Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon IP4000 - overpriced?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
May 16, 2005 5:06:48 PM

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

Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to make
good regular use of it.

Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around

Epson R200 - £65.99
Epson R300 - £77.90
Canon IP4000 - £92.78

What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.

The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to be the
most expensive.

I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
features.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:06:49 PM

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

Andy wrote:
> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to make
> good regular use of it.
>
> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
> can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>
> Epson R200 - £65.99
> Epson R300 - £77.90
> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>

As a side note, I can't understand why printers are so much more
expensive in the UK. Converting Canadian Dollars to Pounds:

The R200 is in my sales flyer for £44 and the Canon iP4000, £65.
Mind you, North American Canons don't have the CD/DVD printing feature.
My own printer, the iP5000, currently goes for £87 (minus CD/DVD
printing).

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:31:58 PM

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

"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1116245213.15134.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
> make good regular use of it.
>
> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
> can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>
> Epson R200 - £65.99
> Epson R300 - £77.90
> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>
> The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to be
> the most expensive.
>
> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
> features.
>
>
>
>

I guess it's all relative, I'm looking at the iP4000 and thought the ~£90
price was good -paid damn near twice that three years ago for my S630.

--
Derek
Related resources
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:36:44 PM

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

"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1116245213.15134.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
> make good regular use of it.
>
> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
> can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>
> Epson R200 - £65.99
> Epson R300 - £77.90
> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>
> The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to be
> the most expensive.
>
> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
> features.
>
>
>
>

The difference is only £15, you can very easily make that back with lower
running costs. Here's one view of Total Cost of Ownership:
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/printer-1...

--
Derek
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:52:55 PM

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

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:118h56pmgeie642@corp.supernews.com...
> Andy wrote:
>> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
>> make good regular use of it.
>>
>> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
>> can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>
>> Epson R200 - £65.99
>> Epson R300 - £77.90
>> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>
>> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>
>
> As a side note, I can't understand why printers are so much more
> expensive in the UK. Converting Canadian Dollars to Pounds:
>
> The R200 is in my sales flyer for £44 and the Canon iP4000, £65.
> Mind you, North American Canons don't have the CD/DVD printing feature.
> My own printer, the iP5000, currently goes for £87 (minus CD/DVD
> printing).
>


Are those prices with tax? If so, what rate?

--
Derek
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:04:49 PM

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

"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1116245213.15134.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
> make good regular use of it.
>
> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
> can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>
> Epson R200 - £65.99
> Epson R300 - £77.90
> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>
> The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to be
> the most expensive.
>
> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
> features.
>
>
>
>

Just out of interest, where are those prices from?

--
Derek
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:09:21 PM

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

Andy wrote:

>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to make
>good regular use of it.
>
>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
>can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>
>Epson R200 - £65.99
>Epson R300 - £77.90
>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>
>The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to be the
>most expensive.
>
>

Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
reason.

The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is
much faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and
the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.

>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>features.
>
>
>
>
>
>
May 16, 2005 9:07:47 PM

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

>
> Just out of interest, where are those prices from?


ebuyer.com
May 16, 2005 9:14:00 PM

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

> Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
> known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
> have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
> reason.

I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
problems and love it.

> The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is much
> faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and the
> photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.

It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is rated
higher for photos. having the LCD screen
etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out to
the Epson's

>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>features.
>>

I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these days so i'm
sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 9:14:01 PM

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

Andy wrote:

>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
>>known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
>>have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
>>reason.
>>
>>
>
>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
>problems and love it.
>
>

They just have not printed enough CD's to have the problem.

>
>
>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is much
>>faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and the
>>photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.
>>
>>
>
>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is rated
>higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
>work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out to
>the Epson's
>
>

Read the reviews at www.pcmag.com

The LCD screen is really not the way to edit photos. Use the computer
and a photoshop like editor.

>
>
>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>>features.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these days so i'm
>sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 9:42:43 PM

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

"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>> Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
>> known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
>> have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
>> reason.
>
> I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
> problems and love it.
>
>> The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is much
>> faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and the
>> photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.
>
> It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is rated
> higher for photos. having the LCD screen
> etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
> work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out to
> the Epson's

What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
running costs.

>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>>features.
>>>
>
> I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these days so
> i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>
>
>

It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably going to
pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a better customer
service record.

--
Derek
May 16, 2005 10:24:21 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zW3ie.18017$J12.6235@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Andy wrote:
>
>>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
>>>known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
>>>have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
>>>reason.
>>>
>>
>>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
>>problems and love it.
>>
>
> They just have not printed enough CD's to have the problem.
>

Possibly. But i don't see a widespread problem being shown or a recall.
Most customer reviews are quite favorable

>>
>>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is much
>>>faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and the
>>>photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.
>>>
>>
>>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is rated
>>higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
>>work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out to
>>the Epson's
>>
>
> Read the reviews at www.pcmag.com
>
> The LCD screen is really not the way to edit photos. Use the computer and
> a photoshop like editor.
>

agreed, that wasn't really my point.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:24:22 PM

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

Andy wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:zW3ie.18017$J12.6235@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
>>>>known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
>>>>have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
>>>>reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
>>>problems and love it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>They just have not printed enough CD's to have the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Possibly. But i don't see a widespread problem being shown or a recall.
>Most customer reviews are quite favorable
>
>

Epson America replaced them no questions asked. Then they started just
replacing the defective CD Trays. Epson UK, from many posts in this NG,
is not very accommodating to the UK customers as Epson American is.
They seem like two different companies.

>
>
>>>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is much
>>>>faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and the
>>>>photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is rated
>>>higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
>>>work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out to
>>>the Epson's
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Read the reviews at www.pcmag.com
>>
>>The LCD screen is really not the way to edit photos. Use the computer and
>>a photoshop like editor.
>>
>>
>>
>
>agreed, that wasn't really my point.
>
>
>
>
May 16, 2005 10:43:54 PM

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

"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
> "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>> Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
>>> known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
>>> have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
>>> reason.
>>
>> I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
>> problems and love it.
>>
>>> The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is
>>> much faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and
>>> the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.
>>
>> It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>> rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>> etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
>> work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out to
>> the Epson's
>
> What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
> running costs.

refills roughly the same price.

>>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>>>features.
>>>>
>>
>> I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these days so
>> i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably going
> to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a better
> customer service record.


If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted to try
and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:43:55 PM

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

Andy wrote:

>"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>
>>"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>
>>
>>>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
>>>>known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
>>>>have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for that
>>>>reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
>>>problems and love it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is
>>>>much faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and
>>>>the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>>>rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
>>>work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out to
>>>the Epson's
>>>
>>>
>>What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
>>running costs.
>>
>>
>
>refills roughly the same price.
>
>
>
>>>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>>>>features.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these days so
>>>i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably going
>>to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a better
>>customer service record.
>>
>>
>
>
>If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted to try
>and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
>
>

The Epson permanent heads require more cleaning cycles and therefore
more ink. The ink is also more expensive. The difference will be more
than made up for on running costs.

But the R300 is a good choice and is a nice printer. It is just not the
best choice or the best value.

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:43:56 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ys5ie.18057$J12.11486@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Andy wrote:
>
>>"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>>>"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>>
>>>>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson has a
>>>>>known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May people
>>>>>have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his 3rd R300 for
>>>>>that reason.
>>>>>

Tell him not to put the CD tray down on the feed-end. Damaging the plastic
strip on the CD tray is the most common fault. Its a stupid idea to be
honest, but if your carefull with the tray it works fine.


>>>>>
>>>>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had any
>>>>problems and love it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically, is
>>>>>much faster, the business document printing is much higher quality, and
>>>>>the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it is a better deal.

*slightly* faster on documents - but the Canon is lower quality on photos -
remember we are comparing a 3 colour to a 6 colour printer here...

Compare the print quality from the review on
http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/printer-0... - notice how
much grainier and over-saturated the Canon iP4000 prints are in comparison
to the R300

>>>>>
>>>>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>>>>rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i cant
>>>>work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are lsoing out
>>>>to the Epson's
>>>>
>>>What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
>>>running costs.
>>>
>>
>>refills roughly the same price.
>>
>>
>>>>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>>>>>features.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these days so
>>>>i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably going
>>>to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a better
>>>customer service record.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted to
>>try and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
>
> The Epson permanent heads require more cleaning cycles and therefore more
> ink. The ink is also more expensive. The difference will be more than
> made up for on running costs.


