Is this true about Canon printhead?

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

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
68 answers Last reply
More about true canon printhead
  1. 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
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I have a Canon IP4000. I scanned the review and my interpretation
    about "Canon considers the Print Head a lifetime component" has to do
    with it not burning or wearing out under what they consider normal
    conditions.

    I do not think they mean that when it comes to clogging from non use
    over a long time or clogging from many of the poor after market inks.

    In any event, it did seem reassuring.

    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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  3. 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
    >>
    >>
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:d4qjne$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."

    Why would you want to change the printhead if its working correctly?

    > 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'?

    The prices I've seen for new Canon printheads means a lot of people will be
    buying a new printer rather than spend 90% of that price just on a new
    printhead - so, in that sense it becomes a 'Lifetime component'
  5. 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)
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:19:14 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk>
    wrote:


    >> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
    >> component'?
    >
    >The prices I've seen for new Canon printheads means a lot of people will be
    >buying a new printer rather than spend 90% of that price just on a new
    >printhead - so, in that sense it becomes a 'Lifetime component'
    >
    What I'd expect - marketroid speak for "it lasts until it lasts then
    you buy a new printer".

    --

    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...
  7. 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
    news:d4qjne$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
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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
    >>
  9. 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
    >>>
  10. 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.
    >
    > 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.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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.
  12. 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...
  13. 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...
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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.
  15. 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.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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.
  17. 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...
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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.
  19. 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
    news:pNVce.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.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hecate wrote:

    >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).
    >
    >

    I would still get a Canon ip4000. But if you are not going to print
    much then get one of the 8000 series of HP printers. Get the one that
    installs all 3 carts at one time so you do not have to play musical carts.

    > --
    >
    >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...
    >
    >
  21. 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
    >news:pNVce.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.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  22. 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
    >> news:pNVce.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
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    This comment from a person who has never refilled a cartridge.

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:GmWce.11328$J12.3633@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >>Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
    >>to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
    >>may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
    >>sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam
    >>gloves, a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink
    >>plus the ink and syringes and you are on your way.
    >>
    >
    > Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a
    > mess.
    >
    >>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>news:pNVce.3092$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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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$J12.3633@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>Burt wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
    >>>to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
    >>>may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
    >>>sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam
    >>>gloves, a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink
    >>>plus the ink and syringes and you are on your way.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a
    >>mess.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:pNVce.3092$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.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:

    I had one of the first HP printers for testing prior to them being shipped.

    Of course you did. Now what year was that? I believe that was before you
    were born correct?

    We then purchased 500 of them.

    Sure you did and was that before or after you were told that HP stood
    for Hewlett Packard, not Home Product.
    More lies.
    Frank
  26. 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
    >>>>news:pNVce.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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
  27. 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
    >>> news:pNVce.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
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Your IQ is lower than the sq. root of 1.

    Frank wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    > I had one of the first HP printers for testing prior to them being
    > shipped.
    >
    > Of course you did. Now what year was that? I believe that was before
    > you were born correct?
    >
    > We then purchased 500 of them.
    >
    > Sure you did and was that before or after you were told that HP stood
    > for Hewlett Packard, not Home Product.
    > More lies.
    > Frank
  29. 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.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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..?
  31. 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
    news:d4qjne$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
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Canon claims for iP4000 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)
  33. 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 news:Otidnexs_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.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    OOPS - my error - I thought that the last post was from Messkit - sorry
    Bill - I didn't mean to imply that you were MK. Anyway, didn't hurt to
    post the bare basics for someone starting refilling.

    "Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:w_8de.65$5o2.62@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    > 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
    > news:Otidnexs_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.
    >
  35. 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 news:Otidne1s_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.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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.
  37. 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
  38. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    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.

    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.

