company does not expect
>> its products to have a chance of lasting 5 years, and then won't sell
>> or discuss parts availibility, then that comapany deserve the business
>> of no one. That company is Hewlett Packard and I strongly advise
>> anyone to not bother themselves with their products.
>>
>
> I'm bored with products after 3 years, never mind 5 - get shot of it and
> buy a new one.
>
> Si.
>
December 17, 2004 12:48:17 AM

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

> "Si" <insert@addresshere.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cpsr18$i2s$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103227491.012682.179350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
>>> on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
>>> than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
>>> years. It seems rather obvious to me that if a company does not expect
>>> its products to have a chance of lasting 5 years, and then won't sell
>>> or discuss parts availibility, then that comapany deserve the business
>>> of no one. That company is Hewlett Packard and I strongly advise
>>> anyone to not bother themselves with their products.
>>>
>>
>> I'm bored with products after 3 years, never mind 5 - get shot of it and
>> buy a new one.
>>
>> Si.
>>
>
>

"Michael" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:qHmwd.82305$6f6.67602@edtnps89...
> I'm currently using an HP inkjet printer that's close to 6 years old. I
> had another one (HP inkjet) that I gave away to a family member, and which
> as far as I know is still being used, and should be close to 10 years old.
> HP printers are the best I found. I also found that same HP inkjet model
> (should be about 10 years old) being used at my library. It's rediculous
> to think a printer should last only 3 or so years. Let's stop the waste.

Ooh, look, a top poster.

I didn't say that it was rediculous (sic) to think a printer should only
last 3 years. I said that I was bored with stuff after 3 years.

I generally want to buy myself new kit every few years or so - call me a
gadget freak.

Si.
December 17, 2004 2:50:56 AM

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

"chuck" <chuck@no-spam.com> wrote in message
news:32el5oF3lavdrU1@individual.net...
>> So you scrap and junk an otherwise good, or slightly repairable item?
>> Isn't that just changing for change sake?
>> No wonder the world is polluted!
>> We take the opposite view and take pride in how 'long' something can
>> last.
>> Our clothes dryer, for example, is 44 years old. We've repaired it
>> ourselves
>> about seven times, only twice was it anything major and the cost of all
>> seven repairs spread out over those 44 years was a total of less than the
>> third of the cost, now, of a new one. So I'm much money in hand.
>> Most people, not capable of fixing something as simple as dryer, would
>> have
>> had three or four machines in that length of time! It works perfectly.
>> Right
>> alongside the washer which is about 25+ years old which I rebuilt about
>> six
>> or seven years oago.
>> My son, who first helped repair the dryer when it was 31 and he was age
>> 12,
>> is aiming to get it the 50 year mark!
>> BTW I'm current repairing a Hewlett Packard VTVM (Vacuum Tube Voltmeter);
>> it's got some tubes in it, but heck it's nice machine and will work fine
>> when I'm finished; at a total cost of less than $10.
>> Terry.
>
> I bet that 44year old dryer is so energy inefficient that it costs you
> more a year
> to run than a new energy efficient model that really will help cut
> pollutions

LOL.
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 17, 2004 3:34:24 AM

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

chuck wrote:
>> So you scrap and junk an otherwise good, or slightly repairable item?
>> Isn't that just changing for change sake?
>> No wonder the world is polluted!
>> We take the opposite view and take pride in how 'long' something can
>> last.
>> Our clothes dryer, for example, is 44 years old. We've repaired it
>> ourselves
>> about seven times, only twice was it anything major and the cost of all
>> seven repairs spread out over those 44 years was a total of less than the
>> third of the cost, now, of a new one. So I'm much money in hand.
>> Most people, not capable of fixing something as simple as dryer, would
>> have
>> had three or four machines in that length of time! It works perfectly.
>> Right
>> alongside the washer which is about 25+ years old which I rebuilt
>> about six
>> or seven years oago.
>> My son, who first helped repair the dryer when it was 31 and he was
>> age 12,
>> is aiming to get it the 50 year mark!
>> BTW I'm current repairing a Hewlett Packard VTVM (Vacuum Tube Voltmeter);
>> it's got some tubes in it, but heck it's nice machine and will work fine
>> when I'm finished; at a total cost of less than $10.
>> Terry.
>
>
> I bet that 44year old dryer is so energy inefficient that it costs you
> more a year
> to run than a new energy efficient model that really will help cut
> pollutions

