Is this true about Canon printhead?

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

I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's lifetime?

It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are the
first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend the
warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it, until it
is at least shown to be an accurate claim.

Art

Patrick wrote:

> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>
> The whole review can be found here;
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>
> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
> better than my friends IP4000.
>
> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
> component'?
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
> lifetime?
>
> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are the
> first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend the
> warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it, until it
> is at least shown to be an accurate claim.


But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think
they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".

>
>
> Art
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
>> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>>
>> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you
>> should only
>> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>>
>> The whole review can be found here;
>>
>> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>>
>> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a
>> fantastic
>> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a
>> fair bit
>> better than my friends IP4000.
>>
>> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>> component'?
>>
>> --
>> Patrick
>>
>>

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ho8ce.2369$zu.1392@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

>
>
> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after market
> inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think they are
> referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".
>
That would probably enter into the small print as self inflicted damage to
printer.... ie not covered under the guarantee.
--
Cari
(MS-MVP Printing & Imaging)

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

That may be so, I think it's marketing hype, Most manufactures say the same
but they still only give a years warranty. If Canon say different they will
be leaving themselves wide open for abuse. There is a lot of difference
between "considers" and what is in the warranty.

"Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
news4qjne$mbl$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should
only
> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>
> The whole review can be found here;
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>
> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
> better than my friends IP4000.
>
> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
> component'?
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I'm suggesting they consider warranting the heads against burn out
> "under normal circumstances" for a while longer to show they believe
> their own hype.


That would be nice but it is almost impossible to prove what normal
circumstances are.

>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
>>> lifetime?
>>>
>>> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are
>>> the first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend
>>> the warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it,
>>> until it is at least shown to be an accurate claim.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
>> market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think
>> they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Art
>>>

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

colinco wrote:

>> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
>> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>>
>> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>> component'?

Definitely not.

Originally Canon used life of the printer in their marketing and
officially reported such to magazine reviewers. They have since dropped
that and no longer brag about life expectancy and instead offer an
expected number of pages and call it a user replaceable item.

>"some form of damage" why else would you change a printhead unless you
>have an HP printer? With my i865 Canon offered an extended warranty, I
>asked whether it covered the printhead for clogging etc and they said
>that they regarded the printhead as a user replacable item and user was
>responsible for clogs.

I had an i850 that failed after 16 months and less than 5,000 pages of
use (roughly 300 pages a month - rather light use). And after contacting
Canon directly about a replacement printhead, they told me the part is a
user serviceable item as well...no extended warranty coverage and no
discount to replace a failed printer.

They did offer to ship me a new printhead for over $80 and then told me
it would only have a warranty of 90 days. I declined since a new printer
was only $9 more and told them so.

It seems Canon makes claims about their printheads that are not up to
typical standards of what would normally be considered life expectancy
periods. It seems Canon's idea of "lifetime" is about a year or so. And
from what I've read, nothing has changed in the last couple of years
concerning their printhead design or marketing to alter that.

I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...

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

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:39:25 +1200, colinco <colincomma@yawhoo.com>
wrote:

>In article Patrick says...
>> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>>
>> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
>> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>>
>> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>> component'?
>
>"some form of damage" why else would you change a printhead unless you
>have an HP printer? With my i865 Canon offered an extended warranty, I
>asked whether it covered the printhead for clogging etc and they said
>that they regarded the printhead as a user replacable item and user was
>responsible for clogs.

They didn't tell you about the burn outs then?

--

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...

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

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>On 29-Apr-2005, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>
>>
>
>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>
>

The IP4000 is better than the HP unless you are going to use it
infrequently. In that case the built in print heads are an advantage.

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

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:14:14 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>On 29-Apr-2005, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>> I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>> customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>> since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>
>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.

Which just proves that the people at Argos are completely clueless (or
maybe they just earn more commission on the other brands).

--

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...

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

Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam gloves,
a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink plus the ink
and syringes and you are on your way.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsNVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>
>>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>
>>
>>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>should to prevent clogging.
>>
>>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>rather than clogging.
>>
>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>need to print something.
>>
>
> If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
> carts.

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

Burt wrote:

>Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
>to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
>may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
>sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam gloves,
>a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink plus the ink
>and syringes and you are on your way.
>
>

Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a mess.

