i950 print head

[Guest]

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

I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
printer that gives better results? If so, which one?

I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.

 

[Guest]

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

no one wrote:
> I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
> print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
> don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
> printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
>
> I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
> after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
> It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.
>

And yet another alternative - the one I chose for my i860 - I went to
eBay. A new printhead is about $55. I believe there is free shipping
(free for US only). It's a genuine Canon printhead. Worked beautifully.
If you can't find it on eBay, email me, I believe I have the link.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

First thing to check is if there is any warranty remaining on the printer.
Did you get it with a credit card? If so you may have a built in extended
warranty from the credit card company. If neither of those two apply, forget
about repair or replacement parts to the existing printer. Go to
www.tigerdirect.com They have new i960's for $79.99 and refurbs (just as
good) for $69.99. Get a new one and you'll have a full warranty vs. three
months on the refurb. Both will come with a complete set of new Canon tanks
and that's worth over $60.00 making your net cost only about $20.00 +s&h.
That's a lot better than buying a replacement part.

Ron


"no one" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:428E5C45.68652AA7@nowhere.com...
> I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
> print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
> don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
> printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
>
> I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
> after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
> It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.
>

 

[Guest]

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

The IP4000 has many more features. It is a great printer and can be had
on sale for around $100.00.

no one wrote:

>I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
>print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
>don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
>printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
>
>I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
>after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
>It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks Ron and measkite for your replies. I've been paying $45 or so for ink
sets on eBay (genuine Canon carts), so replacing the printer is the way to
go. I had been looking at the IP4000. Are the photos equivalent with this
printer even though it uses three color and two black carts compared with the
i960 with it's 6 cartridges? The specs are the same or better in other
regards. I've looked around but not found side by side comparison of print
results.

The discount price on the I960 is after a manufacturers rebate. How is
Canon's reputation on sending the rebate check? That figures in heavily
since half of the invoice price is rebate.

The print head seems to have microelectronics inside it. The manual gives
pin out for digital signals and supply voltages that a purely passive print
head would not use. It also contains an eeprom. Some of the row and column
addressing is gone in this print head, as suggested by entire rows and
columns being absent. I've been reading a fair number of complaints
concerning dead Canon print heads on pretty new printers. My i950 is two
year old so out of warranty by a year. Is this a problem that is ongoing or
has it been resolved with improved design?

measekite wrote:

> The IP4000 has many more features. It is a great printer and can be had
> on sale for around $100.00.
>
> no one wrote:
>
> >I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
> >print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
> >don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
> >printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
> >
> >I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
> >after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
> >It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.
> >
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

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

Either printer is a good buy. From a purely cost standpoint, the i960 is the
least expensive at the moment and you know what it will do. OTOH, I've owned
(still do) i950's and s820's which use the same six tank setup. The i950 is
essentially an older version of the i960, but uses the same printhead. I
also own an iP4000 and prefer it to either of the other printers. If
anything, the lack of the photo cyan and photo magenta is a plus for this
printer. The i950/i960 have a tendency to overdrive magenta giving a pinkish
cast to photos. The iP4000 doesn't have that problem. Photo quality is
excellent. I've used Canon rebates several times. Never a problem.

Ron


"no one" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:428E6F06.84A65317@nowhere.com...
> Thanks Ron and measkite for your replies. I've been paying $45 or so for
> ink
> sets on eBay (genuine Canon carts), so replacing the printer is the way to
> go. I had been looking at the IP4000. Are the photos equivalent with
> this
> printer even though it uses three color and two black carts compared with
> the
> i960 with it's 6 cartridges? The specs are the same or better in other
> regards. I've looked around but not found side by side comparison of
> print
> results.
>
> The discount price on the I960 is after a manufacturers rebate. How is
> Canon's reputation on sending the rebate check? That figures in heavily
> since half of the invoice price is rebate.
>
> The print head seems to have microelectronics inside it. The manual gives
> pin out for digital signals and supply voltages that a purely passive
> print
> head would not use. It also contains an eeprom. Some of the row and
> column
> addressing is gone in this print head, as suggested by entire rows and
> columns being absent. I've been reading a fair number of complaints
> concerning dead Canon print heads on pretty new printers. My i950 is two
> year old so out of warranty by a year. Is this a problem that is ongoing
> or
> has it been resolved with improved design?
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> The IP4000 has many more features. It is a great printer and can be had
>> on sale for around $100.00.
>>
>> no one wrote:
>>
>> >I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
>> >print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
>> >don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
>> >printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
>> >
>> >I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
>> >after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
>> >It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>

 

[Guest]

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

no one wrote:

>Thanks Ron and measkite for your replies. I've been paying $45 or so for ink
>sets on eBay (genuine Canon carts), so replacing the printer is the way to
>go. I had been looking at the IP4000. Are the photos equivalent with this
>printer even though it uses three color and two black carts compared with the
>i960 with it's 6 cartridges? The specs are the same or better in other
>regards. I've looked around but not found side by side comparison of print
>results.
>
>

The i960, a 6 color printer, should do somewhat better on certain photos
that include more pastel type colors. But due to the low dye load inks
the photos would have a greater tendency to fade. By how much and how
fast relative to the IP4000 I do not know. The i960 costs more to run
because it uses more ink and in greater diversity.