Not if your using 3rd party ink its not - at £1.50 each (compared to about
£11.00 for Epson carts, and about £8-£9 for a Canon) you save a fortune. Ok,
the print quality isn't quite as good as the OEM stuff, but for 99% of what
people use a printer for its perfectly acceptable.
Also, considering the Epson is much higher photo quality than the Canon,
using 3rd party inks on the Epson would still give you better prints than
the Canon using OEM ink.


>
> But the R300 is a good choice and is a nice printer. It is just not the
> best choice or the best value.

That depends what you want it for. For many people its much better value and
quality than the Canon.
May 16, 2005 11:04:43 PM

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

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:118h56pmgeie642@corp.supernews.com...
> Andy wrote:
>> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
>> make good regular use of it.
>>
>> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
>> can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>
>> Epson R200 - £65.99
>> Epson R300 - £77.90
>> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>
>> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>
>
> As a side note, I can't understand why printers are so much more
> expensive in the UK. Converting Canadian Dollars to Pounds:
>
> The R200 is in my sales flyer for £44 and the Canon iP4000, £65.
> Mind you, North American Canons don't have the CD/DVD printing feature.
> My own printer, the iP5000, currently goes for £87 (minus CD/DVD
> printing).
>
> -Taliesyn

The cd/dvd printing probably explains the price difference
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:31:49 AM

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

Andy wrote:
> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan
> to make good regular use of it.
>
> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples,
> you can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>
> Epson R200 - £65.99
> Epson R300 - £77.90
> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>
> The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to
> be the most expensive.
>
> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
> features.

I have four printers: - an R800, an iP8500 an i9950 and an RX620 (OK, five
if you count the PictureMate, which I don't). Which do I use the most? I'll
give you a clue - it isn't an Epson.

I love the images my R800 produces, I hate the way it clogs. I had to spend
£30 the other day on a set of cleaning tanks to get it working again because
it hadn't been used for about six weeks. I left my i9950 in its box for nine
months. It was pressed back into service after my SC900 bit the dust after
nearly a decade's good and faithful service. Did I need to run endless
cleaning cycles to unblock the heads? Did I need to spend any money to bring
back to its former glory? No, I did not. It worked flawlessly right out of
the box. Why? Because it uses dye, not pigment, based inks. Pigment inks are
like paint, and dry like paint. Pigments are water-based and, therefore,
evaporate and do not (IME) clog the printhead.

I bought my iP8500 last week to replace the SC900 and I love it. It's fast,
it does duplex, the prints are accurate, I can put up to 200 pages in the
cassette. It's the best £270 I ever spent on a printer. The only downside?
The case shows every mark - but that's the only downside I've found thus
far.

IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to print -
I can't fault it.


--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:41:04 AM

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

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

>Andy wrote:
>
>
>>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan
>>to make good regular use of it.
>>
>>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples,
>>you can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>
>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>
>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>
>>The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to
>>be the most expensive.
>>
>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>features.
>>
>>
>
>I have four printers: - an R800, an iP8500 an i9950 and an RX620 (OK, five
>if you count the PictureMate, which I don't). Which do I use the most? I'll
>give you a clue - it isn't an Epson.
>
>I love the images my R800 produces, I hate the way it clogs.
>

Another example of what I am trying to say.

>I had to spend
>£30 the other day on a set of cleaning tanks to get it working again because
>it hadn't been used for about six weeks.
>

That is not a long time.

>I left my i9950 in its box for nine
>months. It was pressed back into service after my SC900 bit the dust after
>nearly a decade's good and faithful service. Did I need to run endless
>cleaning cycles to unblock the heads? Did I need to spend any money to bring
>back to its former glory? No, I did not.
>

More of what I am trying to say.

>It worked flawlessly right out of
>the box. Why? Because it uses dye, not pigment, based inks. Pigment inks are
>like paint, and dry like paint. Pigments are water-based and, therefore,
>evaporate and do not (IME) clog the printhead.
>
>

These are good for professionals who have heavy use and need greater
permanence.

>I bought my iP8500 last week to replace the SC900 and I love it.
>

You should. It is the narrow carriage PIXMA version of the i9900 that
you like.

>It's fast,
>it does duplex, the prints are accurate, I can put up to 200 pages in the
>cassette. It's the best £270 I ever spent on a printer. The only downside?
>The case shows every mark
>

They should have used the IP4000 case for the entire line and maybe vary
the trim. They could change the color of the word Canon and maybe the
color of the buttons.

> - but that's the only downside I've found thus
>far.
>
>IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to print -
>I can't fault it.
>
>

I would like to see a wide carriage version of the IP8500 that would
replace the i9900 that also would do a 16x20.

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:46:53 AM

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

Andy wrote:
> "Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>> "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>>> Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson
>>>> has a known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May
>>>> people have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his
>>>> 3rd R300 for that reason.
>>>
>>> I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had
>>> any problems and love it.
>>>
>>>> The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically,
>>>> is much faster, the business document printing is much higher
>>>> quality, and the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it
>>>> is a better deal.
>>>
>>> It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>>> rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>> etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i
>>> cant work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are
>>> lsoing out to the Epson's
>>
>> What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
>> running costs.
>
> refills roughly the same price.
>
>>>>> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for
>>>>> less features.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these
>>> days so i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably
>> going to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a
>> better customer service record.
>
>
> If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted
> to try and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices

Golden Rule of Printer Ownership: - the lower the initial costs the higher
the cost of ownership.

Compare the R800 and the iP8500. The R800 costs nearly £100 less than the
iP8500, but the tanks are, depending on where you purchase them, around £15
for the colours and £10 for the gloss optimiser. The Canon is £100 more,
but the tanks cost around £5-£6 each. Cost of a set is £145 compared with
£48 for the Canon. IOW, you can purchase three sets for the Canon for the
price of one for the Epson.

You must spend more to spend less.


--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
May 17, 2005 2:29:38 AM

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

"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:Nc8ie.37574$a25.26120@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
> Andy wrote:
>> "Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>>> "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>>>> Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson
>>>>> has a known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May
>>>>> people have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his
>>>>> 3rd R300 for that reason.
>>>>
>>>> I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had
>>>> any problems and love it.
>>>>
>>>>> The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically,
>>>>> is much faster, the business document printing is much higher
>>>>> quality, and the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it
>>>>> is a better deal.
>>>>
>>>> It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>>>> rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>> etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i
>>>> cant work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are
>>>> lsoing out to the Epson's
>>>
>>> What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
>>> running costs.
>>
>> refills roughly the same price.
>>
>>>>>> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for
>>>>>> less features.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these
>>>> days so i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably
>>> going to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a
>>> better customer service record.
>>
>>
>> If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted
>> to try and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
>
> Golden Rule of Printer Ownership: - the lower the initial costs the higher
> the cost of ownership.

if youre buying a lexmark!!!

> Compare the R800 and the iP8500. The R800 costs nearly £100 less than the
> iP8500, but the tanks are, depending on where you purchase them, around
> £15 for the colours and £10 for the gloss optimiser. The Canon is £100
> more, but the tanks cost around £5-£6 each. Cost of a set is £145 compared
> with £48 for the Canon. IOW, you can purchase three sets for the Canon for
> the price of one for the Epson.
>
> You must spend more to spend less.


I think anyone would have to be daft to buy Epson or Canon carts. The
price is the same for generic carts
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:29:39 AM

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

Andy wrote:

>"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>news:Nc8ie.37574$a25.26120@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>
>
>>Andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson
>>>>>>has a known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May
>>>>>>people have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his
>>>>>>3rd R300 for that reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had
>>>>>any problems and love it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically,
>>>>>>is much faster, the business document printing is much higher
>>>>>>quality, and the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it
>>>>>>is a better deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>>>>>rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>>>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i
>>>>>cant work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are
>>>>>lsoing out to the Epson's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
>>>>running costs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>refills roughly the same price.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for
>>>>>>>less features.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these
>>>>>days so i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably
>>>>going to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a
>>>>better customer service record.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted
>>>to try and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
>>>
>>>
>>Golden Rule of Printer Ownership: - the lower the initial costs the higher
>>the cost of ownership.
>>
>>
>
>if youre buying a lexmark!!!
>
>
>
>>Compare the R800 and the iP8500. The R800 costs nearly £100 less than the
>>iP8500, but the tanks are, depending on where you purchase them, around
>>£15 for the colours and £10 for the gloss optimiser. The Canon is £100
>>more, but the tanks cost around £5-£6 each. Cost of a set is £145 compared
>>with £48 for the Canon. IOW, you can purchase three sets for the Canon for
>>the price of one for the Epson.
>>
>>You must spend more to spend less.
>>
>>
>
>
>I think anyone would have to be daft to buy Epson or Canon carts. The
>price is the same for generic carts
>
>

But with most of them your printhead gets constipated.