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>newsNVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>should to prevent clogging.
>>>
>>>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>rather than clogging.
>>>
>>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>need to print something.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
>>carts.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

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

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn
>> how to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done
>> refilling it may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good
>> instructions on many sites and the learning curve is not difficult at
>> all. Medical exam gloves, a cleanable work surface, a few paper
>> towels, and a nearby sink plus the ink and syringes and you are on
>> your way.
>>
>>
>
> Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a
> mess.
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> newsNVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>>> customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame
>>>>>> too,
>>>>>> since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>> I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>> should to prevent clogging.
>>>>
>>>> Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>>> method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>> rather than clogging.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>> really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>> or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>> need to print something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling
>>> messy carts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Why the heck do you keep posting here? Is it simply to see your ignorant
comments on your monitor? You are without a doubt one of the most
clueless persons I've ever come across.
You don't have any friends do you. You're the butt of all their jokes
but you still don't get it. That you can turn on a computer is a real
credit to you.
Or does your mommy do it for you?
Frank

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

The topic of our last few posts was your comment that refilling was too
messy and too much of a hassle. this has nothing to do with your early
experience with HP or the 500 printers you (plus whomever else constitutes
the imperial "we" you included yourself with) claim to have purchased. You
will use any obtuse argument to try to scare people away from a process with
which you have had no personal experience.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fJXce.3118$zu.2215@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>This comment from a person who has never refilled a cartridge.
>>
>
> This comment from a person who has never had a printhead clog since the
> first inkjet printer was invented by HP. I had one of the first HP
> printers for testing prior to them being shipped. We then purchased 500
> of them.
>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:GmWce.11328$J12.3633@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Burt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn
>>>>how to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done
>>>>refilling it may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good
>>>>instructions on many sites and the learning curve is not difficult at
>>>>all. Medical exam gloves, a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels,
>>>>and a nearby sink plus the ink and syringes and you are on your way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a
>>>mess.
>>>
>>>
>>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>newsNVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>>>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame
>>>>>>>>too,
>>>>>>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>>>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>>>>should to prevent clogging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>>>>rather than clogging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>>>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of
>>>>>>cleaning
>>>>>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>>>>need to print something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
>>>>>carts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>

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

Yes it's true. *BUT*...
for the iP4000, Canon claims for printer and printhead life:

PRINTER LIFE:
Black: 7200 pages (1500 character pattern)
Color: 5400 pages (A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern)
300 pages (A4, photo, borderless printing)
3600 pages (4 x 6, photo, borderless printing)

PRINTHEAD LIFE:
Black: 7200 pages (1500 character pattern)
Color: 5400 pages (A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern)
300 pages (A4, photo, borderless printing)
3600 pages (4 x 6, photo, borderless printing)


According to the above, of course the printer and the printhead life are
same...! I assume similar life for the iP5000. So, it's obvious why Canon
quarantines printhead as lifetime (see printer life) component.

--
Yianni
in@mailbox9.gr (remove number nine to reply)


--
"Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
news4qjne$mbl$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should
only
> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>
> The whole review can be found here;
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>
> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
> better than my friends IP4000.
>
> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
> component'?
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>

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

With friends like you I dont need any enemies.

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Burt wrote:
>>
>>> Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and
>>> learn how to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't
>>> done refilling it may appear to be a daunting task, but there are
>>> good instructions on many sites and the learning curve is not
>>> difficult at all. Medical exam gloves, a cleanable work surface, a
>>> few paper towels, and a nearby sink plus the ink and syringes and
>>> you are on your way.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is
>> a mess.
>>
>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> newsNVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me
>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>> customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a
>>>>>>> shame too,
>>>>>>> since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>>> I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>>> should to prevent clogging.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue
>>>>> with the
>>>>> method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>>> rather than clogging.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>>> really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of
>>>>> cleaning
>>>>> or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when
>>>>> they
>>>>> need to print something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling
>>>> messy carts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Why the heck do you keep posting here? Is it simply to see your
> ignorant comments on your monitor? You are without a doubt one of the
> most clueless persons I've ever come across.
> You don't have any friends do you. You're the butt of all their jokes
> but you still don't get it. That you can turn on a computer is a real
> credit to you.
> Or does your mommy do it for you?
> Frank

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

Shooter wrote:

>Everybody these day go on about colour and skin tone, but either they have
>no experience in colour correction or they just expect printers will print
>perfect colour /skin tone every time.