If it is an electric dryer, you would likely loose that bet big time.
Probably not more than 1-3 percent less efficient that a new dryer.
Could even be more efficient than some new dryers. Efficiency of
motors and heating wires hasn't changed much in a long time. The only
efficiency change might be in the delivery (routing) of the hot air.
December 17, 2004 7:28:11 AM

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

> I bet that 44year old dryer is so energy inefficient that it costs you
> more a year
> to run than a new energy efficient model that really will help cut
> pollutions

Chuck:

You have a very valid point about comparing energy consumption.
I'm not sure if I can get a number for such an old machine to compare with a
newer machine.

Having owned this one and also repaired about six others of various ages for
friends/relatives they all seem to be constructed very similarly. The motors
are much the same varying from one third HP to one quarter HP and when I've
had to replace heating elements they have all been very similar resistance
and wattage ratings.
So I've always presumed that since it takes a certain amount of heat and
tumbling etc. to dry 'X' pounds of damp clothes the energy consumption was
much the same!

One feature older dryers do not have is that which senses that the humidity
has dropped and therefore shuts off the dryer sooner rather than depend on
the timer. But that feature (humidistat) tends to break rather easily as it
has on my daughters much newer machine.

Overall dryers are wasteful of heat/energy in that they chuck the damp air
outside without any opportunity to reclaim any of the heat, although there
are devices available which claim to do that; I gather they don't work very
well in a windy climate. And of course one needs to control the humidity
within the house. In summer we dry heavy items such as towels, blankets
outside.

We use hydro generated electricity for heating here and in our cool climate
almost all months require some heating. Extraneous heat from things such as
printers, second/third computers, TV sets etc. and 'inefficient' light
bulbs do emit heat into the house, some of which gets stored temporarily in
the thermal mass of the structure. So 'that wasted' heat unlike that going
out the dryer vent is usable. Even the electricity used by a fridge or
freezer becomes heat within the house envelope.

But I agree the heat efficiency of the dryer is a very valid question.
Thanks for raising it.

The cost of electricity here has risen about 20% in recent years; from an
average cost per kilowatt hour equivalent to approx 6 cents US to approx 7
cents US.

Terry.
December 17, 2004 10:30:24 AM

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

And thermal insulation.

"George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:kQpwd.652$uM5.456@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> If it is an electric dryer, you would likely loose that bet big time.
> Probably not more than 1-3 percent less efficient that a new dryer. Could
> even be more efficient than some new dryers. Efficiency of motors and
> heating wires hasn't changed much in a long time. The only efficiency
> change might be in the delivery (routing) of the hot air.
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 18, 2004 7:05:21 AM

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

Hmmm? I've never seen a home dryer with ANY insulation! All a dryer
consists of is a rotating drum, a motor, a heater, a blower, and a
control system. A gas flame or electric element heats air which is
passed through the clothes chamber and blown outside. With all that
hot air being blown outside, what value could insulation provide?

SteveB wrote:
> And thermal insulation.
>
> "George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:kQpwd.652$uM5.456@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>>If it is an electric dryer, you would likely loose that bet big time.
>>Probably not more than 1-3 percent less efficient that a new dryer. Could
>>even be more efficient than some new dryers. Efficiency of motors and
>>heating wires hasn't changed much in a long time. The only efficiency
>>change might be in the delivery (routing) of the hot air.
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 18, 2004 7:15:56 AM

