Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Chipped Epson cartridges.

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
April 16, 2005 1:34:47 AM

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

Due to problems with a clogged printer head, and repeated cleaning
operations, my new epson original ink cartridges report that they are only
60% full now - when in fact I know they must be 100% since there hasn't been
a drop out of them yet.

I have an Epson CX5200 and wonder if there is a simple way of resetting the
chip, or indeed if they will run as an unknown vendor if the chip is
removed. I am aware that some of Epson inkjet printers (ie C680) will run on
chipped and unchipped - a message just appears which you ignore.

So can I simply remove or short the chip on the refill cartridge to get to
my remaining ink?

The cartridge numbers are (EPSON: T0321, T0422, T0423, T0424).

Thanks in advance for feedback.

Terry
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:34:48 AM

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

Attention Epson Owners:

I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.

anon wrote:

>Due to problems with a clogged printer head, and repeated cleaning
>operations, my new epson original ink cartridges report that they are only
>60% full now - when in fact I know they must be 100% since there hasn't been
>a drop out of them yet.
>
>I have an Epson CX5200 and wonder if there is a simple way of resetting the
>chip, or indeed if they will run as an unknown vendor if the chip is
>removed. I am aware that some of Epson inkjet printers (ie C680) will run on
>chipped and unchipped - a message just appears which you ignore.
>
>So can I simply remove or short the chip on the refill cartridge to get to
>my remaining ink?
>
>The cartridge numbers are (EPSON: T0321, T0422, T0423, T0424).
>
>Thanks in advance for feedback.
>
>Terry
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:34:48 AM

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

ok, it's very possible to make it.
however, you need to make sure the chipset is sticking with the
cartridge tightly when the cartridge housing travel from right to left,
left to right.
also, make sure you get a auto-resetable chipset which doesnt need the
resetter to reset the ink level. this can eliminate the chance of
damage the golden part of print head - the part to read up the chipset.

Another alternative way to get rid of clogging nightmare is to use the
spongeless bulk ink kit:
for example:
http://www.inkrepublic.com

their chipset is designed to avoid cleaning operation, it can save you
a lot of ink. (of course, save $$$ too)
Related resources
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:06:42 AM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nGV7e.2018$J12.1325@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Attention Epson Owners:
>
> I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
> printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
> with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets. Epson
> owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days WordPerfect
> owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>
Yea, its a good job Epson printers produce some the best quality photo-image
printouts, have reliable mechanism that don't fall to bits after a couple of
years, don't normally clog for 90% of people who use their printers on a
semi-regular basis (more than once a month or so - although that said I have
a an Epson 460 that got used about twice last year and it didn't clog), can
generally be cleaned if blocked when you know the trick of cleaning solution
on the cap assembly's pad, and have prints that have been shown to last for
more than 6 months before fading (with one or two exceptions)... otherwise
nobody would bother buying their printers would they?
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:14:56 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Attention Epson Owners:
>
>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
>WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>
The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
Lexmark...


--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:01:34 AM

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

Hecate wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>
>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
>>WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>
>>
>>
>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>Lexmark...
>
>

I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
amateurs. So I stand by what I said.

>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:04:09 AM

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

Ivor Floppy wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:nGV7e.2018$J12.1325@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>
>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets. Epson
>>owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days WordPerfect
>>owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>
>>
>>
>Yea, its a good job Epson printers produce some the best quality photo-image
>printouts, have reliable mechanism that don't fall to bits after a couple of
>years, don't normally clog for 90% of people
>

I guess we find the other 10% here! :-)

>who use their printers on a
>semi-regular basis (more than once a month or so - although that said I have
>a an Epson 460 that got used about twice last year and it didn't clog), can
>generally be cleaned if blocked when you know the trick of cleaning solution
>on the cap assembly's pad, and have prints that have been shown to last for
>more than 6 months before fading (with one or two exceptions)... otherwise
>nobody would bother buying their printers would they?
>
>
>
>
>
April 16, 2005 5:31:48 AM

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

Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he has
NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000! That doesn't push
any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my Mitsubishi 9000W.I also
have my own darkroom,and at times,still use film!I went through this same
thing in the 70s.Some people were pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had
both,and used both! I still use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy
anything by brand,I buy the BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the
job at hand!Epson at the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be
Canon!
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>
>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days WordPerfect
>>>owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>
>>>
>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>Lexmark...
>>
>
> I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
> most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
> NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
> amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>
>>
>> --
>>
>>Hecate - The Real One
>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>
April 16, 2005 3:37:37 PM

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

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Attention Epson Owners:
>>>
>>> I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>> printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>> problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon
>>> inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order
>>> days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>> number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>> than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>> many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>> for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>> Lexmark...
>>
>>
>
> I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
> most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
> NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
> amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Hecate - The Real One
>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>
>>
You have no idea what you're talking about. My brother is a professional
products photographer for over 30 years and uses Epson printers.
BTW, you're a hobbyists right so what do you photograph and what do you
print?
Frank
April 16, 2005 9:49:12 PM

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

My niece just graduated from a highly regarded graphics design program.
When she entered that program she was advised to purchase an Epson 1280
printer. Epsons are apparently the choice of graphics professionals as
well as professional photographers.

