Now on my third Epson C86

[Guest]

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

I purchased the original unit late September last year. After two
months it stopped printing yellow & magenta. Head cleaning didn't help
- and by the time the authorised repair agent had also tried this, my
cartridges were cleaned out.

Replacement unit has now died exactly the same way. And another fifty
quid's worth of cartridges got consumed trying to resolve the problem
- I am not impressed.

Both printers were lightly used, and in a clean, dry room out of
sunlight and not next to a radiator.

I would advise caution about the purchase of this model and possibly
its sister printer, the C84. Perhaps I'm unlucky - but 3 printers in
six months is verging on the statistically unlikely. I'll be writing
to Epson about it, since I am considerably out of pocket in wasted ink
cartridges, not to mention time.

I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
be even better.

Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
period.

 

[Guest]

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

"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2b20cd9f.0503150848.1bda9cd2@posting.google.com...
>I purchased the original unit late September last year. After two
> months it stopped printing yellow & magenta. Head cleaning didn't help
> - and by the time the authorised repair agent had also tried this, my
> cartridges were cleaned out.
>
> Replacement unit has now died exactly the same way. And another fifty
> quid's worth of cartridges got consumed trying to resolve the problem
> - I am not impressed.
>
> Both printers were lightly used, and in a clean, dry room out of
> sunlight and not next to a radiator.
>
> I would advise caution about the purchase of this model and possibly
> its sister printer, the C84. Perhaps I'm unlucky - but 3 printers in
> six months is verging on the statistically unlikely. I'll be writing
> to Epson about it, since I am considerably out of pocket in wasted ink
> cartridges, not to mention time.
>
> I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
> on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
> argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
> be even better.
>
> Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
> replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
> warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
> being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
> this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
> replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
> period.
Sorry, to hear about your dilemma. You stated that the printers were
lightly used. I think that may have been your problem. From what I've been
reading on the net, Epson printers use very small nozzles in their print
heads. If you do not use them on a regular basis the inks tend to dry up a
clog the heads. I have the C82 model and have also made the mistake of not
using it on a regular basis. Now I'm starting to have print quality issues.
Like you, doing a head cleaning doesn't help.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:25:47 -0500, RE: Re: Now on my third Epson C86
"ftran999" <ftran999@comcast.net> wrote:


>"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:2b20cd9f.0503150848.1bda9cd2@posting.google.com...

>> I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
>> on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
>> argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
>> be even better.

The exchange service is probably well-used. When you must exchange
thousands of units weekly, you get good at it.

>> Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
>> replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
>> warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
>> being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
>> this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
>> replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
>> period.
>Sorry, to hear about your dilemma. You stated that the printers were
>lightly used. I think that may have been your problem. From what I've been
>reading on the net, Epson printers use very small nozzles in their print
>heads. If you do not use them on a regular basis the inks tend to dry up a
>clog the heads.

Then that would be a design defect.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the XXX characters from my email address.

 

[Guest]

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

"ftran999" <ftran999@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7NGdnb95uMVV2arfRVn-og@comcast.com...
>
> "Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:2b20cd9f.0503150848.1bda9cd2@posting.google.com...
>>I purchased the original unit late September last year. After two
>> months it stopped printing yellow & magenta. Head cleaning didn't help
>> - and by the time the authorised repair agent had also tried this, my
>> cartridges were cleaned out.
>>
>> Replacement unit has now died exactly the same way. And another fifty
>> quid's worth of cartridges got consumed trying to resolve the problem
>> - I am not impressed.
>>
>> Both printers were lightly used, and in a clean, dry room out of
>> sunlight and not next to a radiator.
>>
>> I would advise caution about the purchase of this model and possibly
>> its sister printer, the C84. Perhaps I'm unlucky - but 3 printers in
>> six months is verging on the statistically unlikely. I'll be writing
>> to Epson about it, since I am considerably out of pocket in wasted ink
>> cartridges, not to mention time.
>>
>> I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
>> on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
>> argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
>> be even better.
>>
>> Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
>> replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
>> warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
>> being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
>> this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
>> replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
>> period.
> Sorry, to hear about your dilemma. You stated that the printers were
> lightly used. I think that may have been your problem. From what I've
> been reading on the net, Epson printers use very small nozzles in their
> print heads. If you do not use them on a regular basis the inks tend to
> dry up a clog the heads. I have the C82 model and have also made the
> mistake of not using it on a regular basis. Now I'm starting to have
> print quality issues. Like you, doing a head cleaning doesn't help.
>
>
I have to agree with your assessment. With inkjet printers, inactivity of
the printer is not a good thing. Should print ANYTHING at least once a week
to keep the print heads flowing.