With today's printer drivers, colour profiles, known ink and paper
properties, and EXIF data from cameras, etc., there's little reason why
they can't all print extremely close if not identical.

I know that colour correction is not a difficult thing to master, as I
had to do it with my old Canon i850. Especially when using third party
inks and paper.

My point was that out of the box, the HP printed slightly more accurate
colours, and all of the other features were so close it's a moot point.
Basically they all perform the same.

And I take issue with this Measekite person who consistently posts
misleading and often erroneous information. He's not doing anyone any
favours.

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

Measekite and I have another area of total agreement! I work in an area
that won't be harmed by a spill, should one occur. Wear gloves as the ink
does stain skin. I do all my refilling in a large shallow plastic bin which
contains the few drops that inadvertantly occur. I am careful to
immediately recap ink bottles after I draw ink into the syringe so I will
not have a real spill. If one should occur it will be contained in the
plastic bin in which I work. After I am done, the bin and syringes are
washed in plain tap water as the dye based inks are totally water soluble
and I save the gloves for another filling session. I wouldn't wear my best
suit and fill cartridges while sitting on my living room couch over new
carpets - You have to exercise a bit of common sense!
"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message newstidnexs_NpBiOjfRVn-pg@golden.net...
> measekite wrote:
>
>>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>need to print something.
>>
>>If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
>>carts.
>
> That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
>
> And who said refilling has to be messy. I've never spilled a drop nor
> made any kind of mess. Have you..?

Measekite and I have another area of total agreement! I work in an area
that won't be harmed by a spill, should one occur. Wear gloves as the ink
does stain skin. I do all my refilling in a large shallow plastic bin which
contains the few drops that inadvertantly occur. I am careful to
immediately recap ink bottles after I draw ink into the syringe so I will
not have a real spill. If one should occur it will be contained in the
plastic bin in which I work. After I am done, the bin and syringes are
washed in plain tap water as the dye based inks are totally water soluble,
and I save the gloves for another filling session. I wouldn't wear my best
suit and fill cartridges while sitting on my living room couch over new
carpets - You have to exercise a bit of common sense! Because all of these
things are together and ready for use it only takes me 15 minutes to refill
a set of six carts. Let's see, now - six OEM carts cost, round numbers,
about sixty dollars. Refill ink costs about one dollar per cart. That
translates to about $54 dollars saved for 15 minutes of work. Leaving a few
minutes for cleanup I would say that I am earning about $150 per hour while
listening to a favorite CD and doing this simple no-brainer activity. Not
bad for squirting a bit of colored water into a little plastic box! Thank
you, Measekite for finally agreeing with me and others that this process is
not so messy. I guess you're not the idiot people conluded you are from
most of your posts to this NG.

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

Some what out of context, if you are to snip then please say so. Plus what
has Measekite to do with my post.

Now if you rely on good skin tones from EXIF your prints in most cases will
carry a cast, however if you use Print Matching and print Image Matching the
printing will as near anything the file the camera produced.


"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message newstidne1s_NpBiOjfRVn-pg@golden.net...
> Shooter wrote:
>
> >Everybody these day go on about colour and skin tone, but either they
have
> >no experience in colour correction or they just expect printers will
print
> >perfect colour /skin tone every time.
>
> With today's printer drivers, colour profiles, known ink and paper
> properties, and EXIF data from cameras, etc., there's little reason why
> they can't all print extremely close if not identical.
>
> I know that colour correction is not a difficult thing to master, as I
> had to do it with my old Canon i850. Especially when using third party
> inks and paper.
>
> My point was that out of the box, the HP printed slightly more accurate
> colours, and all of the other features were so close it's a moot point.
> Basically they all perform the same.
>
> And I take issue with this Measekite person who consistently posts
> misleading and often erroneous information. He's not doing anyone any
> favours.

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

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>> really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>> or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>> need to print something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling
>>> messy carts.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
>>
>> And who said refilling has to be messy. I've never spilled a drop nor
>> made any kind of mess. Have you..?
>>
>>
>
> Never spilled a drop with one hand behind my back.

hehehehe...don't forget your buddies do you?
Frank

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

This is very interesting documentation. But I'm confused.