"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:iYCdnW31fKnILP3fRVn-2w@centurytel.net...
> Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
> group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
> printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he
> has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000! That doesn't
> push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my Mitsubishi 9000W.I
> also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use film!I went through this
> same thing in the 70s.Some people were pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm
> slrs.I had both,and used both! I still use both makes of digital slrs!I
> don't buy anything by brand,I buy the BEST camera or printer,or anything
> else,for the job at hand!Epson at the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow
> it could be Canon!
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>> Hecate wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>
>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
>>>>WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>Lexmark...
>>>
>>
>> I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>> most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
>> NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>> amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:29:30 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:01:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Hecate wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>
>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
>>>WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>Lexmark...
>>
>>
>
>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
>NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>
>>
<shrug>

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:30:48 AM

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:04:09 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
>I guess we find the other 10% here! :-)
>
No, you just make the assumption that what is reported here is
representative. It isn't.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:30:01 AM

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

Douglas wrote:

>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
>group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
>printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he has
>NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>

No true. 8.5x11

>That doesn't push
>any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my Mitsubishi 9000W.I also
>have my own darkroom,and at times,still use film!I went through this same
>thing in the 70s.Some people were pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had
>both,and used both! I still use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy
>anything by brand,I buy the BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the
>job at hand!Epson at the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be
>Canon!
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Hecate wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>
>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days WordPerfect
>>>>owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>Lexmark...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>>most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
>>NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>>amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
April 17, 2005 6:30:02 AM

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

Do you remember this?You posted it!

I have not tried an 8x10 (I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by
then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight
class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
>>group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
>>printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he
>>has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>
> No true. 8.5x11
>
>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use film!I
>>went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were pro-Canon,some
>>pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still use both makes of
>>digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy the BEST camera or
>>printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson at the moment is the
>>tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>>>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>>>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
>>>>>WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>>>most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
>>>NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>>>amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:31:30 AM

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

Douglas wrote:

>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>
>I have not tried an 8x10
>

That is different from 8.5x11.

>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by
>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight
>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
>>>group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
>>>printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he
>>>has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>>>
>>>
>>No true. 8.5x11
>>
>>
>>
>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use film!I
>>>went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were pro-Canon,some
>>>pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still use both makes of
>>>digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy the BEST camera or
>>>printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson at the moment is the
>>>tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>>>>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>>>>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
>>>>>>WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>>>>most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type of
>>>>NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>>>>amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
April 17, 2005 8:31:31 AM

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

Good try ! I think we ALL can see you are full of it!
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>
>>I have not tried an 8x10
>
> That is different from 8.5x11.
>
>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by
>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight
>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
>>>>group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
>>>>printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he
>>>>has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>>>>
>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>
>>>
>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use
>>>>film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still use
>>>>both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy the BEST
>>>>camera or printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson at the
>>>>moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>>>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>>>>>>problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon
>>>>>>>inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order
>>>>>>>days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>>>>>most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type
>>>>>of NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>>>>>amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
April 17, 2005 8:31:31 AM

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

How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size paper,but
8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond on digital
cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge of!Just remember,what
you write can come back to make you look foolish!
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>
>>I have not tried an 8x10
>
> That is different from 8.5x11.
>
>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by
>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight
>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
>>>>group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
>>>>printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he
>>>>has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>>>>
>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>
>>>
>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use
>>>>film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still use
>>>>both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy the BEST
>>>>camera or printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson at the
>>>>moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>>>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>>>>>>problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon
>>>>>>>inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order
>>>>>>>days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>>>>>most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type
>>>>>of NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>>>>>amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:20:02 PM

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

No one can accuse me of being brand loyal, because if you saw my home,
you'd know that's just not the case. I buy what is, as well as I can
determine at the time, the best quality at the lowest price, with et
best reliability.

The reason, in spite of some adversity, people go to Epson is that they
see a quality difference in the output, or the output has certain
qualities they were attempting to reach.

With very few exceptions, Epson heads almost never burn out and they can
handle, within reason, a great variety of ink. They have a great many
paper media to choose from.

No one I know likes Epson's methods of marketing "techniques" to sell
more ink. People don't appreciate the ink level chips, the waste ink
and pad replacement, etc. I don't own a single Epson printer with those
chips. I no longer buy Epson ink.

However, in terms of general durability and quality of build, overall,
Epson has had good designs, and image quality is also toward if not at
the top.

Art



measekite wrote:

> Attention Epson Owners:
>
> I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
> printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
> with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
> Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
> WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:21:01 PM

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

Interesting, I wrote my reply before seeing yours, and I basically said
the same thing.

Art

Hecate wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>
>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many problems.
>>with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon inkjets.
>>Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order days
>>WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>
>
> The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
> number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
> than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
> many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
> for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
> Lexmark...
>
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:27:09 PM

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

Actually, that's a true statement. A certain percentage of people come
to these NGs because they are having a problem, and they will be gone
again as soon as it is resolved. However, if you search the groups on
printing, you will still probably find more Epson users, and that is due
to the slant to professionals who use them.