The IP4000 should do better on text because it has an extra pigmented
black cartridge. The IP4000 also has twin paper feeds and prints full
duplex automatically. The technology is also newer.

I would suppose that in some photos the i960 may be marginally better.
The IP4000 is the fastest printer in the Canon line except for the i9900.

>The discount price on the I960 is after a manufacturers rebate. How is
>Canon's reputation on sending the rebate check? That figures in heavily
>since half of the invoice price is rebate.
>
>The print head seems to have microelectronics inside it. The manual gives
>pin out for digital signals and supply voltages that a purely passive print
>head would not use. It also contains an eeprom. Some of the row and column
>addressing is gone in this print head, as suggested by entire rows and
>columns being absent. I've been reading a fair number of complaints
>concerning dead Canon print heads on pretty new printers. My i950 is two
>year old so out of warranty by a year. Is this a problem that is ongoing or
>has it been resolved with improved design?
>
>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>The IP4000 has many more features. It is a great printer and can be had
>>on sale for around $100.00.
>>
>>no one wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
>>>print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
>>>don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
>>>printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
>>>
>>>I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
>>>after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
>>>It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Cohen wrote:
> First thing to check is if there is any warranty remaining on the printer.
> Did you get it with a credit card? If so you may have a built in extended
> warranty from the credit card company. If neither of those two apply, forget
> about repair or replacement parts to the existing printer. Go to
> www.tigerdirect.com They have new i960's for $79.99 and refurbs (just as
> good) for $69.99. Get a new one and you'll have a full warranty vs. three
> months on the refurb. Both will come with a complete set of new Canon tanks
> and that's worth over $60.00 making your net cost only about $20.00 +s&h.
> That's a lot better than buying a replacement part.
>
> Ron
Fry's is selling the refurb'd 960 for $60. Saw one yesterday.

Mickey

 

[Guest]

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

Mickey wrote:

> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>> First thing to check is if there is any warranty remaining on the
>> printer. Did you get it with a credit card? If so you may have a
>> built in extended warranty from the credit card company. If neither
>> of those two apply, forget about repair or replacement parts to the
>> existing printer. Go to www.tigerdirect.com They have new i960's for
>> $79.99 and refurbs (just as good) for $69.99. Get a new one and
>> you'll have a full warranty vs. three months on the refurb. Both will
>> come with a complete set of new Canon tanks and that's worth over
>> $60.00 making your net cost only about $20.00 +s&h. That's a lot
>> better than buying a replacement part.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Fry's is selling the refurb'd 960 for $60. Saw one yesterday.
>
> Mickey


I would recommend a brand new IP4000 with a 1 year warranty for a little
more.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:13:03 GMT, no one <none@nowhere.com> wrote:


>The print head seems to have microelectronics inside it. The manual gives
>pin out for digital signals and supply voltages that a purely passive print
>head would not use. It also contains an eeprom. Some of the row and column
>addressing is gone in this print head, as suggested by entire rows and
>columns being absent. I've been reading a fair number of complaints
>concerning dead Canon print heads on pretty new printers. My i950 is two
>year old so out of warranty by a year. Is this a problem that is ongoing or
>has it been resolved with improved design?
>
It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
years.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks for the many replies. I wouldn't consdier a refurbished unit with only 90
days waranty. I'll buy refurbished gear when it represents a bargain, but it's
no deal in this instance. The i960 is available new for $80 after rebate and
includes a full set on ink. That makes it the cheapest way to go. Micky is
right, buying a replacement head just doesn't make sense. At $110, the ip4000 is
a viable option and it can use most of the i950 inks I already have on the
shelf. If the head is more reliable in the ip4000, it would be the way to go.

Is this problem of print head failure common to the entire recent Canon printer
line or is the i950 worse than most? Does the ip4000 also suffer from electronic
failures of the print head or is it's head more durable?

I've had epson printers fail from ink clogging and they could be brought back
with careful cleaning sometimes. I've also had them fail electrically. Really,
none of the inkjets I've owned have lasted for a satisfactory length of
ownership. Funny, but you never read about that in the product reviews.

I got barely over 1000 pages printed through my two year old i950 before it
died. Much of that use was not printing photos because the ink costs too much.

My HP laserjet III dinosaur is at page 20,400 and going strong. That is what I
use for printing text.

Hecate wrote:

> >
> It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
> years.

 

[BURT]