>
>
>
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:05:43 PM

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

> IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to
print -
> I can't fault it.
>

But, it doesn't use pigment inks, and that's the problem. The trade off
isn't color rendition, or vibrancy, (and you can answer this better than
many... do you think the color rendition of the R800 is less vibrant
than the dye ink sets printing color matched prints?) BUT, the trade off
is: dye ink which doesn't clog as often, but doesn't provide permanence,
versus pigment which can clog more often, but provides permanence.

Although I do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer, I'm somewhat
surprised (that's not a challenge of your experience, just surprised)
that yours clogged as it did, because I tested the R Ultrachrome inks,
and they just took forever to dry (I'm speaking months).

I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents stored in
the printer to clean the heads.


Anyway, I'd be interested in your experience with color rendition with
the R800.


Art


Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

> Andy wrote:
>
>>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan
>>to make good regular use of it.
>>
>>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples,
>>you can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>
>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>
>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>
>>The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to
>>be the most expensive.
>>
>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>features.
>
>
> I have four printers: - an R800, an iP8500 an i9950 and an RX620 (OK, five
> if you count the PictureMate, which I don't). Which do I use the most? I'll
> give you a clue - it isn't an Epson.
>
> I love the images my R800 produces, I hate the way it clogs. I had to spend
> £30 the other day on a set of cleaning tanks to get it working again because
> it hadn't been used for about six weeks. I left my i9950 in its box for nine
> months. It was pressed back into service after my SC900 bit the dust after
> nearly a decade's good and faithful service. Did I need to run endless
> cleaning cycles to unblock the heads? Did I need to spend any money to bring
> back to its former glory? No, I did not. It worked flawlessly right out of
> the box. Why? Because it uses dye, not pigment, based inks. Pigment inks are
> like paint, and dry like paint. Pigments are water-based and, therefore,
> evaporate and do not (IME) clog the printhead.
>
> I bought my iP8500 last week to replace the SC900 and I love it. It's fast,
> it does duplex, the prints are accurate, I can put up to 200 pages in the
> cassette. It's the best £270 I ever spent on a printer. The only downside?
> The case shows every mark - but that's the only downside I've found thus
> far.
>
> IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to print -
> I can't fault it.
>
>
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:37:53 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> > IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to
> print -
> > I can't fault it.
> >
>
> But, it doesn't use pigment inks, and that's the problem. The trade
> off isn't color rendition, or vibrancy, (and you can answer this
> better than many... do you think the color rendition of the R800 is
> less vibrant than the dye ink sets printing color matched prints?)
> BUT, the trade off is: dye ink which doesn't clog as often, but
> doesn't provide permanence, versus pigment which can clog more often,
> but provides permanence.


I think she said (and she can correct me if this was not her intent)
that the IP8500 produces a nicer looking more vibrant print than the
R800 but the R800 is expected to provide greater permanence. She also
said that the IP8500 is more economical to purchase and run.

This is basically the same findings as PC Mag.

>
> Although I do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer, I'm somewhat
> surprised (that's not a challenge of your experience, just surprised)
> that yours clogged as it did, because I tested the R Ultrachrome inks,
> and they just took forever to dry (I'm speaking months).


How did you test them if you do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer?

>
> I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
> printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents stored
> in the printer to clean the heads.


Why just Epson? And why should they when you can attempt to use
expensive ink?

>
>
> Anyway, I'd be interested in your experience with color rendition with
> the R800.
>
>
> Art
>
>
> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>
>> Andy wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan
>>> to make good regular use of it.
>>>
>>> Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples,
>>> you can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>>
>>> Epson R200 - £65.99
>>> Epson R300 - £77.90
>>> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>>
>>> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>>
>>> The Epson R300 has many more features. I would have expected this to
>>> be the most expensive.
>>>
>>> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for less
>>> features.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have four printers: - an R800, an iP8500 an i9950 and an RX620 (OK,
>> five if you count the PictureMate, which I don't). Which do I use the
>> most? I'll give you a clue - it isn't an Epson.
>>
>> I love the images my R800 produces, I hate the way it clogs. I had to
>> spend £30 the other day on a set of cleaning tanks to get it working
>> again because it hadn't been used for about six weeks. I left my
>> i9950 in its box for nine months. It was pressed back into service
>> after my SC900 bit the dust after nearly a decade's good and faithful
>> service. Did I need to run endless cleaning cycles to unblock the
>> heads? Did I need to spend any money to bring back to its former
>> glory? No, I did not. It worked flawlessly right out of the box. Why?
>> Because it uses dye, not pigment, based inks. Pigment inks are like
>> paint, and dry like paint. Pigments are water-based and, therefore,
>> evaporate and do not (IME) clog the printhead.
>>
>> I bought my iP8500 last week to replace the SC900 and I love it. It's
>> fast, it does duplex, the prints are accurate, I can put up to 200
>> pages in the cassette. It's the best £270 I ever spent on a printer.
>> The only downside? The case shows every mark - but that's the only
>> downside I've found thus far.
>>
>> IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to
>> print - I can't fault it.
>>
>>
May 17, 2005 8:39:25 PM

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

> Andywrote:
Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/
> Epson R200 - £65.99
> Epson R300 - £77.90
> Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
> What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more
expensive?.
>
> Davy say's
> The reason that Epson APPEARS cheaper, and indeed they are to buy
initially but are more expensive to run than Canons - don't believe
me take a look at the ink prices.
>
> With one tank down on a Epson you have lost printing ability because
of the 'chipped' tanks, also to refill you have to reset the chip,
with Canon's you just refill.
>
> Also noted on various forums is that Epson's are known to 'clog',
yes you do see other printers clogging- but not as many.
>
> Don't take my advice!!!!! Look through various Forums and you will
see what I mean. It's certainly not the prices of the printers that
should be of concern but the running cost, you will see that the
Canon's are very conservative in this respect.
>
> Also the Canon print head is 'USER' replacable whilst the Epson
is'nt unless you know how to strip the printer down.
>
> Have a look around come back and let me know if Im right or wrong,
a little advice don't take just one person's comment .
>
> Davy
May 18, 2005 12:36:46 AM

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

Measekite
Can't you ever say anything without quoting after quoting after
quoting - I KNOW what I said, either you agree, disagree or come up
with a suggestion other people can agree/disagree with, sounds like
a space waster.
Davy
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:17:31 AM

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

Davy wrote:

>>Andywrote:
>>
>>
>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/
>
>
>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>
>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more
>>
>>
>expensive?.
>
>
>>Davy say's
>>The reason that Epson APPEARS cheaper, and indeed they are to buy
>>
>>
>initially but are more expensive to run than Canons - don't believe
>me take a look at the ink prices.
>
>
>>With one tank down on a Epson you have lost printing ability because
>>
>>
>of the 'chipped' tanks, also to refill you have to reset the chip,
>with Canon's you just refill.
>
>

If "tank down" means empty you still cannot SAFELY print with a Canon
unchipped cart either. If you do not heed the empty notification (not
the low ink warning) you will burn out the print head.

>>Also noted on various forums is that Epson's are known to 'clog',
>>
>>
>yes you do see other printers clogging- but not as many.
>
>
>>Don't take my advice!!!!! Look through various Forums and you will
>>
>>
>see what I mean. It's certainly not the prices of the printers that
> should be of concern but the running cost, you will see that the
>Canon's are very conservative in this respect.
>
>
>>Also the Canon print head is 'USER' replacable whilst the Epson
>>
>>
>is'nt unless you know how to strip the printer down.
>
>
>>Have a look around come back and let me know if Im right or wrong,
>>
>>
>a little advice don't take just one person's comment .
>
>
>>Davy
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:48:23 AM

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

Andy wrote:
> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
> news:Nc8ie.37574$a25.26120@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>> Andy wrote:
>>> "Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>> "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>> Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson
>>>>>> has a known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's.
>>>>>> May people have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his
>>>>>> 3rd R300 for that reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent
>>>>> had any problems and love it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically,
>>>>>> is much faster, the business document printing is much higher
>>>>>> quality, and the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think
>>>>>> it is a better deal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson
>>>>> is rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>>> etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why
>>>>> i cant work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are
>>>>> lsoing out to the Epson's
>>>>
>>>> What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the
>>>> higher running costs.
>>>
>>> refills roughly the same price.
>>>
>>>>>>> I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more
>>>>>>> for less features.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these
>>>>> days so i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on
>>>>> price
>>>>
>>>> It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably
>>>> going to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a
>>>> better customer service record.
>>>
>>>
>>> If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even
>>> tempted to try and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
>>
>> Golden Rule of Printer Ownership: - the lower the initial costs the
>> higher the cost of ownership.
>
> if youre buying a lexmark!!!
>
>> Compare the R800 and the iP8500. The R800 costs nearly £100 less
>> than the iP8500, but the tanks are, depending on where you purchase
>> them, around £15 for the colours and £10 for the gloss optimiser.
>> The Canon is £100 more, but the tanks cost around £5-£6 each. Cost
>> of a set is £145 compared with £48 for the Canon. IOW, you can
>> purchase three sets for the Canon for the price of one for the Epson.
>>
>> You must spend more to spend less.
>
>
> I think anyone would have to be daft to buy Epson or Canon carts. The
> price is the same for generic carts

I beg to differ. The JetTec tanks for the R800 cost the same as the OEM
Canon. I can get JetTec Canon for £1.80.