--
M.Stepelton
http://MStepelton.freeservers.com

 

[Guest]

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

There is no warning that I know of on any inkjet that states "Ink will
clog the heads if you do not use it very much even though you have no
need to. We recommend that you waste ink every day" Now if that is
what is required to use the printer they should say so. Lack of that
warning may indeed indicate a design defect. Yet again, there may be no
other way to design them short of an elaborate method of cleaning the
heads with some cheap substance and I do not think we would want to pay
for it.

Too bad that HP carts are so expensive. I think they have dramatically
reduced the problem.

Vic Dura wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:25:47 -0500, RE: Re: Now on my third Epson C86
>"ftran999" <ftran999@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>"Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:2b20cd9f.0503150848.1bda9cd2@posting.google.com...
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
>>>on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
>>>argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
>>>be even better.
>>>
>>>
>
>The exchange service is probably well-used. When you must exchange
>thousands of units weekly, you get good at it.
>
>
>
>>>Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
>>>replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
>>>warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
>>>being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
>>>this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
>>>replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
>>>period.
>>>
>>>
>>Sorry, to hear about your dilemma. You stated that the printers were
>>lightly used. I think that may have been your problem. From what I've been
>>reading on the net, Epson printers use very small nozzles in their print
>>heads. If you do not use them on a regular basis the inks tend to dry up a
>>clog the heads.
>>
>>
>
>Then that would be a design defect.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Epson has had a problem with some of the C and CX printers with the
purge vacuum supply hose falling off of the underside of the cleaning
station during cartridge replacement. Also, some printers are just out
of spec right out of the factory, so the heads don't properly cap and
they dry out. The Durabrite inks are more prone that others to clog and
dry out, it appears from the complaints I see.

I'm not offering any excuses, just "the facts" as I have seen and
experienced them.

Regarding the warranty, I do not know of ANY warranty that starts over
on replacement or repair of an item. The best I have seen is that
usually, if your warranty is about to run out after a repair or
replacement they will extend it for up to 90 days, although more often
about 30 days.

Art

Andrew Mayo wrote:

> I purchased the original unit late September last year. After two
> months it stopped printing yellow & magenta. Head cleaning didn't help
> - and by the time the authorised repair agent had also tried this, my
> cartridges were cleaned out.
>
> Replacement unit has now died exactly the same way. And another fifty
> quid's worth of cartridges got consumed trying to resolve the problem
> - I am not impressed.
>
> Both printers were lightly used, and in a clean, dry room out of
> sunlight and not next to a radiator.
>
> I would advise caution about the purchase of this model and possibly
> its sister printer, the C84. Perhaps I'm unlucky - but 3 printers in
> six months is verging on the statistically unlikely. I'll be writing
> to Epson about it, since I am considerably out of pocket in wasted ink
> cartridges, not to mention time.
>
> I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
> on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
> argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
> be even better.
>
> Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
> replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
> warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
> being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
> this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
> replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
> period.

 

[Guest]

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

If you do not yet have my Epson Cleaning Manual, please email me for a
copy. It is free and you will not be spammed. The manual explains how
to very inexpensively (like $3 worth of household cleaners from your
local grocery) make up cleaning fluid and how to easily resolve most
print quality issues with your printer.

Art

ftran999 wrote:

> "Andrew Mayo" <ajmayo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:2b20cd9f.0503150848.1bda9cd2@posting.google.com...
>
>>I purchased the original unit late September last year. After two
>>months it stopped printing yellow & magenta. Head cleaning didn't help
>>- and by the time the authorised repair agent had also tried this, my
>>cartridges were cleaned out.
>>
>>Replacement unit has now died exactly the same way. And another fifty
>>quid's worth of cartridges got consumed trying to resolve the problem
>>- I am not impressed.
>>
>>Both printers were lightly used, and in a clean, dry room out of
>>sunlight and not next to a radiator.
>>
>>I would advise caution about the purchase of this model and possibly
>>its sister printer, the C84. Perhaps I'm unlucky - but 3 printers in
>>six months is verging on the statistically unlikely. I'll be writing
>>to Epson about it, since I am considerably out of pocket in wasted ink
>>cartridges, not to mention time.
>>
>>I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
>>on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
>>argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
>>be even better.
>>
>>Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
>>replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
>>warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
>>being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
>>this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
>>replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
>>period.
>
> Sorry, to hear about your dilemma. You stated that the printers were
> lightly used. I think that may have been your problem. From what I've been
> reading on the net, Epson printers use very small nozzles in their print
> heads. If you do not use them on a regular basis the inks tend to dry up a
> clog the heads. I have the C82 model and have also made the mistake of not
> using it on a regular basis. Now I'm starting to have print quality issues.
> Like you, doing a head cleaning doesn't help.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I agree, in part. The ink formulation and the cleaning methods need to
be changed, but one consideration is that the clogging problem is most
common with certain climatic conditions, like very dry climates.
Unfortunately if you want to pay under $100 for a printer using pigment
colorant inks, Epson is your only choice right now.

