Confused over IP4000 and I865 Review. Which is better?

[Mikey]

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

Have just read the scores for the Canon IP4000 and I865 and it gave the I865
Higher marks overall.

This included the Photo Quality prints.

Are they basing it on an older review where the I865s score would have been
higher than the printers at the time.

So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
have a chance of getting either)

Duplex is not an issue.

Thanks

Mike

 

[bill]

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

Mikey wrote:

>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>have a chance of getting either)

Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.

Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.

>Duplex is not an issue.

If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
good price, I'd go for the i865.

If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
dust out.

 

[zakezuke]

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

> I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
> moment.

The epson from what i've observed with the default ink offering is a
tad more lightfast than canon's default offering, even in my area of
grey skies and rain. I know the r200 personaly and I found it an all
around better photo printer esp when it comes in terms of out of the
box color accuracy and use of the light inks make for beautiful skies.
White text on a colored background is better on the epson enough though
its drop size is larger.

The canon... keep in mind that my only reference is the mp760...
identical in print specs to the ip4000. I class this as a better all
around printer. I'm told CD printing is rough on the head... which at
least in Canons case you can replace it with ease. Inks cost much less
too, and that pigment black would be a decent choice on CDs as it's
less prone to faiding, but you'll have to ask someone wiser if you can
print in text and photo mode and have the use the pigment for the
text... I mostly print straight .jpgs from cd label print and till now
always on the lesser ip3000.

My choice is the Canon... easy to refill and detachable head were my
main reasons for going with this. The low cost of text printing was a
major plus as well as I can pretty much ditch my old lasers. I'm still
debating whether to keep or sell my r200. The r300 isn't a bad choice
but those extra two carts are going to add to the cost to operate..

 

[zakezuke]

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

> I've owned Canon, but I can't see how a detachable head is an advantage.
> You can't really do anything with it, and replacement costs are about
> 80% of a whole new printer (a bit cheaper on Ebay).

You can clean it, which is something I wanted to do with my epson
printhead. That's handy.

I worked out the math, assuming I went with OEM ink and... and put away
$1.00 per cart or $5.00 each refill... after the 15th I could get a new
head if I wanted. That should cover about 7500 of black at 5% yield,
and another 5700 pages of color at 5% yield per color. If I go oem
inks the price would jump from $40 a refill for my ip3000 to $45, and
for my mp760 $50 to $55 assuming I need one after this long.

Yeah, by this point it would be wise to consider another printer......
but for an AIO printer it's kind of nice to have the option to keep it
in service even if it does cost $80 for the head.

> and since Canon claims 18,000 pages total for the life of the head,
> that's typically well beyond the warranty period.

Actually I believe the number is closer to 7,200 for the black.using
the ISO JIS-SCID test.... so divide that number by 1/2 or 1/3 for
reality. The offical numbers are as follows

Black 1,500 character pattern 7,200 pages
Color A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern 5,400 pages
A4, photo, borderless printing 300 pages
4 x 6, photo, borderless printing 3,600 pages
Postcard, photo, borderless printing 1,500 pages

> But if you mean OEM ink costs, Canon is not any cheaper than the
> competition, and all inkjets are substantially higher than any laser
> printer.

Not exactly true in all cases.... there is the imageCLASS series of
lasers that floats between 2.8c/page and 3.5c/page... for black.

 

[bill]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>The canon... Inks cost much less too,

I guess the big marketing scheme about ink tanks is working just fine.

The costs for ink from all of the big three printer companies, Canon,
Epson, and HP, all run roughly the same. Canon is not any cheaper. Just
do an online comparison of prices and page yields and you'll find out
for yourself.

Don't buy into the hype that Canon is cheaper.

>My choice is the Canon... easy to refill and detachable head were my
>main reasons for going with this.

I've owned Canon, but I can't see how a detachable head is an advantage.
You can't really do anything with it, and replacement costs are about
80% of a whole new printer (a bit cheaper on Ebay).