--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:44:51 AM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:
>> IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to
> print -
>> I can't fault it.
>>
>
> But, it doesn't use pigment inks, and that's the problem. The trade
> off isn't color rendition, or vibrancy, (and you can answer this
> better than many... do you think the color rendition of the R800 is
> less vibrant than the dye ink sets printing color matched prints?)
> BUT, the trade off is: dye ink which doesn't clog as often, but
> doesn't provide permanence, versus pigment which can clog more often,
> but provides permanence.

You have a point, Art, but I bought them to do different jobs. I have the
R800 for those prints I wish to last, and the Canon I bought as a 'laser
substitute'. The Canon will have at least 200 pages shoved through it a
month, the Epson is used for customers' photos.


> Although I do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer, I'm somewhat
> surprised (that's not a challenge of your experience, just surprised)
> that yours clogged as it did, because I tested the R Ultrachrome inks,
> and they just took forever to dry (I'm speaking months).

Well, it did, which is why I'm even less enamoured of Epson (surely there
must be a compromise, some sort of middle ground?). Here's something else I
hate about the R800, which is putting me off purchasing one of the new A3s.
Last year, I had to produce 500 service sheets for my grandmother's funeral.
At the time, I had an i9950 and it didn't much care for taking the sheets
through the other way (they would catch and the corners would be spoiled).
So, because I found it at a reasonable price, I purchased the R800. Now,
bear in mind I was using Epson ink and Epson media, this was what happened.

I printed the outside of the 'cover', which had a picture of my grandmother,
along with the date and time of the service and, on the back an image of a
rose (they were her favourites) and my contact details (included at my
grandfather's request). I printed them in batches of 100. I did the outside
of the first batch and then went to have lunch. I left them in a box, went
and ate, and then took five of them and placed them in tray to print the
inside (a couple of rose images, one either side). After the first couple
had printed, I picked them up and looked at them - they were spoiled; the
ink hadn't been absorbed by the card at all, it was sitting on the surface -
I picked up one of the remaining three and ran a finger lightly over the
text on the front; it smeared. In fact, smeared isn't the right word, it was
like powder. OK, I thought, I've not left them long enough to dry.

So I left the rest, spread out on the dining room table, overnight (about 10
hours). The dining room is well ventilated and adequately heated. I picked
one up the following morning and, guess what? The same thing happened. I
have spoken to Epson and they have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer
(actually, they've yet to come up with an answer, full stop). I had to do
that batch again and feed the rest through one at a time. Bear in mind that
each outside took roughly 3 minutes times 500 is 1500 minutes, or 25 hours.
The insides probably took half that - 12½ hours. That's 37½ hours - and I
hadn't done the service sheet innards, they probably took another 12½
hours - 50 hours all in, most of which I had to spend 'nursemaiding' the
printer! If you can come up with an explanation for that, you're a better
man than I (or Epson), Gunga Din...

> I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
> printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents stored
> in the printer to clean the heads.

You and me both, buddy. It's hardly environmentally friendly to have to
shove a nozzle check through every day, either. I like to take myself off,
when I can afford it, and I have yet to find a satisfactory method of
storing the printer (with tanks in or without) so that I can come back and
use it immediately.

>
> Anyway, I'd be interested in your experience with color rendition with
> the R800.

You mean photo print quality? Can't fault it. My father took some photos of
his prize tulip bed with my 350D and I used that as a test print as it was
all strong colours (reds, yellows, greens and blues) - it was fantastic.

There is one thing that puzzles me about the Canon though (and you may be
able to clear this up for me). I thought the Canon black was pigmented which
would mean, I would have thought, that it was waterproof (or water resistant
at the very least). So I printed a letter on Canon's own plain paper (I
believe the code is 101) and left it for 30 minutes and then rubbed it
gently with a damp cloth. It smeared. I repeated the test using their high
resolution media. Same thing. So, if I cannot achieve a water-resistant
finish using Canon inks on Canon media, then it's a pretty poor show. I have
emailed Canon several times (as the ink in my i9950 obviously does the same
thing) but I have yet to receive any kind of a response.

It's a bit misleading to advertise it as pigmented (which, by definition, is
water-resistant) if it's not. I would have thought they'd have tested it
with their own media!

Just odd that's all...





--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
May 18, 2005 1:45:13 PM

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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:06:48 +0100, "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to make
>good regular use of it.
>
>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
>can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>
>Epson R200 - £65.99
>Epson R300 - £77.90
>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>
>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>

The first wide carriage 9-pin dot matrix we bought cost over £ 700. Adjusting
for inflation, that's about £ 2,000 of today's money.
Be grateful that inkjet printers are now affordable at ridiculously low prices.
May 18, 2005 1:45:14 PM

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

In article <auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com>, pete@maildox.com
says...
> >Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to make
> >good regular use of it.
> >
> >Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
> >can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
> >
> >Epson R200 - £65.99
> >Epson R300 - £77.90
> >Canon IP4000 - £92.78
> >
> >What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>

I own all the printers you have listed above (plus others), and I must say,
on a cost vs performance basis the ip4000 is the least expensive printer to
run.

My Epsons do a good job but require head cleaning too often to make them
economical.. (I find I have to run, on average, 4 head cleaning cycles every
2 days to keep both the R200 and the R300 printing without streaks, gaps, and
bands.

The ip4000 on the other hand, only requires a head cleaning cycle after
changing cartridges.

That alone makes it a less expensive printer.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:45:13 PM

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

I tested the INKS not the printer. Whenever Epson comes out with a new
set of inks, I get samples of each color to test to see if the cleaning
fluid mixes I suggest are compatible with them. To do this, I take the
inks and place small quantities on a nonabsorbent surface, that might
represent the head surface or internal parts of the head. I then allow
them to dry over days or weeks or even months to determine if the
solvent mixes will properly dissolve them.

All Ultrachrome inks are slow drying under these conditions. However,
the R series Ultrachrome took longer still to dry. They obviously have
a lot of glycol in them.

No one argues that the pigmented inks used in Epson printers are more
prone to clog if left sitting for weeks, so that is why I suggested that
Epson should work on an improved cleaning method.

Please try to create proper attribution of quotes when you quote material.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> How did you test them if you do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer?
>

Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>> I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
>> printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents stored
>> in the printer to clean the heads.
>
>

measekite wrote:

>
> Why just Epson? And why should they when you can attempt to use
> expensive ink?
>
May 18, 2005 3:05:27 PM

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

"pete" <pete@maildox.com> wrote in message
news:auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:06:48 +0100, "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
>>make
>>good regular use of it.
>>
>>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
>>can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>
>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>
>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>
>
> The first wide carriage 9-pin dot matrix we bought cost over £ 700.
> Adjusting
> for inflation, that's about £ 2,000 of today's money.
> Be grateful that inkjet printers are now affordable at ridiculously low
> prices.

so have PC's and most other things. what a stupid answer
May 18, 2005 3:05:54 PM

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

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf4dc2ee3feae3e9899d9@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com>, pete@maildox.com
says...
> >Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
> >make
> >good regular use of it.
> >
> >Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
> >can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
> >
> >Epson R200 - £65.99
> >Epson R300 - £77.90
> >Canon IP4000 - £92.78
> >
> >What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>

I own all the printers you have listed above (plus others), and I must say,
on a cost vs performance basis the ip4000 is the least expensive printer to
run.

My Epsons do a good job but require head cleaning too often to make them
economical.. (I find I have to run, on average, 4 head cleaning cycles every
2 days to keep both the R200 and the R300 printing without streaks, gaps,
and
bands.