Art

Vic Dura wrote:


>>
>>Sorry, to hear about your dilemma. You stated that the printers were
>>lightly used. I think that may have been your problem. From what I've been
>>reading on the net, Epson printers use very small nozzles in their print
>>heads. If you do not use them on a regular basis the inks tend to dry up a
>>clog the heads.
>
>
> Then that would be a design defect.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Epson has had a problem with some of the C and CX printers with the
> purge vacuum supply hose falling off of the underside of the cleaning
> station during cartridge replacement. Also, some printers are just
> out of spec right out of the factory, so the heads don't properly cap
> and they dry out. The Durabrite inks are more prone that others to
> clog and dry out, it appears from the complaints I see.
>
> I'm not offering any excuses, just "the facts" as I have seen and
> experienced them.
>
> Regarding the warranty, I do not know of ANY warranty that starts over
> on replacement or repair of an item.

I almost agreed with you on this except I just had first hand experience
with one. The screen on my LG phone cause me intermittent problems
tonight. I have 2 months left on a 1 year warranty. I called Verizon
and they are sending me a replacement. When asked, they informed me
that the replacement is warranted for 12 months after I receive it. I
was pleasantly surprised.

> The best I have seen is that usually, if your warranty is about to run
> out after a repair or replacement they will extend it for up to 90
> days, although more often about 30 days.
>
> Art
>
> Andrew Mayo wrote:
>
>> I purchased the original unit late September last year. After two
>> months it stopped printing yellow & magenta. Head cleaning didn't help
>> - and by the time the authorised repair agent had also tried this, my
>> cartridges were cleaned out.
>>
>> Replacement unit has now died exactly the same way. And another fifty
>> quid's worth of cartridges got consumed trying to resolve the problem
>> - I am not impressed.
>>
>> Both printers were lightly used, and in a clean, dry room out of
>> sunlight and not next to a radiator.
>>
>> I would advise caution about the purchase of this model and possibly
>> its sister printer, the C84. Perhaps I'm unlucky - but 3 printers in
>> six months is verging on the statistically unlikely. I'll be writing
>> to Epson about it, since I am considerably out of pocket in wasted ink
>> cartridges, not to mention time.
>>
>> I will say one thing. Epson's exchange service is fantastic; instant,
>> on the spot replacement. You can't fault that, but then, you could
>> argue that not having the damn things break in the first place would
>> be even better.
>>
>> Also, the warranty doesn't start all over again. Oh no. Instead, the
>> replacement units are only warranted for what's left of the original
>> warranty or three months, whichever is longer. That strikes me as
>> being on the shady side of the Sale of Goods Act, and for sure, if
>> this third printer fails, I'll be asking Epson for a refund, since any
>> replacement would have, in my opinion, an unacceptably short warranty
>> period.
>

 

[Guest]

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

As far as how often it was used; probably once a week. This seems
reasonable to me. If the damn thing's going to clog if not used, say,
daily, I think this is a product defect that renders it unsuitable for
purpose under the UK Sale of Goods Act. In fact, there's a good
argument that, frankly, I would expect it to sit idle for up to a
month without clogging. That sounds reasonable - I might go on
holiday, for instance. If I leave my car undriven for a month, I'd
expect it to start next time I use it - any modern car that didn't
reliably start in these circumstances would be rightly criticised
(assuming, of course, your battery is in good order & you didn't leave
the lights on).

I'm certainly going to discuss this in writing with Epson. I will post
their response, if any.

Meanwhile, as to the warranty of replaced equipment, I can't find
anything definitive inasmuch as the warranty is an entirely separate
contract and does not affect any rights under the Sale of Goods Act,
which, interestingly, applies for up to six years after purchase. One
woman successfully won a case against a high street retailer for a
washing machine that failed after 18 months, for example.