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

Terry wrote:
>>I bet that 44year old dryer is so energy inefficient that it costs you
>>more a year
>>to run than a new energy efficient model that really will help cut
>>pollutions
>
>
> Chuck:
>
> You have a very valid point about comparing energy consumption.
> I'm not sure if I can get a number for such an old machine to compare with a
> newer machine.
>
> Having owned this one and also repaired about six others of various ages for
> friends/relatives they all seem to be constructed very similarly. The motors
> are much the same varying from one third HP to one quarter HP and when I've
> had to replace heating elements they have all been very similar resistance
> and wattage ratings.
> So I've always presumed that since it takes a certain amount of heat and
> tumbling etc. to dry 'X' pounds of damp clothes the energy consumption was
> much the same!
>
> One feature older dryers do not have is that which senses that the humidity
> has dropped and therefore shuts off the dryer sooner rather than depend on
> the timer. But that feature (humidistat) tends to break rather easily as it
> has on my daughters much newer machine.
>
> Overall dryers are wasteful of heat/energy in that they chuck the damp air
> outside without any opportunity to reclaim any of the heat, although there
> are devices available which claim to do that; I gather they don't work very
> well in a windy climate. And of course one needs to control the humidity
> within the house. In summer we dry heavy items such as towels, blankets
> outside.
>
> We use hydro generated electricity for heating here and in our cool climate
> almost all months require some heating. Extraneous heat from things such as
> printers, second/third computers, TV sets etc. and 'inefficient' light
> bulbs do emit heat into the house, some of which gets stored temporarily in
> the thermal mass of the structure. So 'that wasted' heat unlike that going
> out the dryer vent is usable. Even the electricity used by a fridge or
> freezer becomes heat within the house envelope.
>
> But I agree the heat efficiency of the dryer is a very valid question.
> Thanks for raising it.
>
> The cost of electricity here has risen about 20% in recent years; from an
> average cost per kilowatt hour equivalent to approx 6 cents US to approx 7
> cents US.
>
> Terry.
>
>

Since this is so off topic, I shouldn't continue, but the answer is,
No it isn't. Meaning it isn't a valid question. The only efficiency
possible is recovery of the heat from the wet air after it leaves the
dryer. And so far, no one has been able to do that in a reasonable
fashion. Your point about the humidity sensor is well taken, but most
people rely on the feel of the clothes not what a sensor determines.
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 18, 2004 5:33:10 PM

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

Good on you!

Not only are you right on with your approach and attitude, but if you
were to replace that dryer today, you probably find the new one wouldn't
last 1/10th the time before it became non-repairable because some
plastic part broke that is no longer available and made of some plastic
that can't be glued. Or, some IC circuit failed that not only can you
not test without a special tool only available to the "Maybag" service
depot, but they no longer make the part, and the machine will not work
without it, so you have to replace the whole thing.

We have indeed become a society of waste and arrogance. We think this
can go on like this forever, but we are just beginning to see the
consequences of 10% of the world population consuming 90% of the
resources. Terrorism isn't about religion, my friends, it's about people
feeling they aren't getting their share... of land, of resources, clean
air, water, health care, and "wealth". Those plastics we toss away in
the garbage have blood on them... they are made from the oil we are
fighting over.

And, besides the less than 5% fallacious science financed by oil (EXXON
MOBIL) and coal (PEABODY) and the current US government, the rest of the
world and scientific community is well aware that global warming/climate
change is real, is progressing, and is going to have tremendous
consequences globally. It has already cost billion of dollars in damage
and disease and loss of infrastructure, and it hasn't even started yet.
Even big business insurance companies are sweating it now and begging
the US government to please start taking this seriously.

While the US refuses to make any change toward lowering CO2 output, in
fact, has plans to increase it via more use of coal, global climate
change is causing drought, crop failure, massive forest fires,
hurricanes, el niño conditions, melting the polar ice caps, massive
changes of animal distribution and migration, famine, floods, etc.
mainly throughout the equatorial and polar areas. But its just a matter
of time before the US is more effected. Malaria is creeping into the
US, and California has just begun to see the fires and droughts of summer.

So, all you smart people who think it's just "kool" to waste energy,
buy big muscle cars, and toss your equipment because you are "bored"
with it, you won't be bored much longer, when you find yourself
wondering where you next glass of water or meal is coming from, not to
mention your next gallon of gasoline, or your electricity.

I've often thought that the proof of individual intelligence is
someone's ability to CONNECT THE DOTS.