If the printhead fails within the warranty period, it's easier to swap
it out. That's an advantage...a rare one though. And since Canon claims
18,000 pages total for the life of the head, that's typically well
beyond the warranty period.

Outside of warranty, replacement is not really a viable option.

> The low cost of text printing was a
>major plus as well as I can pretty much ditch my old lasers.

Are you talking about refilling costs? If so, then yes I agree ink costs
can be very low.

But if you mean OEM ink costs, Canon is not any cheaper than the
competition, and all inkjets are substantially higher than any laser
printer.

 

[Mikey]

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

Thanks for the quick reply.
The review I saw had all the past scores printed in a grid like format, so
it's really a bit misleading, as the scores for the earlier printer must
have been based on earlier printers.

I'm just a little loathed to get rid of my trusty Epson Photo 900 as I still
think the output is brill, if a bit slow.

I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
moment.

I really can't make up my mind. Photos and DVD printing quality are of
prime importance.

Mike

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:BradnWBvIMz2EVXfRVn-3g@golden.net...
> Mikey wrote:
>
> >So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
> >have a chance of getting either)
>
> Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
> printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
> the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
> same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.
>
> Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.
>
> >Duplex is not an issue.
>
> If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
> good price, I'd go for the i865.
>
> If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
> has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
> dust out.

 

[bill]

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

Mikey wrote:

>Thanks for the quick reply.
>The review I saw had all the past scores printed in a grid like format, so
>it's really a bit misleading, as the scores for the earlier printer must
>have been based on earlier printers.

Every review has to be taken into context for the times it was written,
so yes the scores can be misleading.

>I'm just a little loathed to get rid of my trusty Epson Photo 900 as I still
>think the output is brill, if a bit slow.

If it works, keep it. Print speed for home users is often over-rated as
most people don't care if it takes a few minutes for a good photo.

If you're pumping out dozens of photos on the weekend, then an inkjet
printer is not the way to go as it's too expensive, unless you refill.
Getting a lab to run off prints is much cheaper.

>I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
>moment.

If you're into refilling, I'd suggest a Canon as the clear cartridges
are a breeze to refill. Otherwise it doesn't matter.

>I really can't make up my mind. Photos and DVD printing quality are of
>prime importance.

I think both will do CD/DVD printing in Europe, and both make fine
photos.

 

[Guest]

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

Mikey wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply.
> The review I saw had all the past scores printed in a grid like format, so
> it's really a bit misleading, as the scores for the earlier printer must
> have been based on earlier printers.
>
> I'm just a little loathed to get rid of my trusty Epson Photo 900 as I still
> think the output is brill, if a bit slow.
>
> I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
> moment.
>

The i865 (i860 in North America) is already a discontinued model heavily
discounted in stores. The iP4000 will probably shortly be discontinued
because I have seen drastic price drops which ALWAYS signify a sudden
urge by printer makers to reduce stock levels before new models arrive.

If I was you I'd go for the still current model, iP4000, in the belief
that Canon has ironed out some of the bugs in the older i860 model. Or,
you can wait for the next generation in the hope that they have ironed
out some of the bugs in the current iP4000 ;-) . . .

As for rolling the dice (die?) between R300 or the iP4000, I'm glad it's
your call and not mine. But because I refill, I believe it's a far
easier task with the Canons, they don't have any irksome electronic
chips on their cartridges.

-Taliesyn

> I really can't make up my mind. Photos and DVD printing quality are of
> prime importance.
>
> Mike
>
> "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:BradnWBvIMz2EVXfRVn-3g@golden.net...
>
>>Mikey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>>>have a chance of getting either)
>>
>>Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
>>printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
>>the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
>>same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.
>>
>>Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.
>>
>>
>>>Duplex is not an issue.
>>
>>If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
>>good price, I'd go for the i865.
>>
>>If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
>>has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
>>dust out.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Bill wrote:

>Mikey wrote:
>
>
>
>>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>>have a chance of getting either)
>>
>>
>
>Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
>printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
>the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
>same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.
>
>Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.
>
>

The drivers are different and they control the result to some extent.