I had heard about the dislodged pipe problem but understood this to
have applied only to the C82 model; it will be interesting to see
whether there is a generic fault. If there is, I certainly expect
compensation for my cartridges, I have to say.

 

[Guest]

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

Well, that is indeed a unique company, I hope they can justify
continuing to do so.

Art

measekite wrote:


>>
>> Regarding the warranty, I do not know of ANY warranty that starts over
>> on replacement or repair of an item.
>
>
> I almost agreed with you on this except I just had first hand experience
> with one. The screen on my LG phone cause me intermittent problems
> tonight. I have 2 months left on a 1 year warranty. I called Verizon
> and they are sending me a replacement. When asked, they informed me
> that the replacement is warranted for 12 months after I receive it. I
> was pleasantly surprised.
>
>> The best I have seen is that usually, if your warranty is about to run
>> out after a repair or replacement they will extend it for up to 90
>> days, although more often about 30 days.
>>
>> Art
>>

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:14:36 GMT, RE: Re: Now on my third Epson C86
Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:

>Well, that is indeed a unique company, I hope they can justify
>continuing to do so.

When a company makes a reliable product they can afford to have very
generous warranty terms as the warranty is seldom needed.

It's been my experience that the more stringent the warranty terms the
less reliable the product.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the XXX characters from my email address.

 

[Guest]

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

Andrew Mayo wrote:

>As far as how often it was used; probably once a week. This seems
>reasonable to me. If the damn thing's going to clog if not used, say,
>daily, I think this is a product defect that renders it unsuitable for
>purpose under the UK Sale of Goods Act.
>
I do not know about UK laws but I agree that once a week is reasonable.
I wonder how many they would sell if there was a big warning on the out
side of the box that says: "This printer is without warranty of any
kind if not used on a daily basis. Failure to print daily can result in
print head clogs that may render the printer useless" I am not
advocating this extreme measure by any means but if printing once a week
or even once every few weeks is not adequate, it may be considered a
design failure. The majority of people who buy printers, especially for
printing photos are holiday and occasion photographers and print
relatively infrequently and many only show up on a newsgroup like this,
if at all, when they have a problem they cannot find an answer to via
the "normal" channels.

>In fact, there's a good
>argument that, frankly, I would expect it to sit idle for up to a
>month without clogging.
>
Amen!

>That sounds reasonable - I might go on
>holiday, for instance. If I leave my car undriven for a month, I'd
>expect it to start next time I use it - any modern car that didn't
>reliably start in these circumstances would be rightly criticised
>(assuming, of course, your battery is in good order & you didn't leave
>the lights on).
>
>I'm certainly going to discuss this in writing with Epson. I will post
>their response, if any.
>
>Meanwhile, as to the warranty of replaced equipment, I can't find
>anything definitive inasmuch as the warranty is an entirely separate
>contract and does not affect any rights under the Sale of Goods Act,
>which, interestingly, applies for up to six years after purchase. One
>woman successfully won a case against a high street retailer for a
>washing machine that failed after 18 months, for example.
>
>I had heard about the dislodged pipe problem but understood this to
>have applied only to the C82 model; it will be interesting to see
>whether there is a generic fault. If there is, I certainly expect
>compensation for my cartridges, I have to say.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Hyundai has a generous warranty and so does Kia. Kia is rated a number
1 killing machine in crash tests and both, while looking nice and have
good points are rating poorly by all who rate autos. When compared to
the Japanese counterparts for a few hundred more, there is no
comparison. The warranty on the Japanese cars is not as generous.

Vic Dura wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:14:36 GMT, RE: Re: Now on my third Epson C86
>Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Well, that is indeed a unique company, I hope they can justify
>>continuing to do so.
>>
>>
>
>When a company makes a reliable product they can afford to have very
>generous warranty terms as the warranty is seldom needed.
>
>It's been my experience that the more stringent the warranty terms the
>less reliable the product.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j7_Zd.19244$Pz7.18332@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Hyundai has a generous warranty and so does Kia. Kia is rated a number 1
> killing machine in crash tests and both, while looking nice and have good
> points are rating poorly by all who rate autos. When compared to the
> Japanese counterparts for a few hundred more, there is no comparison. The
> warranty on the Japanese cars is not as generous.
>

How many people have been killed by a printer recently?

 

[Guest]

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

On 16-Mar-2005, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >In fact, there's a good
> >argument that, frankly, I would expect it to sit idle for up to a
> >month without clogging.
> >
> Amen!