Art

Terry wrote:

>>I'm bored with products after 3 years, never mind 5 - get shot of it and
>
> buy
>
>>a new one.
>>
>>Si.
>>
>>
>
> Si
> So you scrap and junk an otherwise good, or slightly repairable item?
> Isn't that just changing for change sake?
> No wonder the world is polluted!
> We take the opposite view and take pride in how 'long' something can last.
> Our clothes dryer, for example, is 44 years old. We've repaired it ourselves
> about seven times, only twice was it anything major and the cost of all
> seven repairs spread out over those 44 years was a total of less than the
> third of the cost, now, of a new one. So I'm much money in hand.
> Most people, not capable of fixing something as simple as dryer, would have
> had three or four machines in that length of time! It works perfectly. Right
> alongside the washer which is about 25+ years old which I rebuilt about six
> or seven years oago.
> My son, who first helped repair the dryer when it was 31 and he was age 12,
> is aiming to get it the 50 year mark!
> BTW I'm current repairing a Hewlett Packard VTVM (Vacuum Tube Voltmeter);
> it's got some tubes in it, but heck it's nice machine and will work fine
> when I'm finished; at a total cost of less than $10.
> Terry.
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 18, 2004 5:59:00 PM

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

That's probably fallacious.

You see, even if it is less efficient, the equation isn't that simple.

You have to add the following:

*cost - meaning environmental cost

- of transporting old unit to dump, or to have it recycled into reusable
materials (steel melted down, etc)

- pollution involved in the recycling process, electricity production,
to make heat etc, paint or enamel burned into air, plastics, rubber,
etc. burned.

- of transporting new unit from factory (China,?) to user
(container ship, oil/fuel production, people required to work ships,
food they eat, water they use, etc)

- of mining, smelting, metalworking producing new metal parts

- of oil, petrochemical, risk of oil spill, to make plastic parts

- energy cost to make new dryer, paper for cardboard box, printing of
box, instructions, etc.

- feeding of employees who produce raw materials, manufacturing, their
transportation to and from work

- paperwork from factory to distributor to sales floor to buyer

- of building showroom or store and maintaining showroom (heat, paint,
etc), employee transportation to and from showroom

The list goes on and on and on. Yeah, I know, they didn't build the
store or staff it for one dryer, or build a container ship for it alone
either, but each dryer cost something as a percentage of the total.

But the equation isn't as easy as it appears, my friend.

I still use tungsten bulbs in most of my home's fixtures, because in the
equation I look at, I am not convinced that the pollution and loss of
raw materials involved in the manufacturing, transport and ultimately
discarding of a fluorescent fixture and lamp is really less
environmentally costly than an incandescent lamp which uses more
electricity, and heats my home slightly more (which during winter is not
a bad thing) but doesn't require poisonous phosphors and mercury.

It isn't always the quick fix that provides the best results.

Art
chuck wrote:

>> So you scrap and junk an otherwise good, or slightly repairable item?
>> Isn't that just changing for change sake?
>> No wonder the world is polluted!
>> We take the opposite view and take pride in how 'long' something can
>> last.
>> Our clothes dryer, for example, is 44 years old. We've repaired it
>> ourselves
>> about seven times, only twice was it anything major and the cost of all
>> seven repairs spread out over those 44 years was a total of less than the
>> third of the cost, now, of a new one. So I'm much money in hand.
>> Most people, not capable of fixing something as simple as dryer, would
>> have
>> had three or four machines in that length of time! It works perfectly.
>> Right
>> alongside the washer which is about 25+ years old which I rebuilt
>> about six
>> or seven years oago.
>> My son, who first helped repair the dryer when it was 31 and he was
>> age 12,
>> is aiming to get it the 50 year mark!
>> BTW I'm current repairing a Hewlett Packard VTVM (Vacuum Tube Voltmeter);
>> it's got some tubes in it, but heck it's nice machine and will work fine
>> when I'm finished; at a total cost of less than $10.
>> Terry.
>
>
> I bet that 44year old dryer is so energy inefficient that it costs you
> more a year
> to run than a new energy efficient model that really will help cut
> pollutions
December 19, 2004 9:01:06 AM

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

It's a shame, HP used to be a decent company. I just threw away my HP
scanner--which was perfectly good--because of driver problems and HP's
piss-poor tech service. First they stopped offering any unpaid support of
any kind after 2 years. Then the "driver fix" they offered on their website
stopped the computer from booting. As far as I could tell from the
newsgroups no one got this to work correctly. It should not have been so
difficult to write the new drivers, but obviously HP really doesn't care.
Someone at HP Australia apparently confided to one customer who spend a lot
of money and time on the phone trying to get the same scanner set up for W2K
that the update was given to a bunch of junior engineers and never really
thoroughly tested.