>
>
>>Duplex is not an issue.
>>
>>
>
>If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
>good price, I'd go for the i865.
>
>If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
>has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
>dust out.
>
>

 

[zakezuke]

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

> Well in the 16 months I had the Canon i850, it never clogged a single
> nozzle. I know from first hand experience that Epsons are known to clog
> regularly. So having a removable printhead that doesn't clog is a moot
> point.

Great! I must admit i've been told the same thing from other friends
who never needed a replacement head, from the i500 to the i960. Took
me years to realise that even with the cost of the printhead, if it's
even needed, the cost per page is pretty low, and this is going by the
cost of the ink / yield not anything published by their marketing
department. But CD printing is from what i'm told harder on printheads
than regular printer, don't know this for a fact.

You do the math... 500p 5% yield @ $12 bucks or so a cart.

Refills are going to be cheaper... but canons are easier than Epson or
HP or Lexmark to refill.

> I believe the only reason Canon went with a replaceable printhead is
> marketing hype. They know Epsons clog, so they used this as an excuse to
> claim the "convenience" of a non-permanent printhead. But since you
> can't just walk down to the local store and buy a new printhead for
> $20-30, it's just more hype to sell printers.

I was under the impression that it was because they were using basicly
thermal bubblejet with a lower life expentancy to piezoelectric. Just
like HPs who use a disposable thermal head, canons use a slightly
better disposable thermal print head. Plus in the past then they
offered new inks they would sometimes offer a replacement printhead to
go along with them. I don't know if this will be the case, but that's
hardly the point.

But oddly enough, I can take the bus to my local target and buy a new
head for the bj-2100... if I wanted to. This is my nieces printer and
she prints so infrequently that her head drys up, but it detaches and
gets soaked in Windex and returned to service. Saves money, and is
very handy. Just becuase you don't find it useful does not mean others
do not.

> It doesn't matter if you save money with third party inks or not. The
> cost of the printhead is still the same.

Yes, about a buck extra per cart refill if you need one after 15 if you
need it.

> If you're using refills, you're not doing it so you can buy another
> printhead, you're doing it to save money on ink costs. And if you have
> to buy a new printhead with the ink savings, then you've just negated
> that savings and you're back at the beginning with nothing.

Or your doing it to get a more light fast ink, pigment inks, or grey
scale inks. Not all refills are cheaper than OEM, most are but there
are more things in heaven and earth and all that. But it does not
negate the cost if it only adds a buck per cart after 15 refills. This
is the operating cost of the printer based on the numbers they give.
Just like if you have a laser you have a drum, developer, and fuser
that has a limited life and is considered to be a consumable. And just
like a laser, the costs of consumables may be roughly equal to the cost
of a replacement printer and is up to the individual to justify the
expence or just buy a new one.

I'll agree that I personaly don't know anyone who has EVER needed to
replace a canon head. But it is nice to know that you can. But if you
want to throw away your printer after only a couple of years that's
your choice, but I think it's important to respect the choice of others
and present all available options.


> That's just a simple breakdown of typical use. Total number of pages is
> 18,000 as I said before.

I wouldn't call 1500 character courier 10cpi typical at all. It
wasn't even typical in the days of dot matrix from where this standard
started. 4500 char/page is closer to reality.

 

[bill]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>> I've owned Canon, but I can't see how a detachable head is an advantage.
>> You can't really do anything with it, and replacement costs are about
>> 80% of a whole new printer (a bit cheaper on Ebay).
>
>You can clean it, which is something I wanted to do with my epson
>printhead. That's handy.

Well in the 16 months I had the Canon i850, it never clogged a single
nozzle. I know from first hand experience that Epsons are known to clog
regularly. So having a removable printhead that doesn't clog is a moot
point.