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

No One - If dye based inks work for you and you are not looking to the more
permanent Epson prints for your needs, then the i960 is a really fine photo
printer. I bought two of them when the prices dropped last year after
reading Neil Slade's info at
http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html . I am refilling OEM carts
and MIS virgin (empty) carts with MIS inks and haven't had any problems with
them in almost one year of use. I have decided that all of these printers
are either potentially short lived or need some additional home maintenance.
Using third party inks that others have used extensively and recommend has
already saved me the cost of two or three new printers. I'll have no
regrets moving on to another printer when this one fails. The first set of
refill inks - 2 oz.each of six colors - provided about the equivalent of 36
carts and cost $36, including shipping. The best price for OEM carts,
incluing tax, is about $10 each. A conservative estimate of savings was
more than $300 over use of OEM carts. I am now on my second set of 2 oz inks
and enjoy printing anything in color that I want with out regard to cost of
materials. Some say that the six color printers, using two low dye load
inks, produce prints that can fade more readily. My prints are either in
albums or in frames under glass and have not appeared to have deteriorated
in the almost one year that I've used this printer. I know that the output
is not archival and that works for me. The IP4000 has duplex printing, a
feature I don't need. If I print 50 to 100 greeting cards on both sides,
printing a full run of one side and flipping the paper to print them all on
the other side takes much less time than the duplex feature of the ip4000
You have to attend to the print job either way as the output tray has
limited capacity. I have an HP5p laser printer for text documents so the
pigment black ink is of no interest for my work. Same goes for the dual
paper feed as you can only use one of them for photo paper. Other people
have reported that Sensient Formulabs inks are also excellent with these
printers and have used them for several years without problems. from what
I've read several of the Pixma line are essentially repackaged units from
the "I" series with some added features. I don't recall which of the "I"
series printers was the five cart model but I understand that it shares the
same print head with the IP4000.
I am actually considering buying one of those i960 printers from Tigerdirect
to put on the shelf as a spare.

"no one" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:428FE9A8.4F7FE0F7@nowhere.com...
> Thanks for the many replies. I wouldn't consdier a refurbished unit with
> only 90
> days waranty. I'll buy refurbished gear when it represents a bargain, but
> it's
> no deal in this instance. The i960 is available new for $80 after rebate
> and
> includes a full set on ink. That makes it the cheapest way to go. Micky
> is
> right, buying a replacement head just doesn't make sense. At $110, the
> ip4000 is
> a viable option and it can use most of the i950 inks I already have on the
> shelf. If the head is more reliable in the ip4000, it would be the way to
> go.
>
> Is this problem of print head failure common to the entire recent Canon
> printer
> line or is the i950 worse than most? Does the ip4000 also suffer from
> electronic
> failures of the print head or is it's head more durable?
>
> I've had epson printers fail from ink clogging and they could be brought
> back
> with careful cleaning sometimes. I've also had them fail electrically.
> Really,
> none of the inkjets I've owned have lasted for a satisfactory length of
> ownership. Funny, but you never read about that in the product reviews.
>
> I got barely over 1000 pages printed through my two year old i950 before
> it
> died. Much of that use was not printing photos because the ink costs too
> much.
>
> My HP laserjet III dinosaur is at page 20,400 and going strong. That is
> what I
> use for printing text.
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>> >
>> It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
>> years.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

no one wrote:

>Thanks for the many replies. I wouldn't consdier a refurbished unit with only 90
>days waranty. I'll buy refurbished gear when it represents a bargain, but it's
>no deal in this instance. The i960 is available new for $80 after rebate and
>includes a full set on ink. That makes it the cheapest way to go. Micky is
>right, buying a replacement head just doesn't make sense. At $110, the ip4000 is
>a viable option and it can use most of the i950 inks I already have on the
>shelf. If the head is more reliable in the ip4000, it would be the way to go.
>
>Is this problem of print head failure common to the entire recent Canon printer
>line or is the i950 worse than most? Does the ip4000 also suffer from electronic
>failures of the print head or is it's head more durable?
>
>

Have not heard of any documented cases but the Pixma line of printers is
less than a year old.

>I've had epson printers fail from ink clogging and they could be brought back
>with careful cleaning sometimes. I've also had them fail electrically. Really,
>none of the inkjets I've owned have lasted for a satisfactory length of
>ownership. Funny, but you never read about that in the product reviews.
>
>I got barely over 1000 pages printed through my two year old i950 before it
>died. Much of that use was not printing photos because the ink costs too much.
>
>My HP laserjet III dinosaur is at page 20,400 and going strong. That is what I
>use for printing text.
>
>Hecate wrote:
>
>
>
>>It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
>>years.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

no one wrote:
> Thanks for the many replies. I wouldn't consdier a refurbished unit with only 90
> days waranty. I'll buy refurbished gear when it represents a bargain, but it's
> no deal in this instance. The i960 is available new for $80 after rebate and
> includes a full set on ink. That makes it the cheapest way to go. Micky is
> right, buying a replacement head just doesn't make sense. At $110, the ip4000 is
> a viable option and it can use most of the i950 inks I already have on the
> shelf. If the head is more reliable in the ip4000, it would be the way to go.
>
> Is this problem of print head failure common to the entire recent Canon printer
> line or is the i950 worse than most? Does the ip4000 also suffer from electronic
> failures of the print head or is it's head more durable?
>
> I've had epson printers fail from ink clogging and they could be brought back
> with careful cleaning sometimes. I've also had them fail electrically. Really,
> none of the inkjets I've owned have lasted for a satisfactory length of
> ownership. Funny, but you never read about that in the product reviews.
>
> I got barely over 1000 pages printed through my two year old i950 before it
> died. Much of that use was not printing photos because the ink costs too much.
>
> My HP laserjet III dinosaur is at page 20,400 and going strong. That is what I
> use for printing text.
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>
>>It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
>>years.
>
I believe the I960 I saw did come with ink carts. I've been running
an I860 for a yr now and it gets used daily. Use 3rd party refills,
same as Burt uses. Still waiting for first hint of a problem. I do
like the Canon models that use a pigmented ink for text.