Added to that was the fact that HP said that the scan software had to be
updated, but did not indicate where the updated software was located. I
searched the site for hours and came up empty, except for one small
announcement that for those who wanted it, the latest PrecisionScan could be
had on CD for some "nominal" sum.

Trying to update this scanner for XP was a joke. So I just binned it. To
bad--it was fine mechanically--just died for lack of support. I swore I
would never buy another HP product after the first round of updates and I
have been true to my word.

Toby

"grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103227491.012682.179350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
> on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
> than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
> years. It seems rather obvious to me that if a company does not expect
> its products to have a chance of lasting 5 years, and then won't sell
> or discuss parts availibility, then that comapany deserve the business
> of no one. That company is Hewlett Packard and I strongly advise
> anyone to not bother themselves with their products.
>
> This was a high-end laserjet printer when it was new, unlike the newer,
> more 'disposable' and cheaper inkjet printers.
>
> Only a fool would buy HP knowing their policy is to make short lived
> junk which they won't support.
>
> Other companies, with other policies and principles, deserve your
> business. HP does not.
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 19, 2004 10:43:16 AM

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

I feel like the expected life of a printer should be no more than 3
years.
To expect service or parts after 5 years is not reasonable.

Printers are sold near or below cost of production and the
manufacturers have no duty provide extended support.

PJ




On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:53:14 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>On 16-Dec-2004, "grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
>> on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
>> than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
>> years.
>
>I quite agree, they don't make any info available, to protect their
>franchised agents and repairers, and it's VERY PROFITABLE
>for them if you have to junk the product, when a component of
>negligable value like a resistor or capacitor fails. Just vote
>with your feet (or in this case wallet).
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 19, 2004 7:57:20 PM

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

Which scanner are you working with??? I have the downloads to make a
Scanjet 6200c work in XP. If it will help you, I'll forward them.

e-Mail me - bobkos at earthlink dot net



"Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
news:41c56cf6$0$70569$45beb828@newscene.com...
> It's a shame, HP used to be a decent company. I just threw away my HP
> scanner--which was perfectly good--because of driver problems and HP's
> piss-poor tech service. First they stopped offering any unpaid support of
> any kind after 2 years. Then the "driver fix" they offered on their
website
> stopped the computer from booting. As far as I could tell from the
> newsgroups no one got this to work correctly. It should not have been so
> difficult to write the new drivers, but obviously HP really doesn't care.
> Someone at HP Australia apparently confided to one customer who spend a
lot
> of money and time on the phone trying to get the same scanner set up for
W2K
> that the update was given to a bunch of junior engineers and never really
> thoroughly tested.
>
> Added to that was the fact that HP said that the scan software had to be
> updated, but did not indicate where the updated software was located. I
> searched the site for hours and came up empty, except for one small
> announcement that for those who wanted it, the latest PrecisionScan could
be
> had on CD for some "nominal" sum.
>
> Trying to update this scanner for XP was a joke. So I just binned it. To
> bad--it was fine mechanically--just died for lack of support. I swore I
> would never buy another HP product after the first round of updates and I
> have been true to my word.
>
> Toby
>
> "grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1103227491.012682.179350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
> > on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
> > than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
> > years. It seems rather obvious to me that if a company does not expect
> > its products to have a chance of lasting 5 years, and then won't sell
> > or discuss parts availibility, then that comapany deserve the business
> > of no one. That company is Hewlett Packard and I strongly advise
> > anyone to not bother themselves with their products.
> >
> > This was a high-end laserjet printer when it was new, unlike the newer,
> > more 'disposable' and cheaper inkjet printers.
> >
> > Only a fool would buy HP knowing their policy is to make short lived
> > junk which they won't support.
> >
> > Other companies, with other policies and principles, deserve your
> > business. HP does not.
> >
>
>
December 19, 2004 9:03:09 PM

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

Hi Bob,

It was a 5100c. I had finally gotten it working halfway in W2K, but after a
couple of tries to get it working in XP I decided just to bin it. The
problem is the parallel port driver, which HP never wrote correctly for the
later NT based OSes apparently. I went out and bought an old Canon scanner
for 30 bucks--all the software was readily and easily available on the Canon
website and it worked immediately. So much for HP...I'm glad to be rid of my
last HP product.