I believe the only reason Canon went with a replaceable printhead is
marketing hype. They know Epsons clog, so they used this as an excuse to
claim the "convenience" of a non-permanent printhead. But since you
can't just walk down to the local store and buy a new printhead for
$20-30, it's just more hype to sell printers.

>I worked out the math, assuming I went with OEM ink and... and put away
>$1.00 per cart or $5.00 each refill... after the 15th I could get a new
>head if I wanted.

It doesn't matter if you save money with third party inks or not. The
cost of the printhead is still the same.

If you're using refills, you're not doing it so you can buy another
printhead, you're doing it to save money on ink costs. And if you have
to buy a new printhead with the ink savings, then you've just negated
that savings and you're back at the beginning with nothing.

>> and since Canon claims 18,000 pages total for the life of the head,
>> that's typically well beyond the warranty period.
>
>Actually I believe...
>Black 1,500 character pattern 7,200 pages
>Color A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern 5,400 pages
>A4, photo, borderless printing 300 pages
>4 x 6, photo, borderless printing 3,600 pages
>Postcard, photo, borderless printing 1,500 pages

That's just a simple breakdown of typical use. Total number of pages is
18,000 as I said before.

 

[bill]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>You do the math... 500p 5% yield @ $12 bucks or so a cart.
>
>Refills are going to be cheaper... but canons are easier than Epson or
>HP or Lexmark to refill.

Again I've lost what you're trying to say.

I agree that refills are cheaper. But none of this is relevant to the
original discussion.

>I was under the impression that it was because they were using basicly
>thermal bubblejet with a lower life expentancy to piezoelectric. Just
>like HPs who use a disposable thermal head, canons use a slightly
>better disposable thermal print head. Plus in the past then they
>offered new inks they would sometimes offer a replacement printhead to
>go along with them. I don't know if this will be the case, but that's
>hardly the point.
>
>But oddly enough, I can take the bus to my local target and buy a new
>head for the bj-2100... if I wanted to. This is my nieces printer and
>she prints so infrequently that her head drys up, but it detaches and
>gets soaked in Windex and returned to service. Saves money, and is
>very handy. Just becuase you don't find it useful does not mean others
>do not.

So then how does ordering an 80% replacement cost become useful...?

I just want to know how a non-permanent printhead that costs a heck of a
lot more than it should, is cost effective?

>> It doesn't matter if you save money with third party inks or not. The
>> cost of the printhead is still the same.
>
>Yes, about a buck extra per cart refill if you need one after 15 if you
>need it.

You're not following...if refilling is your thing, the cost of a
printhead EATS into those savings. The net result is little or no
savings.

People don't refill to cover the costs of poor design. They refill to
keep their operating costs lower.

>> If you're using refills, you're not doing it so you can buy another
>> printhead, you're doing it to save money on ink costs. And if you have
>> to buy a new printhead with the ink savings, then you've just negated
>> that savings and you're back at the beginning with nothing.
>
>Or your doing it to get a more light fast ink, pigment inks, or grey
>scale inks.

I don't think so.

Refills have one purpose...to reduce the cost of ownership. If you eat
into those cost savings, you're not getting what you wanted.

> Not all refills are cheaper than OEM,

Actually, all refills are cheaper. If you can name one single refill
vendor that has MORE EXPENSIVE inks, I'll recant everything I have ever
said, and then offer to buy you a new car, and a new home, and a year's
supply of food from A&P. *

* - slight exaggeration

>Just like if you have a laser you have a drum, developer, and fuser
>that has a limited life and is considered to be a consumable. And just
>like a laser, the costs of consumables may be roughly equal to the cost
>of a replacement printer and is up to the individual to justify the
>expence or just buy a new one.

I'm sorry, but since when did lasers become even CLOSE to inkjets in
consumable costs per page...?

>I'll agree that I personaly don't know anyone who has EVER needed to
>replace a canon head.

Now you know several.

> But it is nice to know that you can.

Being able to replace and WANTING to replace, are two different things.