An A4 print is about 8" x 12" or 96 square inches. A 4 x 6" is about 24
square inches, so you get just about exactly 4- 4x6" prints from a A4
sheet. Then why is the life 300 A4 prints which should translate to
1200 4x6" prints, but rather the 4 x 6" prints is triple that.
Something isn't making sense to me.

If Canon's claim of the iP4000 head and printer being good for 300
letter sized photographic prints is correct, that means that each print
uses up about $.50 of the amortized lifespan of the printer, plus ink
and paper. That's pretty high. But, as I said, something is odd with
those numbers one way of the other.

Art

Yianni wrote:

> Yes it's true. *BUT*...
> for the iP4000, Canon claims for printer and printhead life:
>
> PRINTER LIFE:
> Black: 7200 pages (1500 character pattern)
> Color: 5400 pages (A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern)
> 300 pages (A4, photo, borderless printing)
> 3600 pages (4 x 6, photo, borderless printing)
>
> PRINTHEAD LIFE:
> Black: 7200 pages (1500 character pattern)
> Color: 5400 pages (A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern)
> 300 pages (A4, photo, borderless printing)
> 3600 pages (4 x 6, photo, borderless printing)
>
>
> According to the above, of course the printer and the printhead life are
> same...! I assume similar life for the iP5000. So, it's obvious why Canon
> quarantines printhead as lifetime (see printer life) component.
>
> --
> Yianni
> in@mailbox9.gr (remove number nine to reply)
>
>
> --
> "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
> news4qjne$mbl$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>>
>>"Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should
>
> only
>
>>need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>>
>>The whole review can be found here;
>>
>>http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>>
>>Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
>>printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
>>better than my friends IP4000.
>>
>>Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>>component'?
>>
>>--
>>Patrick
>>
>>
>
>

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on several of your claims.
>
> Most cars today have extended warranties of certain parts, like the
> drive train. Some manufacturers use longer warranties as a selling
> point or a way to convince people they have improved their product.
> Hyundai is one example, having one of the better warranties in the
> industry after their reputation suffered due to higher failure rates
> than many other companies.


It is still a dangerous piece of junk when compared to a Honda or Toyota.

>
> Ask any manufacturer if their warranty doesn't have any relationship
> to the reliability of their product. Warranty repair is often the
> largest liability a manufacturer has on a product. In most cases,
> very careful analysis is done to try to determine mean breakdown
> point. An example is hard drives. They used to regularly come with 3
> year warranties. In recent years that has, with most manufacturers
> dropped to one year, because the rate of warranty claims in the 3
> years was too high, due to failure rates being much higher than
> anticipated.
>
> Seagate took the industry back by introducing a 5 year warranty on
> their drive, I believe the only one in the industry. A risky move
> unless they have developed a much more reliable drive, which they
> might indeed have done.
>
> You might have also noticed that car batteries and tires, water
> heaters, certain computer peripherals and other products often have
> differing warranties depending upon the cost or quality.


Battery warranties are given knowing that the warrantly will be longer
than the life of the product so you come back and get a new one with a
prorated cost. All of this is calculated in the price paid.

> This again is in part due to lower failure rates on better quality
> products. Epson printers used to have two year warranties, but now
> have one year. The older products were built more substantially, and
> their risk of failure was much smaller, so the 2 year warranty was
> reasonable.
>
> If you think warranties are just so legal condition manufacturers toss
> in, you should see how many people have their products break down with
> weeks or months of the warranty end. My personal experience is that
> the one to one year extra warranty I get with my credit card has been
> very helpful in protecting me, as that is often the time items I have
> owned failed. Lastly, I don't think I have had a bulb last a year
> (other than those heavy duty 5 year warranted types which provide
> lower lighting for the same electrical cost ;-)) in a good 20 years,
> unless, maybe it sits off most of the time.
>
> BTW, are Canon printers warranted for 2 years, and if so, does that
> include the head?
>
> Art
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I'm suggesting they consider warranting the heads against burn out
>>> "under normal circumstances" for a while longer to show they believe
>>> their own hype.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
>>>>> lifetime?
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are
>>>>> the first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend
>>>>> the warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it,
>>>>> until it is at least shown to be an accurate claim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
>>>> market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not
>>>> think they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate
>>>> "lifetime".
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>> Most consider than an automobile should last 10-15 years with minimal
>> cost in normal use. Yet most are warranted only for 3 years. Same
>> with lawn mowers, water heaters, A/C units, radios, CD players, etc.
>> There is little or no relationship between the warranty period of a
>> product and the expected life time. I don't see any warranty on the
>> light bulbs I buy, but most last for years. I don't see a problem
>> with a 2 year warranty on a printer. Most here seem to be focusing
>> on a very narrow area and don't consider that other products don't
>> meet the warranty periods they expect for printers.
>

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

To Arthur Entlich and Ivor Floppy:

Calculations are good. I don't know why Canon gives these numbers. Take a
look at the original info (two pages from a manual) here
http://www.inkline.gr/temp/Pages.pdf .
Indeed, 300 A4 pages are very low.