Toby

"Bob Kos" <see@text.for.eddress> wrote in message
news:Qpixd.4420$RH4.765@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Which scanner are you working with??? I have the downloads to make a
> Scanjet 6200c work in XP. If it will help you, I'll forward them.
>
> e-Mail me - bobkos at earthlink dot net
>
>
>
> "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
> news:41c56cf6$0$70569$45beb828@newscene.com...
>> It's a shame, HP used to be a decent company. I just threw away my HP
>> scanner--which was perfectly good--because of driver problems and HP's
>> piss-poor tech service. First they stopped offering any unpaid support of
>> any kind after 2 years. Then the "driver fix" they offered on their
> website
>> stopped the computer from booting. As far as I could tell from the
>> newsgroups no one got this to work correctly. It should not have been so
>> difficult to write the new drivers, but obviously HP really doesn't care.
>> Someone at HP Australia apparently confided to one customer who spend a
> lot
>> of money and time on the phone trying to get the same scanner set up for
> W2K
>> that the update was given to a bunch of junior engineers and never really
>> thoroughly tested.
>>
>> Added to that was the fact that HP said that the scan software had to be
>> updated, but did not indicate where the updated software was located. I
>> searched the site for hours and came up empty, except for one small
>> announcement that for those who wanted it, the latest PrecisionScan could
> be
>> had on CD for some "nominal" sum.
>>
>> Trying to update this scanner for XP was a joke. So I just binned it. To
>> bad--it was fine mechanically--just died for lack of support. I swore I
>> would never buy another HP product after the first round of updates and I
>> have been true to my word.
>>
>> Toby
>>
>> "grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103227491.012682.179350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
>> > on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
>> > than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
>> > years. It seems rather obvious to me that if a company does not expect
>> > its products to have a chance of lasting 5 years, and then won't sell
>> > or discuss parts availibility, then that comapany deserve the business
>> > of no one. That company is Hewlett Packard and I strongly advise
>> > anyone to not bother themselves with their products.
>> >
>> > This was a high-end laserjet printer when it was new, unlike the newer,
>> > more 'disposable' and cheaper inkjet printers.
>> >
>> > Only a fool would buy HP knowing their policy is to make short lived
>> > junk which they won't support.
>> >
>> > Other companies, with other policies and principles, deserve your
>> > business. HP does not.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
December 20, 2004 11:04:30 PM

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

They have, if nothing else, an ethical duty, if based on nothing else,
then environmental considerations. Printers are a mess of plastics,
metals, paper or cloth, and electronics. Just because the printer
companies have determined that their sales are best when they don't
charge enough for the printer, but charge silly prices on consumables
don't mean they are the ones calling all the shots.

At minimum, they should have to take back the equipment and recycle it
at no additional cost to the consumer. They have no right to make
shoddy equipment that won't last 3 years, or no longer has parts.

Art

PJX wrote:

> I feel like the expected life of a printer should be no more than 3
> years.
> To expect service or parts after 5 years is not reasonable.
>
> Printers are sold near or below cost of production and the
> manufacturers have no duty provide extended support.
>
> PJ
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:53:14 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>On 16-Dec-2004, "grunt" <geoffreygallo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was trying to talk to someone at Hewlett Packard to get information
>>>on identification and availability of parts for a printer a little more
>>>than 5 years old. They don't offer support for products older than 5
>>>years.
>>
>>I quite agree, they don't make any info available, to protect their
>>franchised agents and repairers, and it's VERY PROFITABLE
>>for them if you have to junk the product, when a component of
>>negligable value like a resistor or capacitor fails. Just vote
>>with your feet (or in this case wallet).
>
>
July 24, 2009 12:02:26 AM

I Agree, Mine And My Mom's HP Desktop Only Lasted For 1 Year!!! DONT BUY HP, UNRELIABLE. Dont let their cheap prices lure you in. BUY ANY OTHER COMPUTER AND ADDON BRAND BUT HP PLEASE!
!