> But if you
>want to throw away your printer after only a couple of years that's
>your choice, but I think it's important to respect the choice of others
>and present all available options.

I don't get it...you prefer to spend 80% of the cost of a new printer on
a printhead that is only warranted for 90 days over a whole new printer
that has a 1 year warranty, new ink tanks, and all new parts...?

Am I in an alternate universe?

>> That's just a simple breakdown of typical use. Total number of pages is
>> 18,000 as I said before.
>
>I wouldn't call 1500 character courier 10cpi typical at all. It
>wasn't even typical in the days of dot matrix from where this standard
>started. 4500 char/page is closer to reality.

It doesn't matter.

Life expectancy is NOT the issue here. Whether it's 1500 or 4500 doesn't
matter. Replacement cost is the issue.

Anywho, this is getting awfully close to the kind of discussion that
measekite likes. I'll just bow out gracefully now...

 

[zakezuke]

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

> Refills have one purpose...to reduce the cost of ownership. If you eat
> into those cost savings, you're not getting what you wanted.

Refills serve many purposes.

1. Cost savings - the case *most* of the time not always true (see
inks above $12ish/oz).
2. Ink features - lightfastness, color (or multi-level gray),
waterfastness , dry speed, You want Andgraph ink but can't afford one
of their printers
3. Tree hugging - you want to reduce the amount of plastic you waste.
{just to name a few}
One *should* consider the printhead as cost of ownership, than make the
choice whether it's worth it to keep the printer or toss the printer.
If a new printhead keeps it in service for a few more years you still
saved money. In the case of this old canon bj-2100 pulling the
printhead and dipping it in windex saves money.

>I don't get it...you prefer to spend 80% of the cost of a new printer on
>a printhead that is only warranted for 90 days over a whole new printer
>that has a 1 year warranty, new ink tanks, and all new parts...?
>Am I in an alternate universe?

Do you're not. Chances are that I would not enjoy spending 80% the
value on a new printer. It would be a choice that I would make if it
became an issue. I can think of a few reason's I would.

1. Features - Like CD printing if I couldn't get it in a new printer.
2. Uptime - if I actually do need a printhead I could keep one in
stock and it takes up less space than a new printer.
3. Formfactor- While not an inkjet, the Panasonic is smaller than an
inkjet or any other printer. The "process unit" cost about 80% of a
base laser. Or heck... if I really want a printer that is flat on top
just so I have a place for my latté... I have that choice.
4. Learning curve - Got some cool color profiles on one printer you
took a while to develop... would you throw out that printer so quickly?
{just to name a few}

Just because someone doesn't share your point of view doesn't make
theirs any less valid.


> I'm sorry, but since when did lasers become even CLOSE to inkjets in
> consumable costs per page...?

Since it was discoered that people like your self automaticly assume
lasers are always cheaper. In the days of the 5000p yeild ttoner
cartridges, this was always true. Today with yields in the 1500p
range... it just isn't always true anymore.

-imageCLASS- AIO lasers (letter sized)
MSRP Model Toner Street price
$349 - D320 - S35 - $120/3500p - 3.4c/page 1yr warranty exchange
$599 - D860 - L50 3yr warranty 1yr on site
$699 - D880 - L50 - $150/5000p - 3c/page 3yr warranty 1yr on site

Toner for D320
S35 $131.89/3,500p=3.7c/page
Black/canon/inkjet/ip3000/4000/5000
BCI-3eBK=$13/500p=2.6c/page

If you print only BCI-3eBK, and you need a new head after 15 refills
and save $5 per refill... the cost ends up being equal to the the toner
cart for the D320, assuming you you even buy it. Even taken this into
account, the cost per page on the canon is pretty low. On this issue
i'll continue to diagree. This isn't to say I wouldn't consider an HP,
some of those high yield blacks int the 800p range are nice and a
reasonable price. This isn't Canon marketing but rather a human who
did the math.

But needless to say you can not use the blanket statement that lasers
are cheaper to operatate than inkjets. It's mostly true.