Art

measekite wrote:


>>>
>>
>> Yea, its a good job Epson printers produce some the best quality
>> photo-image printouts, have reliable mechanism that don't fall to bits
>> after a couple of years, don't normally clog for 90% of people
>
>
> I guess we find the other 10% here! :-)
>
>> who use their printers on a semi-regular basis (more than once a month
>> or so - although that said I have a an Epson 460 that got used about
>> twice last year and it didn't clog), can generally be cleaned if
>> blocked when you know the trick of cleaning solution on the cap
>> assembly's pad, and have prints that have been shown to last for more
>> than 6 months before fading (with one or two exceptions)... otherwise
>> nobody would bother buying their printers would they?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:06:53 PM

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

8x10 has been the standard size for film. Letter size is fast becoming
the standard size for digital. 16x20 has been another large standard
size for film. Now how are you going to print that on a 13x19 printer?
Look for a new standard size for large format.

Douglas wrote:

>How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size paper,but
>8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond on digital
>cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge of!Just remember,what
>you write can come back to make you look foolish!
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>>
>>>I have not tried an 8x10
>>>
>>>
>>That is different from 8.5x11.
>>
>>
>>
>>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by
>>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight
>>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent this
>>>>>group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes decent
>>>>>printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous posts,he
>>>>>has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use
>>>>>film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still use
>>>>>both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy the BEST
>>>>>camera or printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson at the
>>>>>moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>>>>>>>>printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>>>>>>>problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon
>>>>>>>>inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order
>>>>>>>>days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more often
>>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional photographer,
>>>>>>most of the true professional photographers do not frequent this type
>>>>>>of NG. What is found on this group are mainly Hobbyists and Serious
>>>>>>amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
April 17, 2005 7:06:54 PM

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

The reason "letter size" paper is used is because most prints that large
still require borders! Most printers will print borderless 4x6,but not
8.5x11! If you look at ANY of the photo programs,8x10 will be a default size
print.The size of paper a printer will except does not mean that is the
largest size it will print! When you start printing larger than 4x6,you will
see that!
The more you go on,the more foolish you look!
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hYu8e.32$Xb4.12@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> 8x10 has been the standard size for film. Letter size is fast becoming
> the standard size for digital. 16x20 has been another large standard size
> for film. Now how are you going to print that on a 13x19 printer? Look
> for a new standard size for large format.
>
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size
>>paper,but 8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond on
>>digital cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge of!Just
>>remember,what you write can come back to make you look foolish!
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>>>
>>>>I have not tried an 8x10
>>>>
>>>That is different from 8.5x11.
>>>
>>>
>>>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by
>>>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight
>>>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent
>>>>>>this group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes
>>>>>>decent printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous
>>>>>>posts,he has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use
>>>>>>film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still
>>>>>>use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy the
>>>>>>BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson at
>>>>>>the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly
>>>>>>>>>bad printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>>>>>>>>problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and
>>>>>>>>>Canon inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the
>>>>>>>>>order days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more
>>>>>>>>often
>>>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional
>>>>>>>photographer, most of the true professional photographers do not
>>>>>>>frequent this type of NG. What is found on this group are mainly
>>>>>>>Hobbyists and Serious amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
April 17, 2005 7:06:55 PM

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

I almost forgot your remark on 13x19 printers.My new EPSON takes 17x22
media,resulting in the 16x20 trimmed print!The 13x19 printer is designed to
top out at a 12" wide print.You can make 4 4x6 prints on a sheet of 8x12
paper.You get 3 on a sheet of 8.5x11,the rest is waste.Before you say no one
uses 8x12,I do!Now I will be sure to let ALL the printer manufacturers know
they should contact you for the "NEW"standard photo sizes!
"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:mtmdnYDBnu2HGv_fRVn-vA@centurytel.net...
> The reason "letter size" paper is used is because most prints that large
> still require borders! Most printers will print borderless 4x6,but not
> 8.5x11! If you look at ANY of the photo programs,8x10 will be a default
> size print.The size of paper a printer will except does not mean that is
> the largest size it will print! When you start printing larger than
> 4x6,you will see that!
> The more you go on,the more foolish you look!
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hYu8e.32$Xb4.12@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> 8x10 has been the standard size for film. Letter size is fast becoming
>> the standard size for digital. 16x20 has been another large standard
>> size for film. Now how are you going to print that on a 13x19 printer?
>> Look for a new standard size for large format.
>>
>> Douglas wrote:
>>
>>>How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size
>>>paper,but 8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond on
>>>digital cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge of!Just
>>>remember,what you write can come back to make you look foolish!
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>>>>
>>>>>I have not tried an 8x10
>>>>>
>>>>That is different from 8.5x11.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>>>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope
>>>>>by
>>>>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>>>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and
>>>>>weight
>>>>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent
>>>>>>>this group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes
>>>>>>>decent printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites
>>>>>>>previous posts,he has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his
>>>>>>>ip4000!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>>>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use
>>>>>>>film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still
>>>>>>>use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy
>>>>>>>the BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson
>>>>>>>at the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly
>>>>>>>>>>bad printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>>>>>>>>>problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and
>>>>>>>>>>Canon inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the
>>>>>>>>>>order days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more
>>>>>>>>>often
>>>>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional
>>>>>>>>photographer, most of the true professional photographers do not
>>>>>>>>frequent this type of NG. What is found on this group are mainly
>>>>>>>>Hobbyists and Serious amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with
>>>>>>>>>money
>>>>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:23:21 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> No one can accuse me of being brand loyal, because if you saw my home,
> you'd know that's just not the case. I buy what is, as well as I can
> determine at the time, the best quality at the lowest price, with et
> best reliability.
>
> The reason, in spite of some adversity, people go to Epson is that
> they see a quality difference in the output, or the output has certain
> qualities they were attempting to reach.
>
> With very few exceptions, Epson heads almost never burn out and they
> can handle, within reason, a great variety of ink. They have a great
> many paper media to choose from.