The ip4000 on the other hand, only requires a head cleaning cycle after
changing cartridges.

That alone makes it a less expensive printer.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.


thanks for this reply. ive decided to hang on a bit and get the ip4000
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:28:44 PM

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

I don't want to sound like an apologist for Epson, because, as you know,
I can be quite critical of them.

I am not sure which paper you used with your R800 which didn't work
correctly. As you know, Epson makes three basic ink sets, Durabrite
pigment inks, Ultrachrome Pigment inks, and then a series of dye inks.
Epson produces media for all of them and they are not all
interchangeable with all the ink types. Epson has a pdf document which
has a table showing the different printer models and which of their
papers can be used with each of them. I think it is on their US web site.

As I understand it, Some Canon printers have a black pigment colorant
ink, plus a full dye set including black. I am not sure what determines
which black is used. I assume the pigment black is used for text
printing or monochrome black printing on plain paper, but I don't know
for sure.

Also, pigment inks don't have to be waterproof. It is true that the
particles of ink themselves are waterproof, but the binder which is
supposed to hold the ink particles to the paper may not be, or the paper
itself could use a surface that is water soluble.

As you might also know, water soluble dye inks used with some Epson
papers (the matte photo quality and Archival Matte and Enhanced matte),
all make the dye waterproof once dry.

Art



Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>>>IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to
>>
>>print -
>>
>>>I can't fault it.
>>>
>>
>>But, it doesn't use pigment inks, and that's the problem. The trade
>>off isn't color rendition, or vibrancy, (and you can answer this
>>better than many... do you think the color rendition of the R800 is
>>less vibrant than the dye ink sets printing color matched prints?)
>>BUT, the trade off is: dye ink which doesn't clog as often, but
>>doesn't provide permanence, versus pigment which can clog more often,
>>but provides permanence.
>
>
> You have a point, Art, but I bought them to do different jobs. I have the
> R800 for those prints I wish to last, and the Canon I bought as a 'laser
> substitute'. The Canon will have at least 200 pages shoved through it a
> month, the Epson is used for customers' photos.
>
>
>
>>Although I do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer, I'm somewhat
>>surprised (that's not a challenge of your experience, just surprised)
>>that yours clogged as it did, because I tested the R Ultrachrome inks,
>>and they just took forever to dry (I'm speaking months).
>
>
> Well, it did, which is why I'm even less enamoured of Epson (surely there
> must be a compromise, some sort of middle ground?). Here's something else I
> hate about the R800, which is putting me off purchasing one of the new A3s.
> Last year, I had to produce 500 service sheets for my grandmother's funeral.
> At the time, I had an i9950 and it didn't much care for taking the sheets
> through the other way (they would catch and the corners would be spoiled).
> So, because I found it at a reasonable price, I purchased the R800. Now,
> bear in mind I was using Epson ink and Epson media, this was what happened.
>
> I printed the outside of the 'cover', which had a picture of my grandmother,
> along with the date and time of the service and, on the back an image of a
> rose (they were her favourites) and my contact details (included at my
> grandfather's request). I printed them in batches of 100. I did the outside
> of the first batch and then went to have lunch. I left them in a box, went
> and ate, and then took five of them and placed them in tray to print the
> inside (a couple of rose images, one either side). After the first couple
> had printed, I picked them up and looked at them - they were spoiled; the
> ink hadn't been absorbed by the card at all, it was sitting on the surface -
> I picked up one of the remaining three and ran a finger lightly over the
> text on the front; it smeared. In fact, smeared isn't the right word, it was
> like powder. OK, I thought, I've not left them long enough to dry.
>
> So I left the rest, spread out on the dining room table, overnight (about 10
> hours). The dining room is well ventilated and adequately heated. I picked
> one up the following morning and, guess what? The same thing happened. I
> have spoken to Epson and they have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer
> (actually, they've yet to come up with an answer, full stop). I had to do
> that batch again and feed the rest through one at a time. Bear in mind that
> each outside took roughly 3 minutes times 500 is 1500 minutes, or 25 hours.
> The insides probably took half that - 12½ hours. That's 37½ hours - and I
> hadn't done the service sheet innards, they probably took another 12½
> hours - 50 hours all in, most of which I had to spend 'nursemaiding' the
> printer! If you can come up with an explanation for that, you're a better
> man than I (or Epson), Gunga Din...
>
>
>>I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
>>printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents stored
>>in the printer to clean the heads.
>
>
> You and me both, buddy. It's hardly environmentally friendly to have to
> shove a nozzle check through every day, either. I like to take myself off,
> when I can afford it, and I have yet to find a satisfactory method of
> storing the printer (with tanks in or without) so that I can come back and
> use it immediately.
>
>
>>Anyway, I'd be interested in your experience with color rendition with
>>the R800.
>
>
> You mean photo print quality? Can't fault it. My father took some photos of
> his prize tulip bed with my 350D and I used that as a test print as it was
> all strong colours (reds, yellows, greens and blues) - it was fantastic.
>
> There is one thing that puzzles me about the Canon though (and you may be
> able to clear this up for me). I thought the Canon black was pigmented which
> would mean, I would have thought, that it was waterproof (or water resistant
> at the very least). So I printed a letter on Canon's own plain paper (I
> believe the code is 101) and left it for 30 minutes and then rubbed it
> gently with a damp cloth. It smeared. I repeated the test using their high
> resolution media. Same thing. So, if I cannot achieve a water-resistant
> finish using Canon inks on Canon media, then it's a pretty poor show. I have
> emailed Canon several times (as the ink in my i9950 obviously does the same
> thing) but I have yet to receive any kind of a response.
>
> It's a bit misleading to advertise it as pigmented (which, by definition, is
> water-resistant) if it's not. I would have thought they'd have tested it
> with their own media!
>
> Just odd that's all...
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:53:35 PM

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

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf4dc2ee3feae3e9899d9@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com>, pete@maildox.com
says...
> >Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
> >make
> >good regular use of it.
> >
> >Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
> >can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
> >
> >Epson R200 - £65.99
> >Epson R300 - £77.90
> >Canon IP4000 - £92.78
> >
> >What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>
>
>I own all the printers you have listed above (plus others), and I must say,
>on a cost vs performance basis the ip4000 is the least expensive printer to
>run.
>
>My Epsons do a good job but require head cleaning too often to make them
>economical.. (I find I have to run, on average, 4 head cleaning cycles
>every
>2 days to keep both the R200 and the R300 printing without streaks, gaps,
>and bands.


Somethings wrong then - my R200 sits for a week or more between use and has
never clogged yet. What inks are you using in your Epsons?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:03:17 PM

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

Andy wrote:

>"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1cf4dc2ee3feae3e9899d9@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>In article <auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com>, pete@maildox.com
>says...
>
>
>>>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
>>>make
>>>good regular use of it.
>>>
>>>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples, you
>>>can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>>
>>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>>
>>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>>
>>>
>
>I own all the printers you have listed above (plus others), and I must say,
>on a cost vs performance basis the ip4000 is the least expensive printer to
>run.
>
>
>

Do you use Epson ink? My friend has an R300 and he says he does not run
head cleanings frequently but he does use and has always used Epson ink.

I recently spoke to a purchasing manager of a 3rd party ink vendor who
sells a private label aftermarket ink made in China. He told me many
truths on what is going on in this business. They also sell Epson BRAND
ink along with MediaStreet and MIS.

He told me that Epson OEM ink is higher in quality than all of the
aftermarket inks he sells including their own.

He also said that all pigmented ink which has ground up particles in it
has a tendency to clog printers much more than dye inks. He said this
is his customer's feedback.

He also said that Epson printers do indeed use far more ink than Canon.
They test all of the printers.

>My Epsons do a good job but require head cleaning too often to make them
>economical.. (I find I have to run, on average, 4 head cleaning cycles every
>2 days to keep both the R200 and the R300 printing without streaks, gaps,
>and
>bands.
>
>The ip4000 on the other hand, only requires a head cleaning cycle after
>changing cartridges.
>
>

I do not even do that. I do us Canon OEM ink.

>That alone makes it a less expensive printer.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:10:26 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I tested the INKS not the printer. Whenever Epson comes out with a
> new set of inks, I get samples of each color to test to see if the
> cleaning fluid mixes I suggest are compatible with them. To do this,
> I take the inks and place small quantities on a nonabsorbent surface,
> that might represent the head surface or internal parts of the head.
> I then allow them to dry over days or weeks or even months to
> determine if the solvent mixes will properly dissolve them.
>
> All Ultrachrome inks are slow drying under these conditions. However,
> the R series Ultrachrome took longer still to dry. They obviously
> have a lot of glycol in them.
>
> No one argues that the pigmented inks used in Epson printers are more
> prone to clog if left sitting for weeks, so that is why I suggested
> that Epson should work on an improved cleaning method.