> >I wouldn't call 1500 character courier 10cpi typical at all. It
> >wasn't even typical in the days of dot matrix from where this standard
> >started. 4500 char/page is closer to reality.

> It doesn't matter.

> Life expectancy is NOT the issue here. Whether it's 1500 or 4500 doesn't
> matter. Replacement cost is the issue

You were the one who make it a point to say 18,000p, 18,000p. Clearly
you did care.

That's a narrow view point, I thought cost of ownership / cost of
replacement was paramount, or quality of output or life of prints
depending on your point of view. If someone wants to replace their
printhead even though they are only saving a few dollars, I say great!
More power to them. I'd say my niece is nuts for even wanting to keep
a Canon BJ-2100 in service.. but she's too cheap to buy a new one.

I have no accurate info on when the head needs replacement other than
Canon's numbers. I don't know anyone personaly who has needed to, and
some joe on the net doesn't count. But based on Canon's numbers I
estamte 15 refills is about the limit of their estimated life, which
would add about $1.00 per cart per ownership. Or hey, replace the
entire printer if you like.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:10:03 -0400, Bill wrote:
> Mikey wrote:
>
> >So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
> >have a chance of getting either)
>
> Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
> printheads in both models with the same engines.

I thought, the Pixmas have the new FINE print head which can be produced
cheaper?

 

[Guest]

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

Martin Trautmann wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:10:03 -0400, Bill wrote:
>
>> Mikey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>>>have a chance of getting either)
>>
>> Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
>> printheads in both models with the same engines.
>
>
> I thought, the Pixmas have the new FINE print head which can be produced
> cheaper?

Everything they make is produced cheaply. Just not sold cheaply as piece
parts. And yes, both printers use the same printhead, I just checked the
part numbers.

-Taliesyn

 

[bill]

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

Martin Trautmann wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:10:03 -0400, Bill wrote:
>> Mikey wrote:
>>
>> >So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>> >have a chance of getting either)
>>
>> Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
>> printheads in both models with the same engines.
>
>I thought, the Pixmas have the new FINE print head which can be produced
>cheaper?

While the terminology for the printhead is new, the actual design and
production is identical to the previous model.

With the new Pixma name, Canon also introduced duplex printing and a
paper cassette tray. Many of the parts inside the printers are still the
same though.

As for production costs, I'm sure Canon has found a way to reduce those
costs, but that doesn't mean the printhead is any better.

 

[Guest]

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

In manufacturing, notably in the software industry but applicable to
others) is a technique known as slipstreaming. This is a procedure when
the product is changed (usuaslly for the better) and silently put in the
market without changing the model number.

In most of the cases the technique is used to change smaller problems in
the design or to fix bugs. So not only could their be differences
between the printhead of the i860 and the IP4000 but there could be
differences between an IP4000 produced 6 months ago and today.

So basically this discussion of printheads is bullshit.

Bill wrote:

>Martin Trautmann wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:10:03 -0400, Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mikey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>>>>have a chance of getting either)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
>>> printheads in both models with the same engines.
>>>
>>>
>>I thought, the Pixmas have the new FINE print head which can be produced
>>cheaper?
>>
>>
>
>While the terminology for the printhead is new, the actual design and
>production is identical to the previous model.
>
>With the new Pixma name, Canon also introduced duplex printing and a
>paper cassette tray. Many of the parts inside the printers are still the
>same though.
>
>As for production costs, I'm sure Canon has found a way to reduce those
>costs, but that doesn't mean the printhead is any better.
>
>
>
>

 

[frank]

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

measekite wrote:

> In manufacturing, notably in the software industry but applicable to
> others) is a technique known as slipstreaming. This is a procedure when
> the product is changed (usuaslly for the better) and silently put in the
> market without changing the model number.
>
> In most of the cases the technique is used to change smaller problems in
> the design or to fix bugs. So not only could their be differences
> between the printhead of the i860 and the IP4000 but there could be
> differences between an IP4000 produced 6 months ago and today.
>
> So basically this discussion of printheads is bullshit.
>
>

No you're the idiot. Slipstreaming is only a software term usually used
to combine two software programs. Usually and os with and sp. We do it
whenever major sp's come out. It's very easy to do. Everybody does it.