Do you also include the R800/1800 in this statement? You also said that
most of these users stick with OEM Epson ink.

>
> No one I know likes Epson's methods of marketing "techniques" to sell
> more ink. People don't appreciate the ink level chips, the waste ink
> and pad replacement, etc.


Each of these items screams to buy a Canon. Epson, in an abstract sort
of way, can be perceived as 2 companys. One making dye based printers
like the R300 and another making archival based pigmented printers like
the R800.

When comparing the R300 dye based printer against the Canon Pixma dye
based printers Canon appears to get higher quality photo results, much
better business document results, substantially faster, more features in
the fact that they have two paper feeds coupled with duplex capability
and cost less. The carts have not chips, far less residual ink to toss,
and are about 20% less on the average.

As fat as comparing the PIXMA to the R800, the analysis will require
some deeper comparisons because this thing of archival ability is really
not down to a science at the present time.

> I don't own a single Epson printer with those chips. I no longer buy
> Epson ink.


If you think the current line of Epson (R300) is so good why don't you
get one? If you think that the pigmented inks of the R800 are have such
longevity that is so important then why don't you have one? And if you
think Epson inks and papers are the cats meow then why aren't you using
them. My guess is that you think they may be better but not enough to
justify the cost.

>
> However, in terms of general durability and quality of build, overall,
> Epson has had good designs, and image quality is also toward if not at
> the top.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> Attention Epson Owners:
>>
>> I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly bad
>> printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>> problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and Canon
>> inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the order
>> days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:32:26 PM

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

Another thing I noticed in this NG. There are very few regular
players. You got a couple of regular hawkers, a few Epson supporters, a
few Canon supporters, far fewer HP supporters and no real Lexmark
supporters. The rest are people that come and ago according to their
problems.

Therefore, the information you get about any one group of printer is far
from a consensus of the way people really feel out there in many cases.

However, in all cases, the majority of inkjet users feel that the price
of ink is out of line, that Epson printers users more ink than others,
that Epson chips are a pain in the ass, that Epson and HP ink costs too
much, and that notwithstanding costs, HP probably has the best idea
using replaceable heads.

But many of the quotes here are also from detailed tests from
professional reviewers that do have some credibility even though you
should question some of their motivations.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Actually, that's a true statement. A certain percentage of people
> come to these NGs because they are having a problem, and they will be
> gone again as soon as it is resolved. However, if you search the
> groups on printing, you will still probably find more Epson users, and
> that is due to the slant to professionals who use them.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yea, its a good job Epson printers produce some the best quality
>>> photo-image printouts, have reliable mechanism that don't fall to
>>> bits after a couple of years, don't normally clog for 90% of people
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess we find the other 10% here! :-)
>>
>>> who use their printers on a semi-regular basis (more than once a
>>> month or so - although that said I have a an Epson 460 that got used
>>> about twice last year and it didn't clog), can generally be cleaned
>>> if blocked when you know the trick of cleaning solution on the cap
>>> assembly's pad, and have prints that have been shown to last for
>>> more than 6 months before fading (with one or two exceptions)...
>>> otherwise nobody would bother buying their printers would they?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:59:28 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:21:01 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artistic@telus.net>
wrote:

>Interesting, I wrote my reply before seeing yours, and I basically said
>the same thing.
>
That's cause great minds think alike ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
April 18, 2005 2:50:29 PM

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

The original question I asked was about can I simply remove or short the
chip on the refill cartridge to get to my remaining ink?

I did not intend this topic to become a discussion of whose printer is best.
I personally like Epson printers, and to me their drawbacks are only in two
areas as far as I am concerned.
1. clogging
2. cost of inks.

As commented to someone else - if Epson were to have simple transparent ink
cartridges like the Canon so that the user could see when they need
replacing then chipping
would be unnecessary. Most of my cartridges are still over half full when
the printer says they are empty.