--

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on several of your claims.
>
> Most cars today have extended warranties of certain parts, like the
> drive train. Some manufacturers use longer warranties as a selling
> point or a way to convince people they have improved their product.
> Hyundai is one example, having one of the better warranties in the
> industry after their reputation suffered due to higher failure rates
> than many other companies.
>

No one was talking about "extended warranties."
American cars for the most part have a 3 year
warranty period. Some of the imports have a
considerably longer warranty and some domestics
have a year or more longer but the 3 year warranty
is pretty standard at present; warranty length
seems to change periodically with little reason.
And some of the longer warranties are only for
specific parts. A 4 year extension is likely to
cost you nearly $1800



> Ask any manufacturer if their warranty doesn't have any relationship to
> the reliability of their product. Warranty repair is often the largest
> liability a manufacturer has on a product. In most cases, very careful
> analysis is done to try to determine mean breakdown point. An example
> is hard drives. They used to regularly come with 3 year warranties. In
> recent years that has, with most manufacturers dropped to one year,
> because the rate of warranty claims in the 3 years was too high, due to
> failure rates being much higher than anticipated.
>
> Seagate took the industry back by introducing a 5 year warranty on their
> drive, I believe the only one in the industry. A risky move unless they
> have developed a much more reliable drive, which they might indeed have
> done.
>
> You might have also noticed that car batteries and tires, water heaters,
> certain computer peripherals and other products often have differing
> warranties depending upon the cost or quality. This again is in part
> due to lower failure rates on better quality products. Epson printers
> used to have two year warranties, but now have one year. The older
> products were built more substantially, and their risk of failure was
> much smaller, so the 2 year warranty was reasonable.
>

Humbug. I remember a period when road hazard
warranty was not offered on tires, even though it
had been standard. The public got fed up and a
few years later road hazard warranty was again
offered. Some outlets offer road hazard warranty
(at no cost) on all tires (not just top of the
line tires) and some offer road hazard warranty
for $1 a tire regardless of whether the tire is
$20 or $150.

Quality and warranty is definitely not directly
connected. Batteries are almost all the same and
the difference in warranty is made up in the
original cost. Water heaters are also mostly the
same and a 5 year and a 7 or 8 year guaranteed
water heater are essentially identical; the longer
guaranteed product just costs more. I would defy
people to differentiate the quality of any two
average line tires regardless of the cost; same
applies to car batteries. If you want to stick
with electronic equipment, everybody knows the
general failure rate curve of electronic parts.
Often a 2 year warranty has little more effect on
the economics for the manufacturer than a 60 day
warranty because of that failure rate curve


> If you think warranties are just so legal condition manufacturers toss
> in, you should see how many people have their products break down with
> weeks or months of the warranty end. My personal experience is that the
> one to one year extra warranty I get with my credit card has been very
> helpful in protecting me, as that is often the time items I have owned
> failed. Lastly, I don't think I have had a bulb last a year (other than
> those heavy duty 5 year warranted types which provide lower lighting for
> the same electrical cost ;-)) in a good 20 years, unless, maybe it sits
> off most of the time.

Heck even the cheapest of lights last 1 year for
me. It all depends on how long you use them. My
desk light bulbs usually last only 1 year but
sometimes 2 years or more (regardless of
cost/quality of the bulb) because it is on 6 to 8
hours a day and the bulb gets very hot in the
fixture. Personally, I have only once resorted to
the warranty on any type of equipment; and you
guessed it, it was a hard drive. Never had a
problem within in warranty period with an auto,
never had a problem with a computer (other than
above), never had a failure of any electronic
equipment (other than that mentioned and it didn't
really fail just sounded like it would), no
woodworking tools failed, no lawn mowers or other
lawn equipment. Am I lucky, no really, I just
don't abuse my tools and other possessions. Much
of the warranty business is about nincompoops that
do all sorts of stupid things and really has
little to do with the quality of the tool. If one
could design around the nincompoop, the warranty
would be much longer. The only problem, with
fairly dangerous tools, is that designing around
the nincompoop, makes the tool much more difficult
to use and less handy. The warranty period is
not a factor in my purchase; return to the store
within a 30 day period if unsatisfied is a
consideration.