Mickey

 

[Guest]

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

As follow up, I have decided not to reward inferior product design by
rebuying another defective product from Canon. This printer has the highest
cost per printed page of all the printers I have owned.

With some searching, I found comments in the Usenet to the effect that the 6
color heads are rated by Canon at 5000 prints with 5% ink coverage. At a
more typical 15% coverage or higher that might be typical of printing photos
that is closer to 1500 prints. The heads using fewer colors such as used in
the IP4000 are rated for 10,000 according to that discussion but really this
is only a matter of failure probabilites. Since a failure of any single ink
nossle yeilds the head broken, a head with fewer nossles will have a lower
failure rate, given the same technology.

I'm convinced now that the reason the print head is removable in these
units is so that Canon can cheaply service a unit that fails earlier than
the projected 18 months, during the first year of waranty. A secondary
explanation is marketing. What use is a replaceble print head when it's
cost exceeds the price of the printer? At the price of a replacement print
head vs the price of a new printer, few owners will benefit from this
"servicable" design. If a print head lasts only 1000 prints, one may as
well own a printer with the print head integral to the ink cartridge. The
ownership cost will be lower.

I got just a bit over 1000 copies from my i950, most of which were internet
page prints with modest color usage and mosly black text. Many of these
prints counted in the eeprom were envelopes. Less than 10% were photos.
Sure, it did a good and quick job on photos, but really the print quality
was indistinguishable against my Epson 1520.

I've also read discussions about the waste ink counter. My printer shows
this counter has already reached 1/3 of it's full capacity already. When
it's full, the software will disable the printer and an error message will
pop up advising me to take it to Canon for servicing. This is outrageous.
It is like the automobile scams of years ago when the dash light would
illuminate a warning lamp that only the dealership could reset. In that
instance, the car didn't require any service, it only required dealer
profits. It comes down to greed. The excuse that ink will run all over
your desk are absurd. Solve the technical problem rather than plan
obsolesence. The notion that the consumer is unable to service a blotting
sponge in the waste ink retainer is unfounded. These counters should not
disable the printer. All consumables should be affordably serviceable by
the consumer.

With an original cost of $250 for my i950 and two or three Canon ink sets
run through my Canon i950, the ownership cost is nearing $500 for 1000
sheets. This is unaccceptable. I see no reason to reward the manufacturer
of defective products by replacing it with more of the their products that
use the same technology.

Really, it is time for the trial lawyers to jump into this game. With ink
cartridges "chipped" to prevent consumer refilling, usage counters that
disable the device and print heads that won't last three reams of paper,
this is all corporate misconduct.



no one wrote:

> I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
> print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
> don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
> printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
>
> I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
> after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
> It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.

 

[Guest]

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

"no one" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4290C1A7.B80D999E@nowhere.com...

[..]

> I've also read discussions about the waste ink counter. My printer shows
> this counter has already reached 1/3 of it's full capacity already. When
> it's full, the software will disable the printer and an error message will
> pop up advising me to take it to Canon for servicing. This is outrageous.
> It is like the automobile scams of years ago when the dash light would
> illuminate a warning lamp that only the dealership could reset. In that
> instance, the car didn't require any service, it only required dealer
> profits. It comes down to greed. The excuse that ink will run all over
> your desk are absurd. Solve the technical problem rather than plan
> obsolesence. The notion that the consumer is unable to service a blotting
> sponge in the waste ink retainer is unfounded.

You mean people would be quite capable of unclipping a cover and removing a
waste ink pad, replacing it with a new one and clipping the cover back into
place? Well, I wouldn't of believed it - that sort of 'technical servicing'
usually requires 3 years technical training (or 5 years in the case of the
automobile industry).

> These counters should not
> disable the printer. All consumables should be affordably serviceable by
> the consumer.

Nah, there'd be no need for people to change their printers every 2 years
then......

> Really, it is time for the trial lawyers to jump into this game. With ink
> cartridges "chipped" to prevent consumer refilling, usage counters that
> disable the device and print heads that won't last three reams of paper,
> this is all corporate misconduct.

Or "market forces" as its known thesedays.

Perhaps in time other industries will follow the same marketing techniques -
TV and Video recorders that only last 3-5 years and are uneconomical to
service if the fail, Computers that become obsolete after 3 years, DVD/CD
players who's laser burns out after 2 years, Cars that rust after 5
years.....

Hmmmm...

 

[Guest]

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

Ivor Floppy wrote:

>"no one" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:4290C1A7.B80D999E@nowhere.com...
>
>[..]
>
>
>
>>I've also read discussions about the waste ink counter. My printer shows
>>this counter has already reached 1/3 of it's full capacity already. When
>>it's full, the software will disable the printer and an error message will
>>pop up advising me to take it to Canon for servicing. This is outrageous.
>>It is like the automobile scams of years ago when the dash light would
>>illuminate a warning lamp that only the dealership could reset. In that
>>instance, the car didn't require any service, it only required dealer
>>profits. It comes down to greed. The excuse that ink will run all over
>>your desk are absurd. Solve the technical problem rather than plan
>>obsolesence. The notion that the consumer is unable to service a blotting
>>sponge in the waste ink retainer is unfounded.
>>
>>
>
>You mean people would be quite capable of unclipping a cover and removing a
>waste ink pad, replacing it with a new one and clipping the cover back into
>place? Well, I wouldn't of believed it - that sort of 'technical servicing'
>usually requires 3 years technical training (or 5 years in the case of the
>automobile industry).
>
>

True in your case!