However - at this moment in time I point everyone to the original question.
Can I remove or somehow get the printer to ignore the chip?
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:50:30 PM

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

In article <d4009c$7vd$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, ngr@tdrd.freeserve.co.uk
says...
> The original question I asked was about can I simply remove or short the
> chip on the refill cartridge to get to my remaining ink?
>
> I did not intend this topic to become a discussion of whose printer is best.
> I personally like Epson printers, and to me their drawbacks are only in two
> areas as far as I am concerned.
> 1. clogging
> 2. cost of inks.
>
> As commented to someone else - if Epson were to have simple transparent ink
> cartridges like the Canon so that the user could see when they need
> replacing then chipping
> would be unnecessary. Most of my cartridges are still over half full when
> the printer says they are empty.
>
> However - at this moment in time I point everyone to the original question.
> Can I remove or somehow get the printer to ignore the chip?
>
For about $25 or so you can buy an electronic device that will reset the
chips to indicate that they are full. Then you can continue to use the
cartridge until you run out of ink.
At this point you will have air in the supply lines and will waste just
as much ink running a series of cleaning cycles to get the air out.

If you want to buy a resetter a simple online search will find several
dealers.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:56:17 PM

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

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> No one can accuse me of being brand loyal, because if you saw my home,
>> you'd know that's just not the case. I buy what is, as well as I can
>> determine at the time, the best quality at the lowest price, with et
>> best reliability.
>>
>> The reason, in spite of some adversity, people go to Epson is that
>> they see a quality difference in the output, or the output has certain
>> qualities they were attempting to reach.
>>
>> With very few exceptions, Epson heads almost never burn out and they
>> can handle, within reason, a great variety of ink. They have a great
>> many paper media to choose from.
>
>
>
> Do you also include the R800/1800 in this statement? You also said that
> most of these users stick with OEM Epson ink.

These printers, in specific, are the state of the art in color photo
printers. Until very recently, there were no 3rd party inks made for
them. The inks are just now appearing and I have no idea how close in
color they are to the originals, or how well they mimic the qualities
Ultrachrome inks supply. For people who need absolute color accuracy,
these printers with Epson OEM inks, provide archival quality and color
accuracy. Those are things people are willing to pay for, and do. For
those selling their work in galleries, these printers provide the tools
they need. For others, they are less important features, and other less
costly printers supply alternatives.
>
>>
>> No one I know likes Epson's methods of marketing "techniques" to sell
>> more ink. People don't appreciate the ink level chips, the waste ink
>> and pad replacement, etc.
>
>
> Each of these items screams to buy a Canon. Epson, in an abstract sort
> of way, can be perceived as 2 companys. One making dye based printers
> like the R300 and another making archival based pigmented printers like
> the R800.
>

Each of these issues needs to be weighed by the potential client. Some
people buy 3rd party inks or ink resetters and refill their cartridges.
You'll get no argument from me that the waste ink pad game Epson plays
is not ethical (IMHO).

I have also proposed that Epson could easily go into the professional
printer market and drop the consumer market, in terms of market share,
BUT, the consumer general market buy a LOT of ink and many still buy
OEM, so for Epson that's an advantage they are unwilling to let go of.

> When comparing the R300 dye based printer against the Canon Pixma dye
> based printers Canon appears to get higher quality photo results, much
> better business document results, substantially faster, more features in
> the fact that they have two paper feeds coupled with duplex capability
> and cost less. The carts have not chips, far less residual ink to toss,
> and are about 20% less on the average.

The only problem I see with this issue is the Canon inks are still too
fugitive, and for some the idea of a head that is "semi-permament"
doesn't sit well.

> As fat as comparing the PIXMA to the R800, the analysis will require
> some deeper comparisons because this thing of archival ability is really
> not down to a science at the present time.
>
>> I don't own a single Epson printer with those chips. I no longer buy
>> Epson ink.
>
>
>
> If you think the current line of Epson (R300) is so good why don't you
> get one? If you think that the pigmented inks of the R800 are have such
> longevity that is so important then why don't you have one? And if you
> think Epson inks and papers are the cats meow then why aren't you using
> them. My guess is that you think they may be better but not enough to
> justify the cost.
>

I explained... I) I don't need another printer, I have half a dozen
which I use for differing output. I don't even own a "photo" printer
(one with the light dye load inks) because I was opposed to that
technology being used as the way to improve color accuracy and
smoothness. I always advocated for smaller dot size. I don't like low
dye load inks. They are more vulnerable to fading as far as I can
logically determine. They waste ink to get to the same place, so I
won't buy into that option either.

I do use a number of Epson papers, and have hundreds of dollars worth
right next to me. I also use other brands, for specific applications.

You see, I don't see things in black and white (or should I say stark
contrasts) as you tend to. I like having a wide paper use available,
and ultimately a wide ink market, as well. I am not a "loupehead". I
believe if the image looks good from appropriate viewing distance, it's
a reasonable print.

I can appreciate tight sharp prints, but I'm not obsessed to produce
them at this time, so I use older printers. I have one that can go to
2880 dpi, but I still only use it at 720 dpi or 1440 dpi when I print in
it, because it is too slow otherwise, and I can barely see any difference.