>
> BTW, are Canon printers warranted for 2 years, and if so, does that
> include the head?
>
Don't know, Don't care. The specifics of the
guarantee for a specific product is not the issue,
just the general idea of warranties and estimated
useful life.

> Art
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I'm suggesting they consider warranting the heads against burn out
>>> "under normal circumstances" for a while longer to show they believe
>>> their own hype.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
>>>>> lifetime?
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are
>>>>> the first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend
>>>>> the warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it,
>>>>> until it is at least shown to be an accurate claim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
>>>> market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think
>>>> they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate
>>>> "lifetime".
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>> Most consider than an automobile should last 10-15 years with minimal
>> cost in normal use. Yet most are warranted only for 3 years. Same
>> with lawn mowers, water heaters, A/C units, radios, CD players, etc.
>> There is little or no relationship between the warranty period of a
>> product and the expected life time. I don't see any warranty on the
>> light bulbs I buy, but most last for years. I don't see a problem with
>> a 2 year warranty on a printer. Most here seem to be focusing on a
>> very narrow area and don't consider that other products don't meet the
>> warranty periods they expect for printers.

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

I just looked at the reference you gave, and indeed it says 300 A4
prints, but perhaps that is an error, based upon the other numbers. I
would guess 900 A4 prints. It still is not a great deal, but then the
cost per print goes down to about $.16 US per image for head wear.

Art




Yianni wrote:

> To Arthur Entlich and Ivor Floppy:
>
> Calculations are good. I don't know why Canon gives these numbers. Take a
> look at the original info (two pages from a manual) here
> http://www.inkline.gr/temp/Pages.pdf .
> Indeed, 300 A4 pages are very low.
>
> --
>
>

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

George E. Cawthon wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on several of your claims.
>>
>> Most cars today have extended warranties of certain parts, like the
>> drive train. Some manufacturers use longer warranties as a selling
>> point or a way to convince people they have improved their product.
>> Hyundai is one example, having one of the better warranties in the
>> industry after their reputation suffered due to higher failure rates
>> than many other companies.
>>
>
> No one was talking about "extended warranties." American cars for the
> most part have a 3 year warranty period. Some of the imports have a
> considerably longer warranty and some domestics have a year or more
> longer but the 3 year warranty is pretty standard at present; warranty
> length seems to change periodically with little reason. And some of
> the longer warranties are only for specific parts. A 4 year extension
> is likely to cost you nearly $1800
>

No, I'm speaking about the drive train having an extended warranty over
the rest of the car warranty, at no extra fee. Thirty-one of 50 car
manufacturers offer 4 or more years powertrain warranty as of 2005.
Those vary from 4 years to 10 years, and several are unlimited.

I just did a bit of research, being that I haven't bought a new car,
ever. Here's the deal. Today, the average new car in the US is kept
about 8 years, up considerably from years past. The median age of cars
on the road has increased significantly, from about 5 years in 1970 to
over 8 years today. About 30% of all new cars sold are actually leased
for under 3 years.

Although warranties vary, today you may get a full free service warranty
that lasts 3 years! Actually, about half of the car manufacturers now
offer 4 years and 50,000 miles or more on their bumper to bumper
warranties, and a bit less than half offer 50-100% additional time and
mileage on the powertrain warranty at no additional fee. Since 1999,
when Hyundai came up with the 10 year 100,000 mile warranty (and now
with its included free 3 year maintenance contract) many manufacturers
has upped their car warranties. Chrysler has just announced 4 years and
50,000 and 7 years or 70,000 on the powertrain, GM just upped some
divisions to 5 years or 60,000 miles or powertrain, Ford, 5 years with
100,000 miles on the powertrain on some models, and those aren't
included in the 22 other manufacturers who offer 4 or more years.

As for Hyundai, of course Measekite is wrong, like most everything else
he claims. The latest ratings give the company EQUAL ownership
satisfaction ratings to Honda.