>
>
>>These counters should not
>>disable the printer. All consumables should be affordably serviceable by
>>the consumer.
>>
>>
>
>Nah, there'd be no need for people to change their printers every 2 years
>then......
>
>
>
>>Really, it is time for the trial lawyers to jump into this game. With ink
>>cartridges "chipped" to prevent consumer refilling, usage counters that
>>disable the device and print heads that won't last three reams of paper,
>>this is all corporate misconduct.
>>
>>
>
>Or "market forces" as its known thesedays.
>
>Perhaps in time other industries will follow the same marketing techniques -
>TV and Video recorders that only last 3-5 years and are uneconomical to
>service if the fail, Computers that become obsolete after 3 years, DVD/CD
>players who's laser burns out after 2 years, Cars that rust after 5
>years.....
>
>Hmmmm...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 02:08:34 GMT, no one <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Thanks for the many replies. I wouldn't consdier a refurbished unit with only 90
>days waranty. I'll buy refurbished gear when it represents a bargain, but it's
>no deal in this instance. The i960 is available new for $80 after rebate and
>includes a full set on ink. That makes it the cheapest way to go. Micky is
>right, buying a replacement head just doesn't make sense. At $110, the ip4000 is
>a viable option and it can use most of the i950 inks I already have on the
>shelf. If the head is more reliable in the ip4000, it would be the way to go.
>
>Is this problem of print head failure common to the entire recent Canon printer
>line or is the i950 worse than most? Does the ip4000 also suffer from electronic
>failures of the print head or is it's head more durable?
>


No its because its a Bubble Jet, heads do not last at all.

> epson printers fail from ink clogging and they could be brought back
>with careful cleaning sometimes. I've also had them fail electrically. Really,
>none of the inkjets I've owned have lasted for a satisfactory length of
>ownership. Funny, but you never read about that in the product reviews.
>
>I got barely over 1000 pages printed through my two year old i950 before it
>died. Much of that use was not printing photos because the ink costs too much.
>
>My HP laserjet III dinosaur is at page 20,400 and going strong. That is what I
>use for printing text.
>
>Hecate wrote:
>
>> >
>> It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
>> years.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

As much as I like 4 color (or five with the extra pigment black in the
case of the Canon) for their cheaper ink costs, there is something to
keep in mind with these printers that might change your decision to buy
one over another type.

All inkjet printers have a finite number of times the ink nozzle with
fire. With Epson the number is huge, baring catastrophic failure, so
I'm not suggesting equating between technologies. but still the concept
holds true within a type of head design.

With any printer of the same technology consider the following. The
more times any one nozzle has to fire, the shorter lived is that nozzle
and therefore the head.

If, for instance, you have two printers, and let's assume for a minute
they both have the same number of nozzles per color. For the sake of
this experiment, let's say each color has 100 nozzles.

In the case of a printer that only has four colors, each nozzle is going
to fire more often to create a certain size photo print than if the
printer has 6 or 8 or 10 colors. In effect, the printer with more
colors "spreads around" the use of the nozzles between them, and in
theory, each nozzle should last more images. So the head in a 4 color
printer might wear out sooner than one with 8 colors.

Of course, the 4 color printer may use the same head as the 8 color, but
have twice as many nozzles dedicated to each color, and then that
advantage the 8 color printer would have is eliminated.

Since head life is an issue with Canon printers, since it is an
consumable, people might want to look at nozzle per head color to
determine the longer lasting head.

The same formula would work for other brands as well, but it is less of
an issue with the Epson piezo head due to it's very long life.


Art

no one wrote:

> Thanks for the many replies. I wouldn't consdier a refurbished unit with only 90
> days waranty. I'll buy refurbished gear when it represents a bargain, but it's
> no deal in this instance. The i960 is available new for $80 after rebate and
> includes a full set on ink. That makes it the cheapest way to go. Micky is
> right, buying a replacement head just doesn't make sense. At $110, the ip4000 is
> a viable option and it can use most of the i950 inks I already have on the
> shelf. If the head is more reliable in the ip4000, it would be the way to go.
>
> Is this problem of print head failure common to the entire recent Canon printer
> line or is the i950 worse than most? Does the ip4000 also suffer from electronic
> failures of the print head or is it's head more durable?
>
> I've had epson printers fail from ink clogging and they could be brought back
> with careful cleaning sometimes. I've also had them fail electrically. Really,
> none of the inkjets I've owned have lasted for a satisfactory length of
> ownership. Funny, but you never read about that in the product reviews.
>
> I got barely over 1000 pages printed through my two year old i950 before it
> died. Much of that use was not printing photos because the ink costs too much.
>
> My HP laserjet III dinosaur is at page 20,400 and going strong. That is what I
> use for printing text.
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>
>>It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
>>years.
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

As I just wrote recently, the number of pages a nozzle will last depends
on how many times it is triggered. The more nozzles for each color, or
the more colors total, the less any one nozzle is triggered, and the
longer it will last.