You expect Epson to care a damm!!! How naive!
They sell ink, most of which goes on cleaning heads,
at rip-off prices, if the printer packs up they sell
you a new one. They are laughing all the way to
the bank, and at your expense.

If you don't buy another Epson all the Pacific Rim
manufacturers source one anothers parts, use
virtually slave labour, and as a result are the worlds
fastest growing economy. For our part we pay the
local council to cart them off for landfill.

 

[Guest]

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

My dye ink Epson printers can sometimes sit idle for months (i have
quite a few and they aren't all in use regularly) and they usually are
fine after one or two utility cleanings. However, those running resin
and pigment inks may be more difficult to get going after long periods
without use.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Andrew Mayo wrote:
>
>> As far as how often it was used; probably once a week. This seems
>> reasonable to me. If the damn thing's going to clog if not used, say,
>> daily, I think this is a product defect that renders it unsuitable for
>> purpose under the UK Sale of Goods Act.
>
> I do not know about UK laws but I agree that once a week is reasonable.
> I wonder how many they would sell if there was a big warning on the out
> side of the box that says: "This printer is without warranty of any
> kind if not used on a daily basis. Failure to print daily can result in
> print head clogs that may render the printer useless" I am not
> advocating this extreme measure by any means but if printing once a week
> or even once every few weeks is not adequate, it may be considered a
> design failure. The majority of people who buy printers, especially for
> printing photos are holiday and occasion photographers and print
> relatively infrequently and many only show up on a newsgroup like this,
> if at all, when they have a problem they cannot find an answer to via
> the "normal" channels.
>
>> In fact, there's a good
>> argument that, frankly, I would expect it to sit idle for up to a
>> month without clogging.
>
> Amen!
>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> My dye ink Epson printers can sometimes sit idle for months (i have
> quite a few and they aren't all in use regularly) and they usually are
> fine after one or two utility cleanings.


Even so, I hear from other users on this NG that these Utility cleanings
on an Epson use a great deal of ink. I also heard that the deep
cleaning on the Canon (the heavier one) uses a lot of ink as well. Why
don't the mfg sell a cheap cleaning cart filled with cleaning solution
for this. Better yet, this should be an extra tank in the printer that
uses all of the nozzles. I know this is not in their best interest from
a profit point of view but if one mfg did this they might corner the
market and force the others to be competitive.

> However, those running resin and pigment inks may be more difficult to
> get going after long periods without use.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Mayo wrote:
>>
>>> As far as how often it was used; probably once a week. This seems
>>> reasonable to me. If the damn thing's going to clog if not used, say,
>>> daily, I think this is a product defect that renders it unsuitable for
>>> purpose under the UK Sale of Goods Act.
>>
>>
>> I do not know about UK laws but I agree that once a week is
>> reasonable. I wonder how many they would sell if there was a big
>> warning on the out side of the box that says: "This printer is
>> without warranty of any kind if not used on a daily basis. Failure
>> to print daily can result in print head clogs that may render the
>> printer useless" I am not advocating this extreme measure by any
>> means but if printing once a week or even once every few weeks is not
>> adequate, it may be considered a design failure. The majority of
>> people who buy printers, especially for printing photos are holiday
>> and occasion photographers and print relatively infrequently and many
>> only show up on a newsgroup like this, if at all, when they have a
>> problem they cannot find an answer to via the "normal" channels.
>>
>>> In fact, there's a good
>>> argument that, frankly, I would expect it to sit idle for up to a
>>> month without clogging.
>>
>>
>> Amen!
>>

 

[Guest]

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

measekite wrote:
I agree with you, there are a number of design ideas I came up with to
help resolve this matter, but none use up as much inks as beautifully as
the current methods. ;-)

Art
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> My dye ink Epson printers can sometimes sit idle for months (i have
>> quite a few and they aren't all in use regularly) and they usually are
>> fine after one or two utility cleanings.
>
>
>
> Even so, I hear from other users on this NG that these Utility cleanings
> on an Epson use a great deal of ink. I also heard that the deep
> cleaning on the Canon (the heavier one) uses a lot of ink as well. Why
> don't the mfg sell a cheap cleaning cart filled with cleaning solution
> for this. Better yet, this should be an extra tank in the printer that
> uses all of the nozzles. I know this is not in their best interest from
> a profit point of view but if one mfg did this they might corner the
> market and force the others to be competitive.
>
>> However, those running resin and pigment inks may be more difficult to
>> get going after long periods without use.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>