Changing manufacturing on the other hand, requires new hardware parts
made from new molds. A very expensive, time consuming process.
Manufacturers hardly ever change components in a model run unless it
becomes apparent that a major problem has come up.
Upgrades to hardware are called "new models" that the company introduces
on a timely basis.
Get your facts straight.
Frank

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:50:28 GMT, measekite wrote:
> In manufacturing, notably in the software industry but applicable to
> others) is a technique known as slipstreaming. This is a procedure when
> the product is changed (usuaslly for the better) and silently put in the
> market without changing the model number.

notably in software this is called 'debugging' ;-)

In hardware it's usually not necessarily better (if the original part
was operating ok. Otherwise it's again some kind of debugging).
Otherwise the main reason is 'cheaper'.

> In most of the cases the technique is used to change smaller problems in
> the design or to fix bugs. So not only could their be differences
> between the printhead of the i860 and the IP4000 but there could be
> differences between an IP4000 produced 6 months ago and today.

True

> So basically this discussion of printheads is bullshit.

Wrong. The only fact we know is: part numbers are identical. We don't
know whether the head is still the same, whether the Pixmas had an
updated one, whether late i865 may have got the same one and whether the
current version is the same as the early Pixma version. All of this may
cause differences in the print results and may help to explain why an
older printer may perform better than a newer one.


I might be BS to say that all old ones are better than all new ones,
although this might be true, too.

It's BS to claim that this discussion is BS.
- Martin

 

[Guest]

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

In article Bill says...
> While the terminology for the printhead is new, the actual design and
> production is identical to the previous model.
>
> With the new Pixma name, Canon also introduced duplex printing and a
> paper cassette tray. Many of the parts inside the printers are still the
> same though.
>
> As for production costs, I'm sure Canon has found a way to reduce those
> costs, but that doesn't mean the printhead is any better.
>
On another forum a canon rep didn't argue that the printhead was
different but that the frequency of the droplet ejection had increased
so the Pixma was slightly faster.

 

[Guest]

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

Martin Trautmann wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:50:28 GMT, measekite wrote:
>
>
>> In manufacturing, notably in the software industry but applicable to
>> others) is a technique known as slipstreaming. This is a procedure when
>> the product is changed (usuaslly for the better) and silently put in the
>> market without changing the model number.
>>
>>
>
>notably in software this is called 'debugging' ;-)
>
>In hardware it's usually not necessarily better (if the original part
>was operating ok. Otherwise it's again some kind of debugging).
>Otherwise the main reason is 'cheaper'.
>
>
>
>> In most of the cases the technique is used to change smaller problems in
>> the design or to fix bugs. So not only could their be differences
>> between the printhead of the i860 and the IP4000 but there could be
>> differences between an IP4000 produced 6 months ago and today.
>>
>>
>
>True
>
>
>
>> So basically this discussion of printheads is bullshit.
>>
>>
>
>Wrong. The only fact we know is: part numbers are identical. We don't
>know whether the head is still the same, whether the Pixmas had an
>updated one, whether late i865 may have got the same one and whether the
>current version is the same as the early Pixma version. All of this may
>cause differences in the print results and may help to explain why an
>older printer may perform better than a newer one.
>
>
>I might be BS to say that all old ones are better than all new ones,
>although this might be true, too.
>
>It's BS to claim that this discussion is BS.
>- Martin
>
>

It still smells

 

[frank]

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

measekite wrote:


>
> It still smells

Just like you?
Frank

 

[Guest]

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

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It still smells
>
>
> Just like Frank
>

 

[Guest]

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

which one of you is aged above 10 years?

 

[Tony]

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

Yes far better head life.