Regarding waste ink pads. In fairness, the Epson does the same thing,
once it reaches the limit. The only difference is that the older Epsons
could be reset by pushing the right sequence of buttons on the front
panel. The newer ones require some special software tools. So, in that
way, both manufacturers are playing games.

The "average" photo uses well over 15% per color, especially with a 4
ink color print. I would guess 35-55% per color. If the printer head
is really designed only to last 3000 prints at 5% each color, the number
of photos printable is much smaller.

Art

no one wrote:

> As follow up, I have decided not to reward inferior product design by
> rebuying another defective product from Canon. This printer has the highest
> cost per printed page of all the printers I have owned.
>
> With some searching, I found comments in the Usenet to the effect that the 6
> color heads are rated by Canon at 5000 prints with 5% ink coverage. At a
> more typical 15% coverage or higher that might be typical of printing photos
> that is closer to 1500 prints. The heads using fewer colors such as used in
> the IP4000 are rated for 10,000 according to that discussion but really this
> is only a matter of failure probabilites. Since a failure of any single ink
> nossle yeilds the head broken, a head with fewer nossles will have a lower
> failure rate, given the same technology.
>
> I'm convinced now that the reason the print head is removable in these
> units is so that Canon can cheaply service a unit that fails earlier than
> the projected 18 months, during the first year of waranty. A secondary
> explanation is marketing. What use is a replaceble print head when it's
> cost exceeds the price of the printer? At the price of a replacement print
> head vs the price of a new printer, few owners will benefit from this
> "servicable" design. If a print head lasts only 1000 prints, one may as
> well own a printer with the print head integral to the ink cartridge. The
> ownership cost will be lower.
>
> I got just a bit over 1000 copies from my i950, most of which were internet
> page prints with modest color usage and mosly black text. Many of these
> prints counted in the eeprom were envelopes. Less than 10% were photos.
> Sure, it did a good and quick job on photos, but really the print quality
> was indistinguishable against my Epson 1520.
>
> I've also read discussions about the waste ink counter. My printer shows
> this counter has already reached 1/3 of it's full capacity already. When
> it's full, the software will disable the printer and an error message will
> pop up advising me to take it to Canon for servicing. This is outrageous.
> It is like the automobile scams of years ago when the dash light would
> illuminate a warning lamp that only the dealership could reset. In that
> instance, the car didn't require any service, it only required dealer
> profits. It comes down to greed. The excuse that ink will run all over
> your desk are absurd. Solve the technical problem rather than plan
> obsolesence. The notion that the consumer is unable to service a blotting
> sponge in the waste ink retainer is unfounded. These counters should not
> disable the printer. All consumables should be affordably serviceable by
> the consumer.
>
> With an original cost of $250 for my i950 and two or three Canon ink sets
> run through my Canon i950, the ownership cost is nearing $500 for 1000
> sheets. This is unaccceptable. I see no reason to reward the manufacturer
> of defective products by replacing it with more of the their products that
> use the same technology.
>
> Really, it is time for the trial lawyers to jump into this game. With ink
> cartridges "chipped" to prevent consumer refilling, usage counters that
> disable the device and print heads that won't last three reams of paper,
> this is all corporate misconduct.
>
>
>
> no one wrote:
>
>
>>I've lost one color and also lost segments for other colors. A new
>>print head costs $80 or so. I've read that these Canon print heads
>>don't last long. Is this printer worth this expense or is there a newer
>>printer that gives better results? If so, which one?
>>
>>I've never used refill or off brand ink. The cartridge is no different
>>after cleaning cycles, cleaning with alcohol or cleaning with ammonia.
>>It seems to have circuitry in the head that is dead.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

The O.P. has a good point. I would love to see a lawyer take the inkjet
printer manufacturers on. He's right that the waste ink pad situation
is really fraud. And at least with the Epsons I have, replacing the
waste ink pads is no simple feat. It involves completely dismantling
the printer's interior to get to them.

Several cars now come with 10 year bumper to bumper warranties.


Art

Ivor Floppy wrote:

> "no one" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4290C1A7.B80D999E@nowhere.com...
>
> [..]
>
>
>>I've also read discussions about the waste ink counter. My printer shows
>>this counter has already reached 1/3 of it's full capacity already. When
>>it's full, the software will disable the printer and an error message will
>>pop up advising me to take it to Canon for servicing. This is outrageous.
>>It is like the automobile scams of years ago when the dash light would
>>illuminate a warning lamp that only the dealership could reset. In that
>>instance, the car didn't require any service, it only required dealer
>>profits. It comes down to greed. The excuse that ink will run all over
>>your desk are absurd. Solve the technical problem rather than plan
>>obsolesence. The notion that the consumer is unable to service a blotting
>>sponge in the waste ink retainer is unfounded.
>
>
> You mean people would be quite capable of unclipping a cover and removing a
> waste ink pad, replacing it with a new one and clipping the cover back into
> place? Well, I wouldn't of believed it - that sort of 'technical servicing'
> usually requires 3 years technical training (or 5 years in the case of the
> automobile industry).
>
>
>>These counters should not
>>disable the printer. All consumables should be affordably serviceable by
>>the consumer.
>
>
> Nah, there'd be no need for people to change their printers every 2 years
> then......
>
>
>>Really, it is time for the trial lawyers to jump into this game. With ink
>>cartridges "chipped" to prevent consumer refilling, usage counters that
>>disable the device and print heads that won't last three reams of paper,
>>this is all corporate misconduct.
>
>
> Or "market forces" as its known thesedays.
>
> Perhaps in time other industries will follow the same marketing techniques -
> TV and Video recorders that only last 3-5 years and are uneconomical to
> service if the fail, Computers that become obsolete after 3 years, DVD/CD
> players who's laser burns out after 2 years, Cars that rust after 5
> years.....
>
> Hmmmm...
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> As much as I like 4 color (or five with the extra pigment black in the
> case of the Canon) for their cheaper ink costs, there is something to
> keep in mind with these printers that might change your decision to
> buy one over another type.
>
> All inkjet printers have a finite number of times the ink nozzle with
> fire. With Epson the number is huge, baring catastrophic failure, so
> I'm not suggesting equating between technologies. but still the
> concept holds true within a type of head design.
>
> With any printer of the same technology consider the following. The
> more times any one nozzle has to fire, the shorter lived is that
> nozzle and therefore the head.


All carts have a finite number of miles they can be driven. The more
miles driven the faster they will wear out.

>
> If, for instance, you have two printers, and let's assume for a minute
> they both have the same number of nozzles per color. For the sake of
> this experiment, let's say each color has 100 nozzles.
>
> In the case of a printer that only has four colors, each nozzle is
> going to fire more often to create a certain size photo print than if
> the printer has 6 or 8 or 10 colors. In effect, the printer with more
> colors "spreads around" the use of the nozzles between them, and in
> theory, each nozzle should last more images. So the head in a 4 color
> printer might wear out sooner than one with 8 colors.


That depends on the photograph. If there is little use of the subtle
shades in the majority of photos then the theory is not accurate. The
bottom line is that the printer's physical life should at least last as
long as the economic life. In most cases, especially for photo
printing, this is about 5 years. Most of the printers made in 2000 have
been technically improved upon today.

>
> Of course, the 4 color printer may use the same head as the 8 color,
> but have twice as many nozzles dedicated to each color, and then that
> advantage the 8 color printer would have is eliminated.
>
> Since head life is an issue with Canon printers, since it is an
> consumable, people might want to look at nozzle per head color to
> determine the longer lasting head.
>
> The same formula would work for other brands as well, but it is less
> of an issue with the Epson piezo head due to it's very long life.
>
>
> Art
>
> no one wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the many replies. I wouldn't consdier a refurbished unit
>> with only 90
>> days waranty. I'll buy refurbished gear when it represents a
>> bargain, but it's
>> no deal in this instance. The i960 is available new for $80 after
>> rebate and
>> includes a full set on ink. That makes it the cheapest way to go.
>> Micky is
>> right, buying a replacement head just doesn't make sense. At $110,
>> the ip4000 is
>> a viable option and it can use most of the i950 inks I already have
>> on the
>> shelf. If the head is more reliable in the ip4000, it would be the
>> way to go.
>>
>> Is this problem of print head failure common to the entire recent
>> Canon printer
>> line or is the i950 worse than most? Does the ip4000 also suffer
>> from electronic
>> failures of the print head or is it's head more durable?
>>
>> I've had epson printers fail from ink clogging and they could be
>> brought back
>> with careful cleaning sometimes. I've also had them fail
>> electrically. Really,
>> none of the inkjets I've owned have lasted for a satisfactory length of
>> ownership. Funny, but you never read about that in the product reviews.
>>
>> I got barely over 1000 pages printed through my two year old i950
>> before it
>> died. Much of that use was not printing photos because the ink costs
>> too much.
>>
>> My HP laserjet III dinosaur is at page 20,400 and going strong.
>> That is what I
>> use for printing text.
>>
>> Hecate wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's pretty much ongoing. Canon printers have had this problem for
>>> years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> The O.P. has a good point. I would love to see a lawyer take the
> inkjet printer manufacturers on. He's right that the waste ink pad
> situation is really fraud. And at least with the Epsons I have,
> replacing the waste ink pads is no simple feat. It involves
> completely dismantling the printer's interior to get to them.
>
> Several cars now come with 10 year bumper to bumper warranties.


I would also like one to take the aftermarket ink industry and get laws
passed for full disclosure.