Art

>>
>> However, in terms of general durability and quality of build, overall,
>> Epson has had good designs, and image quality is also toward if not at
>> the top.
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 6:08:53 PM

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

The easiest way to empty the cartridge of ink is to buy a cheap ink
resetter (probably under $5 these days on ebay) that will reset the
cartridge chip to read "new" and then use the cartridge until it runs
dry. It could introduce air locks into the head however.

Art


anon wrote:

> The original question I asked was about can I simply remove or short the
> chip on the refill cartridge to get to my remaining ink?
>
> I did not intend this topic to become a discussion of whose printer is best.
> I personally like Epson printers, and to me their drawbacks are only in two
> areas as far as I am concerned.
> 1. clogging
> 2. cost of inks.
>
> As commented to someone else - if Epson were to have simple transparent ink
> cartridges like the Canon so that the user could see when they need
> replacing then chipping
> would be unnecessary. Most of my cartridges are still over half full when
> the printer says they are empty.
>
> However - at this moment in time I point everyone to the original question.
> Can I remove or somehow get the printer to ignore the chip?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:40:42 PM

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

Douglas wrote:

>The reason "letter size" paper is used is because most prints that large
>still require borders! Most printers will print borderless 4x6,but not
>8.5x11!
>

Wake up and smell the roses. Go look at the Canon Pixma IP series of
printers.

>If you look at ANY of the photo programs,8x10 will be a default size
>print.
>

The too will catch up.

>The size of paper a printer will except does not mean that is the
>largest size it will print! When you start printing larger than 4x6,you will
>see that!
>
>

It will be a cute trick when I can print a 13x19 print in my Canon IP4000.

>The more you go on,the more foolish you look!
>
>
ha ha ha ha ha ha
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hYu8e.32$Xb4.12@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>8x10 has been the standard size for film. Letter size is fast becoming
>>the standard size for digital. 16x20 has been another large standard size
>>for film. Now how are you going to print that on a 13x19 printer? Look
>>for a new standard size for large format.
>>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size
>>>paper,but 8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond on
>>>digital cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge of!Just
>>>remember,what you write can come back to make you look foolish!
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>>>>
>>>>>I have not tried an 8x10
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>That is different from 8.5x11.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>>>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by
>>>>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>>>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight
>>>>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent
>>>>>>>this group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes
>>>>>>>decent printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites previous
>>>>>>>posts,he has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his ip4000!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>>>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use
>>>>>>>film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still
>>>>>>>use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy the
>>>>>>>BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson at
>>>>>>>the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly
>>>>>>>>>>bad printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>>>>>>>>>problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and
>>>>>>>>>>Canon inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the
>>>>>>>>>>order days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more
>>>>>>>>>often
>>>>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional
>>>>>>>>photographer, most of the true professional photographers do not
>>>>>>>>frequent this type of NG. What is found on this group are mainly
>>>>>>>>Hobbyists and Serious amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>>>>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:45:25 PM

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

Douglas wrote:

>I almost forgot your remark on 13x19 printers.My new EPSON takes 17x22
>media,resulting in the 16x20 trimmed print!
>


So you place a sheet of paper in your printer that is 13" wide by 19"
long and the printer spits out a piece of paper that is 16" wide x 20"
long. That is 8-)

>The 13x19 printer is designed to
>top out at a 12" wide print.You can make 4 4x6 prints on a sheet of 8x12
>paper.You get 3 on a sheet of 8.5x11,the rest is waste.Before you say no one
>uses 8x12,I do!Now I will be sure to let ALL the printer manufacturers know
>they should contact you for the "NEW"standard photo sizes!
>"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:mtmdnYDBnu2HGv_fRVn-vA@centurytel.net...
>
>
>>The reason "letter size" paper is used is because most prints that large
>>still require borders! Most printers will print borderless 4x6,but not
>>8.5x11! If you look at ANY of the photo programs,8x10 will be a default
>>size print.The size of paper a printer will except does not mean that is
>>the largest size it will print! When you start printing larger than
>>4x6,you will see that!
>>The more you go on,the more foolish you look!
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:hYu8e.32$Xb4.12@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>>8x10 has been the standard size for film. Letter size is fast becoming
>>>the standard size for digital. 16x20 has been another large standard
>>>size for film. Now how are you going to print that on a 13x19 printer?
>>>Look for a new standard size for large format.
>>>
>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size
>>>>paper,but 8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond on
>>>>digital cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge of!Just
>>>>remember,what you write can come back to make you look foolish!
>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have not tried an 8x10
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>That is different from 8.5x11.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>>>>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>>>>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and
>>>>>>weight
>>>>>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent
>>>>>>>>this group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes
>>>>>>>>decent printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites
>>>>>>>>previous posts,he has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with his
>>>>>>>>ip4000!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from my
>>>>>>>>Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still use
>>>>>>>>film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I still
>>>>>>>>use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by brand,I buy
>>>>>>>>the BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the job at hand!Epson
>>>>>>>>at the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be Canon!
>>>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only truly
>>>>>>>>>>>bad printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of as many
>>>>>>>>>>>problems. with this as a typical example, from users of HP and
>>>>>>>>>>>Canon inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners and in the
>>>>>>>>>>>order days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or a religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more
>>>>>>>>>>often
>>>>>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just as
>>>>>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the problems
>>>>>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional
>>>>>>>>>photographer, most of the true professional photographers do not
>>>>>>>>>frequent this type of NG. What is found on this group are mainly
>>>>>>>>>Hobbyists and Serious amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with
>>>>>>>>>>money
>>>>>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
April 18, 2005 8:45:26 PM