Don't you thing that Epson should put a notice both in the manual (post
sale info) and on the box (pre sales info) that the printer is to be run
periodically (state how often and how) and not be left unused for X
period of time. Many people buy these printers and unknowingly have
problems.

>
> Please try to create proper attribution of quotes when you quote
> material.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> How did you test them if you do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer?
>>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
>>> printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents
>>> stored in the printer to clean the heads.
>>
>>
>>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>> Why just Epson? And why should they when you can attempt to use
>> expensive ink?
>>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:39:16 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9HJie.487$mK.132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Andy wrote:
>
>>"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1cf4dc2ee3feae3e9899d9@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>>In article <auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com>, pete@maildox.com
>>says...
>>
>>>>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
>>>>make
>>>>good regular use of it.
>>>>
>>>>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples,
>>>>you
>>>>can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>>>
>>>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>>>
>>>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>>>
>>
>>I own all the printers you have listed above (plus others), and I must
>>say,
>>on a cost vs performance basis the ip4000 is the least expensive printer
>>to
>>run.
>>
>>
>
> Do you use Epson ink? My friend has an R300 and he says he does not run
> head cleanings frequently but he does use and has always used Epson ink.
>
> I recently spoke to a purchasing manager of a 3rd party ink vendor who
> sells a private label aftermarket ink made in China.

But your not prepared to name (and shame) this mythical purchasing manager?
I thought you were against all 3rd party ink suppliers - especially those
who don't name their BRAND of ink and sell Chinese no-name ink?

> He told me many truths on what is going on in this business. They also
> sell Epson BRAND ink along with MediaStreet and MIS.
>
> He told me that Epson OEM ink is higher in quality than all of the
> aftermarket inks he sells including their own.

Their 'own' being make in China? Well, considering that EPSON ink is nearly
10x the price of (some) 3rd party ink - I would be rather pissed off if it
wasn't higher quality. But, unless your planning on doing exhibition quality
prints, most people find that 3rd party inks are more than good enough
quality.


>
> He also said that all pigmented ink which has ground up particles in it
> has a tendency to clog printers much more than dye inks. He said this is
> his customer's feedback.

Nothing new there - even Epson admit that pigment inks are more liable to
clog. That's why they tell you to shake the ink carts before fitting and use
the ink within 6 months.

>
> He also said that Epson printers do indeed use far more ink than Canon.

Can he prove it though? Can he also prove that the running costs are higher
(taking ink and head replacement into consideration) with the Epson vs.
Canon?

The more I read of your posts measekite, the more I'm beginning to think
your not really happy with your Canon printer and your constantly trying to
justify the decision of buying it by putting other manufacturers down.
Can't you accept that people use other makes of printers and are happy with
them?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:42:51 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SNJie.490$mK.319@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I tested the INKS not the printer. Whenever Epson comes out with a new
>> set of inks, I get samples of each color to test to see if the cleaning
>> fluid mixes I suggest are compatible with them. To do this, I take the
>> inks and place small quantities on a nonabsorbent surface, that might
>> represent the head surface or internal parts of the head. I then allow
>> them to dry over days or weeks or even months to determine if the solvent
>> mixes will properly dissolve them.
>>
>> All Ultrachrome inks are slow drying under these conditions. However,
>> the R series Ultrachrome took longer still to dry. They obviously have a
>> lot of glycol in them.
>>
>> No one argues that the pigmented inks used in Epson printers are more
>> prone to clog if left sitting for weeks, so that is why I suggested that
>> Epson should work on an improved cleaning method.
>
>
> Don't you thing that Epson should put a notice both in the manual (post
> sale info) and on the box (pre sales info) that the printer is to be run
> periodically (state how often and how) and not be left unused for X period
> of time. Many people buy these printers and unknowingly have problems.

They do - sort off. They state that the Ultrachrome etc. ink carts should be
used within 6 months of fitting. Most people who would be able to justify
the expense of an R800 (etc.) would be using it on a semi-regular basis;
otherwise its a waste of money.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:48:01 PM

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

Ivor Floppy wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:9HJie.487$mK.132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1cf4dc2ee3feae3e9899d9@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>>>In article <auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com>, pete@maildox.com
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan to
>>>>>make
>>>>>good regular use of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples,
>>>>>you
>>>>>can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>>>>
>>>>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>>>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>>>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>>>>
>>>>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>I own all the printers you have listed above (plus others), and I must
>>>say,
>>>on a cost vs performance basis the ip4000 is the least expensive printer
>>>to
>>>run.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do you use Epson ink? My friend has an R300 and he says he does not run
>>head cleanings frequently but he does use and has always used Epson ink.
>>
>>I recently spoke to a purchasing manager of a 3rd party ink vendor who
>>sells a private label aftermarket ink made in China.
>>
>>
>
>But your not prepared to name (and shame) this mythical purchasing manager?
>I thought you were against all 3rd party ink suppliers - especially those
>who don't name their BRAND of ink and sell Chinese no-name ink?
>
>

I research things. He gave me all of this information after I told him
I do not buy UNBRANDED ink. I suggested he reinvestigate Sensinent.

>
>
>>He told me many truths on what is going on in this business. They also
>>sell Epson BRAND ink along with MediaStreet and MIS.
>>
>>He told me that Epson OEM ink is higher in quality than all of the
>>aftermarket inks he sells including their own.
>>
>>
>
>Their 'own' being make in China? Well, considering that EPSON ink is nearly
>10x the price of (some) 3rd party ink - I would be rather pissed off if it
>wasn't higher quality. But, unless your planning on doing exhibition quality
>prints, most people find that 3rd party inks are more than good enough
>quality.
>
>
>
>
>>He also said that all pigmented ink which has ground up particles in it
>>has a tendency to clog printers much more than dye inks. He said this is
>>his customer's feedback.
>>
>>
>
>Nothing new there - even Epson admit that pigment inks are more liable to
>clog. That's why they tell you to shake the ink carts before fitting and use
>the ink within 6 months.
>
>
>
>>He also said that Epson printers do indeed use far more ink than Canon.
>>
>>
>
>Can he prove it though? Can he also prove that the running costs are higher
>(taking ink and head replacement into consideration) with the Epson vs.
>Canon?
>
>The more I read of your posts measekite, the more I'm beginning to think
>your not really happy with your Canon printer and your constantly trying to
>justify the decision of buying it by putting other manufacturers down.
>Can't you accept that people use other makes of printers and are happy with
>them?
>
>

People buy Hundais and Kias also.

>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:01:58 PM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5lKie.18557$J12.10677@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Ivor Floppy wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:9HJie.487$mK.132@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Andy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
>>>>news:MPG.1cf4dc2ee3feae3e9899d9@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>>>>In article <auvl81d5d1lcog1f2v02s7idb8kbbqdp2t@4ax.com>,
>>>>pete@maildox.com
>>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Looking for a printer which will Print photos and CD/ DVD's. I plan
>>>>>>to make
>>>>>>good regular use of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ive got it down to these 3. I've used ebuyer for the price examples,
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>can probably get them all slightly cheaper shopping around
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Epson R200 - £65.99
>>>>>>Epson R300 - £77.90
>>>>>>Canon IP4000 - £92.78
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What i can't understand is why the Canon is so much more expensive?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>I own all the printers you have listed above (plus others), and I must
>>>>say,
>>>>on a cost vs performance basis the ip4000 is the least expensive printer
>>>>to
>>>>run.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Do you use Epson ink? My friend has an R300 and he says he does not run
>>>head cleanings frequently but he does use and has always used Epson ink.
>>>
>>>I recently spoke to a purchasing manager of a 3rd party ink vendor who
>>>sells a private label aftermarket ink made in China.
>>>
>>
>>But your not prepared to name (and shame) this mythical purchasing
>>manager? I thought you were against all 3rd party ink suppliers -
>>especially those who don't name their BRAND of ink and sell Chinese
>>no-name ink?
>>
>
> I research things. He gave me all of this information after I told him I
> do not buy UNBRANDED ink. I suggested he reinvestigate Sensinent.
>
>>
>>>He told me many truths on what is going on in this business. They also
>>>sell Epson BRAND ink along with MediaStreet and MIS.
>>>
>>>He told me that Epson OEM ink is higher in quality than all of the
>>>aftermarket inks he sells including their own.
>>>
>>
>>Their 'own' being make in China? Well, considering that EPSON ink is
>>nearly 10x the price of (some) 3rd party ink - I would be rather pissed
>>off if it wasn't higher quality. But, unless your planning on doing
>>exhibition quality prints, most people find that 3rd party inks are more
>>than good enough quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>He also said that all pigmented ink which has ground up particles in it
>>>has a tendency to clog printers much more than dye inks. He said this is
>>>his customer's feedback.
>>>
>>
>>Nothing new there - even Epson admit that pigment inks are more liable to
>>clog. That's why they tell you to shake the ink carts before fitting and
>>use the ink within 6 months.
>>
>>
>>>He also said that Epson printers do indeed use far more ink than Canon.
>>>
>>
>>Can he prove it though? Can he also prove that the running costs are
>>higher (taking ink and head replacement into consideration) with the Epson
>>vs. Canon?
>>
>>The more I read of your posts measekite, the more I'm beginning to think
>>your not really happy with your Canon printer and your constantly trying
>>to justify the decision of buying it by putting other manufacturers down.
>>Can't you accept that people use other makes of printers and are happy
>>with them?
>>
>
> People buy Hundais and Kias also.
>