>
>
> Art
>
> Ivor Floppy wrote:
>
>> "no one" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:4290C1A7.B80D999E@nowhere.com...
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>> I've also read discussions about the waste ink counter. My printer
>>> shows
>>> this counter has already reached 1/3 of it's full capacity already.
>>> When
>>> it's full, the software will disable the printer and an error
>>> message will
>>> pop up advising me to take it to Canon for servicing. This is
>>> outrageous.
>>> It is like the automobile scams of years ago when the dash light would
>>> illuminate a warning lamp that only the dealership could reset. In
>>> that
>>> instance, the car didn't require any service, it only required dealer
>>> profits. It comes down to greed. The excuse that ink will run all
>>> over
>>> your desk are absurd. Solve the technical problem rather than plan
>>> obsolesence. The notion that the consumer is unable to service a
>>> blotting
>>> sponge in the waste ink retainer is unfounded.
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean people would be quite capable of unclipping a cover and
>> removing a waste ink pad, replacing it with a new one and clipping
>> the cover back into place? Well, I wouldn't of believed it - that
>> sort of 'technical servicing' usually requires 3 years technical
>> training (or 5 years in the case of the automobile industry).
>>
>>
>>> These counters should not
>>> disable the printer. All consumables should be affordably
>>> serviceable by
>>> the consumer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nah, there'd be no need for people to change their printers every 2
>> years then......
>>
>>
>>> Really, it is time for the trial lawyers to jump into this game.
>>> With ink
>>> cartridges "chipped" to prevent consumer refilling, usage counters that
>>> disable the device and print heads that won't last three reams of
>>> paper,
>>> this is all corporate misconduct.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or "market forces" as its known thesedays.
>>
>> Perhaps in time other industries will follow the same marketing
>> techniques - TV and Video recorders that only last 3-5 years and are
>> uneconomical to service if the fail, Computers that become obsolete
>> after 3 years, DVD/CD players who's laser burns out after 2 years,
>> Cars that rust after 5 years.....
>>
>> Hmmmm...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

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

Actually, that's not accurate. The driver design on printers which add
low dye load inks, in fact, emphasize those ink colors over the high dye
load inks, because they can produce more subtle tonal ranges, and
because those inks can be used up more rapidly because they are of lower
dye content. This sells more ink, since the load dye load inks usually
sell for the same prince as the high dye load inks, and actually cost
less to make.

In general, with typical photographic image content, the low dye load
inks are used up at approximately twice the volume as the high dye load
inks, meaning those nozzles are fired twice as often, and therefore they
are likely, in the color head, to fail first. However, today most
printers gang all the heads together as one, meaning the first head
failure is typically the back head should it have the same number of
nozzles as the color, since it gets the most use if text is also
generated on the printer in question.

I have not studied the design of Canon printers well enough to comment
without further research, but most Epson printers which are deigned for
both text and photo use, have double the number of nozzles in the black
head as the color to help to better equalize head wear and to speed up
text printing.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If, for instance, you have two printers, and let's assume for a minute
>> they both have the same number of nozzles per color. For the sake of
>> this experiment, let's say each color has 100 nozzles.
>>
>> In the case of a printer that only has four colors, each nozzle is
>> going to fire more often to create a certain size photo print than if
>> the printer has 6 or 8 or 10 colors. In effect, the printer with more
>> colors "spreads around" the use of the nozzles between them, and in
>> theory, each nozzle should last more images. So the head in a 4 color
>> printer might wear out sooner than one with 8 colors.
>
>
>
> That depends on the photograph. If there is little use of the subtle
> shades in the majority of photos then the theory is not accurate. The
> bottom line is that the printer's physical life should at least last as
> long as the economic life. In most cases, especially for photo
> printing, this is about 5 years. Most of the printers made in 2000 have
> been technically improved upon today.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Actually, that's not accurate. The driver design on printers which
> add low dye load inks, in fact, emphasize those ink colors over the
> high dye load inks, because they can produce more subtle tonal ranges,
> and because those inks can be used up more rapidly because they are of
> lower dye content. This sells more ink, since the load dye load inks
> usually sell for the same prince as the high dye load inks, and
> actually cost less to make.

So are you saying that these additional subtle tones are not that big a
deal and they are really there to just sell more ink. That the high dye
load inks will produce a good enough result at a far less cost? Is that
what you are saying?

>
> In general, with typical photographic image content, the low dye load
> inks are used up at approximately twice the volume as the high dye
> load inks, meaning those nozzles are fired twice as often, and
> therefore they are likely, in the color head, to fail first. However,
> today most printers gang all the heads together as one, meaning the
> first head failure is typically the back head should it have the same
> number of nozzles as the color, since it gets the most use if text is
> also generated on the printer in question.
>
> I have not studied the design of Canon printers well enough to comment
> without further research, but most Epson printers which are deigned
> for both text and photo use, have double the number of nozzles in the
> black head as the color to help to better equalize head wear and to
> speed up text printing.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If, for instance, you have two printers, and let's assume for a
>>> minute they both have the same number of nozzles per color. For the
>>> sake of this experiment, let's say each color has 100 nozzles.
>>>
>>> In the case of a printer that only has four colors, each nozzle is
>>> going to fire more often to create a certain size photo print than
>>> if the printer has 6 or 8 or 10 colors. In effect, the printer with
>>> more colors "spreads around" the use of the nozzles between them,
>>> and in theory, each nozzle should last more images. So the head in
>>> a 4 color printer might wear out sooner than one with 8 colors.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That depends on the photograph. If there is little use of the subtle
>> shades in the majority of photos then the theory is not accurate.
>> The bottom line is that the printer's physical life should at least
>> last as long as the economic life. In most cases, especially for
>> photo printing, this is about 5 years. Most of the printers made in
>> 2000 have been technically improved upon today.
>>