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

How about READING the part that says my EPSON takes 17x22 media! It is the
4000PRO,look it up! Where do I say you can print 16x20 on a 13x19 printer? I
know you aren't the brightest,but I thought you could at least read at third
grade level!
As I said,you are looking more FOOLISH all the time! I think if I were you,I
would keep quiet for a few days!
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FuR8e.2930$J12.845@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Douglas wrote:
>
>>I almost forgot your remark on 13x19 printers.My new EPSON takes 17x22
>>media,resulting in the 16x20 trimmed print!
>>
>
>
> So you place a sheet of paper in your printer that is 13" wide by 19" long
> and the printer spits out a piece of paper that is 16" wide x 20" long.
> That is 8-)
>
>>The 13x19 printer is designed to top out at a 12" wide print.You can make
>>4 4x6 prints on a sheet of 8x12 paper.You get 3 on a sheet of 8.5x11,the
>>rest is waste.Before you say no one uses 8x12,I do!Now I will be sure to
>>let ALL the printer manufacturers know they should contact you for the
>>"NEW"standard photo sizes!
>>"Douglas" <.> wrote in message
>>news:mtmdnYDBnu2HGv_fRVn-vA@centurytel.net...
>>
>>>The reason "letter size" paper is used is because most prints that large
>>>still require borders! Most printers will print borderless 4x6,but not
>>>8.5x11! If you look at ANY of the photo programs,8x10 will be a default
>>>size print.The size of paper a printer will except does not mean that is
>>>the largest size it will print! When you start printing larger than
>>>4x6,you will see that!
>>>The more you go on,the more foolish you look!
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hYu8e.32$Xb4.12@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>8x10 has been the standard size for film. Letter size is fast becoming
>>>>the standard size for digital. 16x20 has been another large standard
>>>>size for film. Now how are you going to print that on a 13x19 printer?
>>>>Look for a new standard size for large format.
>>>>
>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size
>>>>>paper,but 8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond
>>>>>on digital cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge
>>>>>of!Just remember,what you write can come back to make you look foolish!
>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have not tried an 8x10
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is different from 8.5x11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>>>>>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope
>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>>>>>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and
>>>>>>>weight
>>>>>>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent
>>>>>>>>>this group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes
>>>>>>>>>decent printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites
>>>>>>>>>previous posts,he has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with
>>>>>>>>>his ip4000!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from
>>>>>>>>>my Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still
>>>>>>>>>use film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>>>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I
>>>>>>>>>still use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by
>>>>>>>>>brand,I buy the BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the job
>>>>>>>>>at hand!Epson at the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be
>>>>>>>>>Canon!
>>>>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>truly bad printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of
>>>>>>>>>>>>as many problems. with this as a typical example, from users of
>>>>>>>>>>>>HP and Canon inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners
>>>>>>>>>>>>and in the order days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or
>>>>>>>>>>>>a religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more
>>>>>>>>>>>often
>>>>>>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just
>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the
>>>>>>>>>>>problems
>>>>>>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional
>>>>>>>>>>photographer, most of the true professional photographers do not
>>>>>>>>>>frequent this type of NG. What is found on this group are mainly
>>>>>>>>>>Hobbyists and Serious amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with
>>>>>>>>>>>money
>>>>>>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
April 18, 2005 10:07:39 PM

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

Staples has started carrying a chip resetter for Epson. Seems to be fairly
universal for the later printer models.
"anon" <ngr@tdrd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 3p8j5$3ns$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Due to problems with a clogged printer head, and repeated cleaning
> operations, my new epson original ink cartridges report that they are only
> 60% full now - when in fact I know they must be 100% since there hasn't
> been
> a drop out of them yet.
>
> I have an Epson CX5200 and wonder if there is a simple way of resetting
> the
> chip, or indeed if they will run as an unknown vendor if the chip is
> removed. I am aware that some of Epson inkjet printers (ie C680) will run
> on
> chipped and unchipped - a message just appears which you ignore.
>
> So can I simply remove or short the chip on the refill cartridge to get to
> my remaining ink?
>
> The cartridge numbers are (EPSON: T0321, T0422, T0423, T0424).
>
> Thanks in advance for feedback.
>
> Terry
>
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:14:12 PM

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

Like I said

If Brains were Dynamite

You would not have enough to blow your Nose.