So?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:52:18 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I don't want to sound like an apologist for Epson, because, as you
> know, I can be quite critical of them.
>
> I am not sure which paper you used with your R800 which didn't work
> correctly. As you know, Epson makes three basic ink sets, Durabrite
> pigment inks, Ultrachrome Pigment inks, and then a series of dye inks.
> Epson produces media for all of them and they are not all
> interchangeable with all the ink types. Epson has a pdf document
> which has a table showing the different printer models and which of
> their papers can be used with each of them. I think it is on their US
> web site.
>
> As I understand it, Some Canon printers have a black pigment colorant
> ink, plus a full dye set including black. I am not sure what
> determines which black is used.


It is the choice of paper on the driver menu. Plain paper selects
pigmented black. Photo paper and other non Plain paper selects the dye
black.

> I assume the pigment black is used for text printing or monochrome
> black printing on plain paper, but I don't know for sure.
>
> Also, pigment inks don't have to be waterproof. It is true that the
> particles of ink themselves are waterproof, but the binder which is
> supposed to hold the ink particles to the paper may not be, or the
> paper itself could use a surface that is water soluble.
>
> As you might also know, water soluble dye inks used with some Epson
> papers (the matte photo quality and Archival Matte and Enhanced
> matte), all make the dye waterproof once dry.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>>> IMNSHO, it's the best printer on the planet. Cheap to run, quick to
>>>
>>>
>>> print -
>>>
>>>> I can't fault it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But, it doesn't use pigment inks, and that's the problem. The trade
>>> off isn't color rendition, or vibrancy, (and you can answer this
>>> better than many... do you think the color rendition of the R800 is
>>> less vibrant than the dye ink sets printing color matched prints?)
>>> BUT, the trade off is: dye ink which doesn't clog as often, but
>>> doesn't provide permanence, versus pigment which can clog more often,
>>> but provides permanence.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have a point, Art, but I bought them to do different jobs. I have
>> the R800 for those prints I wish to last, and the Canon I bought as a
>> 'laser substitute'. The Canon will have at least 200 pages shoved
>> through it a month, the Epson is used for customers' photos.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Although I do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer, I'm somewhat
>>> surprised (that's not a challenge of your experience, just surprised)
>>> that yours clogged as it did, because I tested the R Ultrachrome inks,
>>> and they just took forever to dry (I'm speaking months).
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, it did, which is why I'm even less enamoured of Epson (surely
>> there must be a compromise, some sort of middle ground?). Here's
>> something else I hate about the R800, which is putting me off
>> purchasing one of the new A3s. Last year, I had to produce 500
>> service sheets for my grandmother's funeral. At the time, I had an
>> i9950 and it didn't much care for taking the sheets through the other
>> way (they would catch and the corners would be spoiled). So, because
>> I found it at a reasonable price, I purchased the R800. Now, bear in
>> mind I was using Epson ink and Epson media, this was what happened.
>>
>> I printed the outside of the 'cover', which had a picture of my
>> grandmother, along with the date and time of the service and, on the
>> back an image of a rose (they were her favourites) and my contact
>> details (included at my grandfather's request). I printed them in
>> batches of 100. I did the outside of the first batch and then went to
>> have lunch. I left them in a box, went and ate, and then took five of
>> them and placed them in tray to print the inside (a couple of rose
>> images, one either side). After the first couple had printed, I
>> picked them up and looked at them - they were spoiled; the ink hadn't
>> been absorbed by the card at all, it was sitting on the surface - I
>> picked up one of the remaining three and ran a finger lightly over
>> the text on the front; it smeared. In fact, smeared isn't the right
>> word, it was like powder. OK, I thought, I've not left them long
>> enough to dry.
>>
>> So I left the rest, spread out on the dining room table, overnight
>> (about 10 hours). The dining room is well ventilated and adequately
>> heated. I picked one up the following morning and, guess what? The
>> same thing happened. I have spoken to Epson and they have yet to come
>> up with a satisfactory answer (actually, they've yet to come up with
>> an answer, full stop). I had to do that batch again and feed the rest
>> through one at a time. Bear in mind that each outside took roughly 3
>> minutes times 500 is 1500 minutes, or 25 hours. The insides probably
>> took half that - 12½ hours. That's 37½ hours - and I hadn't done the
>> service sheet innards, they probably took another 12½ hours - 50
>> hours all in, most of which I had to spend 'nursemaiding' the
>> printer! If you can come up with an explanation for that, you're a
>> better man than I (or Epson), Gunga Din...
>>
>>
>>> I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
>>> printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents stored
>>> in the printer to clean the heads.
>>
>>
>>
>> You and me both, buddy. It's hardly environmentally friendly to have
>> to shove a nozzle check through every day, either. I like to take
>> myself off, when I can afford it, and I have yet to find a
>> satisfactory method of storing the printer (with tanks in or without)
>> so that I can come back and use it immediately.
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, I'd be interested in your experience with color rendition with
>>> the R800.
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean photo print quality? Can't fault it. My father took some
>> photos of his prize tulip bed with my 350D and I used that as a test
>> print as it was all strong colours (reds, yellows, greens and blues)
>> - it was fantastic.
>>
>> There is one thing that puzzles me about the Canon though (and you
>> may be able to clear this up for me). I thought the Canon black was
>> pigmented which would mean, I would have thought, that it was
>> waterproof (or water resistant at the very least). So I printed a
>> letter on Canon's own plain paper (I believe the code is 101) and
>> left it for 30 minutes and then rubbed it gently with a damp cloth.
>> It smeared. I repeated the test using their high resolution media.
>> Same thing. So, if I cannot achieve a water-resistant finish using
>> Canon inks on Canon media, then it's a pretty poor show. I have
>> emailed Canon several times (as the ink in my i9950 obviously does
>> the same thing) but I have yet to receive any kind of a response.
>>
>> It's a bit misleading to advertise it as pigmented (which, by
>> definition, is water-resistant) if it's not. I would have thought
>> they'd have tested it with their own media!
>>
>> Just odd that's all...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
May 19, 2005 5:48:57 AM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Wx8ie.18110$J12.5886@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Andy wrote:
>
>>"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>>news:Nc8ie.37574$a25.26120@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>>
>>>Andy wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>
>>>>>"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson
>>>>>>>has a known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May
>>>>>>>people have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his
>>>>>>>3rd R300 for that reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had
>>>>>>any problems and love it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically,
>>>>>>>is much faster, the business document printing is much higher
>>>>>>>quality, and the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it
>>>>>>>is a better deal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>>>>>>rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>>>>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i
>>>>>>cant work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are
>>>>>>lsoing out to the Epson's
>>>>>>
>>>>>What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
>>>>>running costs.
>>>>>
>>>>refills roughly the same price.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for
>>>>>>>>less features.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these
>>>>>>days so i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably
>>>>>going to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a
>>>>>better customer service record.
>>>>>
>>>>If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted
>>>>to try and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
>>>>
>>>Golden Rule of Printer Ownership: - the lower the initial costs the
>>>higher the cost of ownership.
>>>
>>
>>if youre buying a lexmark!!!
>>
>>
>>>Compare the R800 and the iP8500. The R800 costs nearly £100 less than the
>>>iP8500, but the tanks are, depending on where you purchase them, around
>>>£15 for the colours and £10 for the gloss optimiser. The Canon is £100
>>>more, but the tanks cost around £5-£6 each. Cost of a set is £145
>>>compared with £48 for the Canon. IOW, you can purchase three sets for the
>>>Canon for the price of one for the Epson.
>>>
>>>You must spend more to spend less.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think anyone would have to be daft to buy Epson or Canon carts. The
>>price is the same for generic carts
>
> But with most of them your printhead gets constipated.