>
>
>> Ask any manufacturer if their warranty doesn't have any relationship
>> to the reliability of their product. Warranty repair is often the
>> largest liability a manufacturer has on a product. In most cases,
>> very careful analysis is done to try to determine mean breakdown
>> point. An example is hard drives. They used to regularly come with 3
>> year warranties. In recent years that has, with most manufacturers
>> dropped to one year, because the rate of warranty claims in the 3
>> years was too high, due to failure rates being much higher than
>> anticipated.
>>
>> Seagate took the industry back by introducing a 5 year warranty on
>> their drive, I believe the only one in the industry. A risky move
>> unless they have developed a much more reliable drive, which they
>> might indeed have done.
>>
>> You might have also noticed that car batteries and tires, water
>> heaters, certain computer peripherals and other products often have
>> differing warranties depending upon the cost or quality. This again
>> is in part due to lower failure rates on better quality products.
>> Epson printers used to have two year warranties, but now have one
>> year. The older products were built more substantially, and their
>> risk of failure was much smaller, so the 2 year warranty was reasonable.
>>
>
> Humbug. I remember a period when road hazard warranty was not offered
> on tires, even though it had been standard. The public got fed up and a
> few years later road hazard warranty was again offered. Some outlets
> offer road hazard warranty (at no cost) on all tires (not just top of
> the line tires) and some offer road hazard warranty for $1 a tire
> regardless of whether the tire is $20 or $150.
>
> Quality and warranty is definitely not directly connected. Batteries
> are almost all the same and the difference in warranty is made up in the
> original cost.

Hogwash. The size, storage characteristics, excess capacity, cold
cranking amps, number of plates, and other factors all enter into the
cost and quality, and likelihood of failure or longevity, as well as the
cost and those are the factors that determine warranty periods as well.


Water heaters are also mostly the same and a 5 year and
> a 7 or 8 year guaranteed water heater are essentially identical; the
> longer guaranteed product just costs more.

Also incorrect. Wattage, recovery rate, insulation factors, enter into
cost and usually warranty. Further, even if you were correct, the cost
differential is often a cheap warranty.

I would defy people to
> differentiate the quality of any two average line tires regardless of
> the cost; same applies to car batteries.

Oh really? Tread depth, rubber composition, tread format, number of
plies and type of plies, sidewall plies, heat dissipation, stopping
distance, handling in wet, mud, snow, ice, temperature differences and
emergency situations. And, manufacturing defect percentage, accuracy of
tire balance (prior to installation) also enter into the quality you
get. There are absolutely distinct and quantifiable differences in tire
quality from design, materials, and manufacturing between brands and
often price ranges within brands. Do some naive people pay too much for
poorer quality, absolutely.. does that translate to "all tires,
regardless of price, are the same", absolutely NOT.


You are probably correct that the average person couldn't tell the
difference from looking at a tire, because the average person simply
doesn't know anything about tires, that doesn't at all mean they are the
same.

If you want to stick with
> electronic equipment, everybody knows the general failure rate curve of
> electronic parts. Often a 2 year warranty has little more effect on the
> economics for the manufacturer than a 60 day warranty because of that
> failure rate curve

Fine, except printers are not "electronic devices" they are electronic
mechanical devices, and having repaired a fair number of them, what
fails is the mechanical interfaces (including the actual physical
mechanics, plus the motors and drives and sensors that engage them) not
the electronics per se. Further, printers deal with a lot of
environmental stress, from paper dust and inks which are wet and an
unsealed condition and a fair amount of human intervention, like loading
paper, paper jams, and cartridge removal and installation. This is not
typical of truly electronic items like a television which has no moving
parts.

Consider devices like CD or DVD players, scanners, or VCRs and you are
getting a little closer to printers.