Douglas wrote:

>How about READING the part that says my EPSON takes 17x22 media! It is the
>4000PRO,look it up! Where do I say you can print 16x20 on a 13x19 printer? I
>know you aren't the brightest,but I thought you could at least read at third
>grade level!
>As I said,you are looking more FOOLISH all the time! I think if I were you,I
>would keep quiet for a few days!
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:FuR8e.2930$J12.845@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I almost forgot your remark on 13x19 printers.My new EPSON takes 17x22
>>>media,resulting in the 16x20 trimmed print!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So you place a sheet of paper in your printer that is 13" wide by 19" long
>>and the printer spits out a piece of paper that is 16" wide x 20" long.
>>That is 8-)
>>
>>
>>
>>>The 13x19 printer is designed to top out at a 12" wide print.You can make
>>>4 4x6 prints on a sheet of 8x12 paper.You get 3 on a sheet of 8.5x11,the
>>>rest is waste.Before you say no one uses 8x12,I do!Now I will be sure to
>>>let ALL the printer manufacturers know they should contact you for the
>>>"NEW"standard photo sizes!
>>>"Douglas" <.> wrote in message
>>>news:mtmdnYDBnu2HGv_fRVn-vA@centurytel.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The reason "letter size" paper is used is because most prints that large
>>>>still require borders! Most printers will print borderless 4x6,but not
>>>>8.5x11! If you look at ANY of the photo programs,8x10 will be a default
>>>>size print.The size of paper a printer will except does not mean that is
>>>>the largest size it will print! When you start printing larger than
>>>>4x6,you will see that!
>>>>The more you go on,the more foolish you look!
>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:hYu8e.32$Xb4.12@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>8x10 has been the standard size for film. Letter size is fast becoming
>>>>>the standard size for digital. 16x20 has been another large standard
>>>>>size for film. Now how are you going to print that on a 13x19 printer?
>>>>>Look for a new standard size for large format.
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>How many people here print 8.5x11 photos? You might use that size
>>>>>>paper,but 8x10 is the standard size!I think you should wait to respond
>>>>>>on digital cameras.Another subject you pretend to have knowledge
>>>>>>of!Just remember,what you write can come back to make you look foolish!
>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:CEl8e.5795$t85.4024@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do you remember this?You posted it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have not tried an 8x10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is different from 8.5x11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do
>>>>>>>>that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope
>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be
>>>>>>>>out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and
>>>>>>>>weight
>>>>>>>>class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones.
>>>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:JSj8e.5700$t85.2123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years,and I frequent
>>>>>>>>>>this group! I use Epson inkjets,as do 90% of the pros! Canon makes
>>>>>>>>>>decent printers,for the hobbiest.As I have read in measekites
>>>>>>>>>>previous posts,he has NEVER printed anything larger than 4x6 with
>>>>>>>>>>his ip4000!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No true. 8.5x11
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That doesn't push any printer.The only 4x6 prints I make are from
>>>>>>>>>>my Mitsubishi 9000W.I also have my own darkroom,and at times,still
>>>>>>>>>>use film!I went through this same thing in the 70s.Some people were
>>>>>>>>>>pro-Canon,some pro-Nikon 35mm slrs.I had both,and used both! I
>>>>>>>>>>still use both makes of digital slrs!I don't buy anything by
>>>>>>>>>>brand,I buy the BEST camera or printer,or anything else,for the job
>>>>>>>>>>at hand!Epson at the moment is the tool for me,tomorrow it could be
>>>>>>>>>>Canon!
>>>>>>>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:o tZ7e.2796$t85.460@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hecate wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:55 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Attention Epson Owners:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not saying that Epson is not a good printer. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>truly bad printer is Lexmark. However, you just do not here of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>as many problems. with this as a typical example, from users of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>HP and Canon inkjets. Epson owners are just like Apple owners
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and in the order days WordPerfect owners. It is like a cult or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The difference is that on newsgroups like these you get a greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>number of professional users - and they use Epson printers more
>>>>>>>>>>>>often
>>>>>>>>>>>>than the general public. If you just used Google you'd find just
>>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>many problems for Canon or HP. And if you add together the
>>>>>>>>>>>>problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>for Canon, HP & Epson you might even see as many problems as for
>>>>>>>>>>>>Lexmark...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I totally disagree. As Ken Rockwell says, a professional
>>>>>>>>>>>photographer, most of the true professional photographers do not
>>>>>>>>>>>frequent this type of NG. What is found on this group are mainly
>>>>>>>>>>>Hobbyists and Serious amateurs. So I stand by what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hecate - The Real One
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>money
>>>>>>>>>>>>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
April 19, 2005 3:37:19 AM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8GT8e.382$zX7.182@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Like I said
>
> If Brains were Dynamite
>
> You would not have enough to blow your Nose.
>
(snip)

why not stay on topic and try to be helpful instead of posting your childish
and offensive responses.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:31:08 AM

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

I thought this thread was about a quanity of ink left after all the
cleaning cycles.

As all inkjet printers when you run a cleaning cycle ink is drawn out
of the cartridges thru the nozzles to clear them. The more cycles
you run the more ink that is drawn out of the cartridges. That is
why your chip is telling you that your cartridge is only 60% full.

That 60% is just an estimate done by your printer and it's firmware to
give you an approximation of how much ink is left.

If you want to reset the chip try this program:
http://www.ssclg.com/epsone.shtml :lol: 
April 20, 2005 4:26:44 AM

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

Thanks to Arthur Entlish for fixing my print head problems.
Problem fixed.

Terry
!