Generic HP 970 cartridges?

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

Hi -

I've always paid through the nose for genuine HP cartridges, but a
branch of Staples has opened up near me, selling their own brand of
HP970 black ink carts. Needless to say, they are much, much cheaper for
the same volume of ink. I'm tempted.

Since the printing head and ink cart are all in one on HP970, there's no
danger of an expensive repair if the ink ruins the head. Has anyone
tried other-brand names for HP970 printers?

TIA

Tony

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

"Tony Stanford" <tonystanford@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QK$m+aBLbyHDFwNQ@clara.co.uk...

> I've always paid through the nose for genuine HP cartridges, but a branch of
> Staples has opened up near me, selling their own brand of HP970 black ink
> carts. Needless to say, they are much, much cheaper for the same volume of
> ink. I'm tempted.
>
> Since the printing head and ink cart are all in one on HP970, there's no
> danger of an expensive repair if the ink ruins the head. Has anyone tried
> other-brand names for HP970 printers?

HP commissioned a study by an independent test lab. The results are available
at http://www.hp.com/sbso/product/sup [...] ty_ink.pdf and I
have pasted the summary below. The quality varied significantly between
vendors, your mileage may vary.

"Executive Summary
In the winter of 2002-2003, Hewlett-Packard commissioned QualityLogic to
conduct a project designed to test the reliability and print quality of
Hewlett-Packard (HP) InkJet cartridges compared to seven brands of
remanufactured ink cartridges for the HP DeskJet 656c (C8942A), 845c (C8934A)
and 990cxi (C6455A) printers. Using practices from industry standard test
procedures and test pages developed by QualityLogic to simulate real world
printing conditions, thousands of pages were printed and visually compared in a
controlled environment.

The test results stood out for their probable impact on cartridge value in
terms of the overall costs of printing with an inkjet cartridge.

Findings:

.. HP had fewer Dead On Arrival (DOA) and under-performing cartridges than the
remanufactured brands. HP ink cartridges clearly lead the reliability test
results with less than 1% color ink and 6% black ink problem cartridges
compared to 54% of the remanufactured cartridges, which suffered numerous DOA,
premature failures, produced a large number of unusable pages or had other
cartridge-related problems.

The management of dead on arrival and under-performing cartridges would require
increased interventions and reprinting--creating a significant impact on
productivity and general "hassle".

HP has a clear lead in the test results."

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

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

Tony Stanford wrote:
>
> Thanks for the replies. I am sceptical about test results published by a
> company on its own products. They would hardly publish adverse results.
>
> A DOA cart could be taken back with a complaint, of course.
>
> Anyway, I'll try one.
>
> Tony
Tony
You are a smart person. It is wise to always consider the source. Bob
has consistently helped people with great and straight forward advice
but an HP paid for "independent lab test" is no more informative than
advertisements from refillers. It's inconceivable that refillers
performing 100% outgoing functional inspections could get anywhere near
a 54% failure rate, or that a company like Staples would be willing to
risk alienating customers at such alarming failure rates, regardless of
short term profits. For what it is worth, I'm not in the refilling business.

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

> As you say, Bob has been a helpful and generous member of this group,
> and I have always respected his very informed and honest contributions.

Or take for face value, accept the fact that refilled cartridges have a
higher failure rate, as high as 47% in one test, and buy them in pairs,
and declare victory.

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

> The 47% figure staggers me, I am sure there are compatibles and refills that
> are that bad but they are definitely in the minority

I agree, that seems like such a high failure rate that repeat business
just wouldn't happen. But as I don't have that much experence with HP
refills I can't dispute this number at all. I've only bought one
refill for my psc-950 from lasermonks. It required a couple of head
cleanings to be perfect but aside from that I would buy them again if I
used the HP anymore.

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

Bob Headrick wrote:

>
> "Tony Stanford" <tonystanford@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VciHr1ABFEIDFwU$@clara.co.uk...
>>
>> Thanks for the replies. I am sceptical about test results published by a
>> company on its own products. They would hardly publish adverse results.
>
> The results are broadcast by HP but the tests were conducted by a third
> party. Read the full report for the details of the tests they did and how
> they graded. They printed hundreds of cartridges worth of tests.

Thanks for brigning in a tad of objectivity, Bob. I mean, this is just like
when Gartner makes an independent stury proving that Windows' Total Cost of
Ownership is so much less than Linux's.

There's absolutely no way anybody can contest the value of those studies.
Unless one is brainwashed by advocacy, of course!