>
>
>> If you think warranties are just so legal condition manufacturers toss
>> in, you should see how many people have their products break down with
>> weeks or months of the warranty end. My personal experience is that
>> the one to one year extra warranty I get with my credit card has been
>> very helpful in protecting me, as that is often the time items I have
>> owned failed. Lastly, I don't think I have had a bulb last a year
>> (other than those heavy duty 5 year warranted types which provide
>> lower lighting for the same electrical cost ;-)) in a good 20 years,
>> unless, maybe it sits off most of the time.
>
>
> Heck even the cheapest of lights last 1 year for me. It all depends on
> how long you use them. My desk light bulbs usually last only 1 year but
> sometimes 2 years or more (regardless of cost/quality of the bulb)
> because it is on 6 to 8 hours a day and the bulb gets very hot in the
> fixture. Personally, I have only once resorted to the warranty on any
> type of equipment; and you guessed it, it was a hard drive. Never had a
> problem within in warranty period with an auto, never had a problem with
> a computer (other than above), never had a failure of any electronic
> equipment (other than that mentioned and it didn't really fail just
> sounded like it would), no woodworking tools failed, no lawn mowers or
> other lawn equipment. Am I lucky, no really, I just don't abuse my
> tools and other possessions. Much of the warranty business is about
> nincompoops that do all sorts of stupid things and really has little to
> do with the quality of the tool. If one could design around the
> nincompoop, the warranty would be much longer. The only problem, with
> fairly dangerous tools, is that designing around the nincompoop, makes
> the tool much more difficult to use and less handy. The warranty
> period is not a factor in my purchase; return to the store within a 30
> day period if unsatisfied is a consideration.

Most lightbulbs are rated for 1000 hours. With GE brand, I average one
failed bulb per pack, either literally not working when removed from the
package or failed on installation and first to fifth attempt to turn it
on. I no longer buy their products. I had a very high failure rate with
their projection halogen bulbs and their auto headlamps (By the way,
they have admitted problems with every item I have shipped back to them
-they did lab tests on the headlamps and projection bulbs and found
manufacturing defects). The lightbulbs were obviously defective... the
crimps that hold the filament often are not properly closed. In some
cases the filament is dangling there only connected to one side. I have
had the voltage tested in my home and monitor it on occasion, and it is
in the normal range for 115/120 v. service.

One thousand hours over a year is only 2.74 hours a day. It gets very
dark here during the winter months due to our latitude, the weather, and
the forest we live in, so bulbs get a fair amount of use.

I agree that some people abuse their possessions, and then again some
people are deceived about the durability of the goods they get by sales
people or manufacturers. I am neither a "nincompoop" nor do I abuse my
tools and possessions. In fact, quite the opposite, I read most manuals
cover to cover, some several times to absorb the nuances, and I am, by
many people's estimation "overly cautious" with the things I own. I
have had manufacturers actually ask me if I even took some items out of
the box. However, in spite of that, for instance, I have had to replace
a digital camera 3 times under warranty, and actually the third one also
probably should be replaced, but it will require using my extended
warranty from my credit card and I'm not ready to do that right now.

I've been through about 4 hard drives under warranty, two film scanners,
and a few other items like VCRs. I can also tell you that my cheaper
lower warranted car battery failed about 2 years after its warranty
ended (lasting five years), while my more costly one (which had two more
years warranty on it, lasted almost 9 years). However, your experience
just proves what I stated, warranties are not some arbitrary number to
fit a legal requirement, but usually a well considered and tested number
based upon expected failure rates.
>
>>
>> BTW, are Canon printers warranted for 2 years, and if so, does that
>> include the head?
>>
> Don't know, Don't care. The specifics of the guarantee for a specific
> product is not the issue, just the general idea of warranties and
> estimated useful life.
>

Which, by your own experiences, as well as my own, proves my premise is
correct. Thank you,

Art

>> Art
>>
>> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm suggesting they consider warranting the heads against burn out
>>>> "under normal circumstances" for a while longer to show they believe
>>>> their own hype.
>>>>
>>>> Art
>>>>
>>>> measekite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
>>>>>> lifetime?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are
>>>>>> the first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend
>>>>>> the warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it,
>>>>>> until it is at least shown to be an accurate claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
>>>>> market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not
>>>>> think they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate
>>>>> "lifetime".
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Art
>>>>>>
>>> Most consider than an automobile should last 10-15 years with minimal
>>> cost in normal use. Yet most are warranted only for 3 years. Same
>>> with lawn mowers, water heaters, A/C units, radios, CD players, etc.
>>> There is little or no relationship between the warranty period of a
>>> product and the expected life time. I don't see any warranty on the
>>> light bulbs I buy, but most last for years. I don't see a problem
>>> with a 2 year warranty on a printer. Most here seem to be focusing
>>> on a very narrow area and don't consider that other products don't
>>> meet the warranty periods they expect for printers.