    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.
  39. 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
    > news:d4qjne$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
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  40. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Frank wrote:

    > 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

    :-D :-P :-D :-P :-* :-)
  41. 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.
    >
  42. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Yianni" <in@mailbox9.gr> wrote in message
    news:1114951422.638043@athnrd02...
    > 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)
    >

    300 pages? That's pathetic.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Arthur Entlich wrote:

    >> 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)
    >
    >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.

    I noticed the same thing, but figured it was just Canon's way of saying
    that most users print 4x6 rather than 8x10 or letter size where there is
    more usage between large photos.

    Either way, if the numbers are correct, they're disgustingly low. The
    "LIFE" of the Canon is roughly the same as the recommended monthly
    volume for my HP!
  44. 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.

    --
  45. 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.
  46. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Arthur Entlich wrote:
    > 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.

    I think someone has spread the 18,000 sheets over the different paper
    types listed. Add up all the numbers for each paper type and it equals
    18,000. Actual distribution for the paper type used will vary. I
    wonder what the print head life is for other printers that don't replace
    the print along with the cartridges? Do Epson's heads last
    substantially longer?

    > 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 $.50 of the amortized lifespan of the printer, plus ink
    > and paper. That's pretty high. But, as I said, something is odd with
    > those numbers one way of the other.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > Yianni wrote:
    >
    >> Yes it's true. *BUT*...
    >> for the iP4000, Canon claims for printer and printhead life:
    >>
    >> PRINTER LIFE:
    >> Black: 7200 pages (1500 character pattern)
    >> Color: 5400 pages (A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern)
    >> 300 pages (A4, photo, borderless printing)
    >> 3600 pages (4 x 6, photo, borderless printing)
    >>
    >> PRINTHEAD LIFE:
    >> Black: 7200 pages (1500 character pattern)
    >> Color: 5400 pages (A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern)
    >> 300 pages (A4, photo, borderless printing)
    >> 3600 pages (4 x 6, photo, borderless printing)
    >>
    >>
    >> According to the above, of course the printer and the printhead life are
    >> same...! I assume similar life for the iP5000. So, it's obvious why
    >> Canon
    >> quarantines printhead as lifetime (see printer life) component.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Yianni
    >> in@mailbox9.gr (remove number nine to reply)
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> "Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
    >> news:d4qjne$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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
  47. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

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

    I'd like to know your source of that bit of always "enlightened"
    information. Everything I have read has stated otherwise. I do not own
    a Hyundai product nor do I know of anyone who does, so I don't have a
    personal stake in this, but before you once again go off making totally
    unfounded claims, please provide some documentation to support this.


    >> 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.
    >

    However, many car batteries offer one or two year and some cases up to
    3, depending upon quality, full exchange non-pro-rated warranties, which
    was my point. Also, since the warranty is prorated, even on the
    batteries which only provide that type of rating, the first year or two
    often puts the manufacturer into a disadvantage should they have to
    replace the unit. They also usually provide the installation service
    which they have to pay the garage back for.
  48. 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.
    >
    > --
    >
    >
  49. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Arthur Entlich wrote:

    >
    >
    > measekite 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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It is still a dangerous piece of junk when compared to a Honda or
    >> Toyota.
    >>
    >>>
    >
    > I'd like to know your source of that bit of always "enlightened"
    > information. Everything I have read has stated otherwise. I do not
    > own a Hyundai product nor do I know of anyone who does, so I don't
    > have a personal stake in this, but before you once again go off making
    > totally unfounded claims, please provide some documentation to support
    > this.
    >
    >
    >>> 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.
    >>
    >
    > However, many car batteries offer one or two year and some cases up to
    > 3, depending upon quality, full exchange non-pro-rated warranties,
    > which was my point.


    That is against a short that usually does not occur.

    > Also, since the warranty is prorated, even on the batteries which only
    > provide that type of rating, the first year or two often puts the
    > manufacturer into a disadvantage should they have to replace the unit.
    > They also usually provide the installation service which they have to
    > pay the garage back for.
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Canon Components Peripherals