Cute one-liner, but the fact is that there are good quality third party inks
out there. Either ask around for personal recommendations or look through
this NG for information about vendors and their products.
>
>>
>>
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 10:04:16 AM

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

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Wx8ie.18110$J12.5886@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Nc8ie.37574$a25.26120@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Andy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>news:acudnZxCDOwYUBXfRVnysg@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1116260050.32568.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Only in the UK are the prices more expensive. Anyway the Epson
>>>>>>>>has a known design problem with the feed mechanism for DC/DVD's. May
>>>>>>>>people have had problems with it. A friend of mine is on his
>>>>>>>>3rd R300 for that reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I heard that but them again there are alot of people who havent had
>>>>>>>any problems and love it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Canon has twin paper feeds, prints full duplex automatically,
>>>>>>>>is much faster, the business document printing is much higher
>>>>>>>>quality, and the photo quality maybe marginally better. I think it
>>>>>>>>is a better deal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is a good printer but the R300 has more features and the Epson is
>>>>>>>rated higher for photos. having the LCD screen
>>>>>>>etc the Epson must also be more expensive to produce which is why i
>>>>>>>cant work out this pricing of canon's. canon must know they are
>>>>>>>lsoing out to the Epson's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What you save upfront on the Epson you'll end up losing on the higher
>>>>>>running costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>refills roughly the same price.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I like the Canon but I can't bring myself to pay so much more for
>>>>>>>>>less features.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would much prefer the Canon but no printer seems to last these
>>>>>>>days so i'm sadly going to have to go for the Epson simply on price
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's your call. I'm going for the iP4000, even though I'm probably
>>>>>>going to pay more than your quote to get it from a retailer with a
>>>>>>better customer service record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>If i could justfy the money i'd buy the Canon too. I am even tempted
>>>>>to try and hold out to see if Canon do drop their prices
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Golden Rule of Printer Ownership: - the lower the initial costs the
>>>>higher the cost of ownership.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>if youre buying a lexmark!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Compare the R800 and the iP8500. The R800 costs nearly £100 less than the
>>>>iP8500, but the tanks are, depending on where you purchase them, around
>>>>£15 for the colours and £10 for the gloss optimiser. The Canon is £100
>>>>more, but the tanks cost around £5-£6 each. Cost of a set is £145
>>>>compared with £48 for the Canon. IOW, you can purchase three sets for the
>>>>Canon for the price of one for the Epson.
>>>>
>>>>You must spend more to spend less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I think anyone would have to be daft to buy Epson or Canon carts. The
>>>price is the same for generic carts
>>>
>>>
>>But with most of them your printhead gets constipated.
>>
>>
>
>Cute one-liner, but the fact is that there are good quality third party inks
>out there. Either ask around for personal recommendations or look through
>this NG for information about vendors and their products.
>
>

Card carrying members of the AfterMarket club do attest to a few
Labels. But all of them combined may be speaking about one or two
mfg/formulators because the vendors do not want to tell the person what
they are buying.

>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:04:43 PM

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

I think all inkjet printer companies should inform the owners that long
periods without use can lead to head clogs. I don't expect any of them
will.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I tested the INKS not the printer. Whenever Epson comes out with a
>> new set of inks, I get samples of each color to test to see if the
>> cleaning fluid mixes I suggest are compatible with them. To do this,
>> I take the inks and place small quantities on a nonabsorbent surface,
>> that might represent the head surface or internal parts of the head.
>> I then allow them to dry over days or weeks or even months to
>> determine if the solvent mixes will properly dissolve them.
>>
>> All Ultrachrome inks are slow drying under these conditions. However,
>> the R series Ultrachrome took longer still to dry. They obviously
>> have a lot of glycol in them.
>>
>> No one argues that the pigmented inks used in Epson printers are more
>> prone to clog if left sitting for weeks, so that is why I suggested
>> that Epson should work on an improved cleaning method.
>
>
>
> Don't you thing that Epson should put a notice both in the manual (post
> sale info) and on the box (pre sales info) that the printer is to be run
> periodically (state how often and how) and not be left unused for X
> period of time. Many people buy these printers and unknowingly have
> problems.
>
>>
>> Please try to create proper attribution of quotes when you quote
>> material.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How did you test them if you do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer?
>>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method for
>>>> printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents
>>>> stored in the printer to clean the heads.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why just Epson? And why should they when you can attempt to use
>>> expensive ink?
>>>
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:16:26 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I think all inkjet printer companies should inform the owners that
> long periods without use can lead to head clogs. I don't expect any
> of them will.
>
> Art


It seems that the HP models that have an integrated head and cart prove
to be the exception. I left mine unused for 3 to 5 months and it
printed again without a problem.

>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I tested the INKS not the printer. Whenever Epson comes out with a
>>> new set of inks, I get samples of each color to test to see if the
>>> cleaning fluid mixes I suggest are compatible with them. To do
>>> this, I take the inks and place small quantities on a nonabsorbent
>>> surface, that might represent the head surface or internal parts of
>>> the head. I then allow them to dry over days or weeks or even
>>> months to determine if the solvent mixes will properly dissolve them.
>>>
>>> All Ultrachrome inks are slow drying under these conditions.
>>> However, the R series Ultrachrome took longer still to dry. They
>>> obviously have a lot of glycol in them.
>>>
>>> No one argues that the pigmented inks used in Epson printers are
>>> more prone to clog if left sitting for weeks, so that is why I
>>> suggested that Epson should work on an improved cleaning method.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't you thing that Epson should put a notice both in the manual
>> (post sale info) and on the box (pre sales info) that the printer is
>> to be run periodically (state how often and how) and not be left
>> unused for X period of time. Many people buy these printers and
>> unknowingly have problems.
>>
>>>
>>> Please try to create proper attribution of quotes when you quote
>>> material.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How did you test them if you do not own a R Ultrachrome ink printer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I really wish Epson would come up with a special cleaning method
>>>>> for printers left unused for several weeks that used some solvents
>>>>> stored in the printer to clean the heads.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why just Epson? And why should they when you can attempt to use
>>>> expensive ink?
>>>>
May 19, 2005 9:12:16 PM

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

(snip)

> Card carrying members of the AfterMarket club do attest to a few Labels.
> But all of them combined may be speaking about one or two mfg/formulators
> because the vendors do not want to tell the person what they are buying.

Senator McCarthy, many years ago, used the phrase "card carrying members" to
smear people he had accused of being Communists. Measekite uses similar
tactics to smear vendors and demean the people who deal with them. When
logic fails, use invective and innuendo. Fortunately this is an open forum
and people can respond with their own valid experiences as opposed to his
untested opinions.
May 19, 2005 9:18:41 PM

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

Burt wrote:
> (snip)
>
>
>>Card carrying members of the AfterMarket club do attest to a few Labels.
>>But all of them combined may be speaking about one or two mfg/formulators
>>because the vendors do not want to tell the person what they are buying.
>
>
> Senator McCarthy, many years ago, used the phrase "card carrying members" to
> smear people he had accused of being Communists. Measekite uses similar
> tactics to smear vendors and demean the people who deal with them. When
> logic fails, use invective and innuendo. Fortunately this is an open forum
> and people can respond with their own valid experiences as opposed to his
> untested opinions.
>
>
hehehehe...I like that comparison Burt. Right on the money for those of
us in the know but for the intended...well as we all know...he don't
know. :-)
Frank
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:19:06 PM

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

Burt wrote:

>(snip)
>
>
>
>>Card carrying members of the AfterMarket club do attest to a few Labels.
>>But all of them combined may be speaking about one or two mfg/formulators
>>because the vendors do not want to tell the person what they are buying.
>>
>>
>
>Senator McCarthy, many years ago, used the phrase "card carrying members" to
>smear people he had accused of being Communists. Measekite uses similar
>tactics to smear vendors and demean the people who deal with them. When
>logic fails, use invective and innuendo. Fortunately this is an open forum
>and people can respond with their own valid experiences as opposed to his
>untested opinions.
>
>

You can call me Senator Measekite ;-)

>
>
>
!