Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I really can't fault Douglas' assumption about your age, because
> unfortunately, there is something in the certainty of many of your
> posts that tend to express a rather sophomoric approach to the world.
>
> Things simply are not as black or white as you tend to believe, when
> it comes to printers, or most other issues.
>
> Some of the blanket statements you have made over the last few months
> are without warrant, and could not be based upon experience, because
> they simply aren't accurate.
>
> With all the experience you have, you should know better than make
> such blatantly "absolute" statements about products. If Epson
> printers, as one example, were as horrible as you made them out to be,
> they wouldn't be selling tens of millions of them.
I have never said they are horrible. I believe that Canon is better at
this point for most purposes except for professionals who need longer
lasting inks. While I have always used HP and do think that my HP990CSE
is best for my business use (Hi Speed Draft that looks like near letter
quality for an inkjet) I originally decided to get an Epson printer for
Photos and for my wife's use. After researching all of the latest
models I decided on the Canon IP4000. I am happy with the choice. The
other alternative would have been the R300 but the results I saw were
better from the Canon. I also valued duplex printing and twin paper
feeds over CD printing. It is only after I bought my printer did I
learn that Canon uses less ink and that the carts are cheaper. I also
was concerned about clogging with fixed print heads.
>
> Without knowing the needs of the original poster, you directed "her"
> away from one brand to another. Someone who works with systems they
> set ups for others, or in sales, knows that the interests of the
> client are best served by first finding out what it is they need the
> equipment to do before suggesting one brand product is superior to the
> next.
>
> I recommend Canon printers to people who must have speed and cheap ink
> costs over permanence, as an example. I recommend HP for people who
> will have long periods of time without their printer being in use or
> who seek simplicity of use (as an example, I suggested HP for a school
> which was outfitting printers for vision impaired students).
>
> I almost always suggest Epson for people selling their work
I do not disagree with that.
> or demanding fine art quality and many OEM paper types.
>
> Art
>
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Douglas wrote:
>>
>>> Here is your post! " Epsons print on
>>>
>>>
>>>>> specially priced CDs but not in the US due to patents"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also,as I stated dye inks are vibrant,but sometimes they are too
>>> vibrant,thus the photo is NOT as realistic as it should be.You have
>>> a very closed mind,and very little real knowledge of the
>>> subject,printers! I think I can even guess your age.Just for some
>>> insight on you,how many printers have you owned in your life?
>>> Yes,I sell prints,so the pigment inks are important.I also install
>>> systems and networks and often push Canon printers!I have about 25
>>> new printers on hand,10 of those are Canons.My own network incudes
>>> 16 different printers,at the moment.I have built and installed
>>> systems for 30 years.I know,for a fact,there is NO one brand of
>>> printer that is that much better than all others!Maybe when you
>>> finish highschool,you will have a chance to live and learn!
>>>
>> :-*
>>
>> I have been responsible for over 4,000 computers, 2000 printers
>> (inkjets and lasers, and have been the lead on numerous programming
>> projects as well as a professional consultant since the days of the
>> IBM PC when the 2 main printers were the Okidata and Epson dot
>> matrix, and that was before Canon developed the engine for the HP
>> LaserJet I. I did this after substantial business experience and
>> after getting my BS from a major university. Subsequent to that I
>> got my MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer). I guess I need
>> to finish High School!
>>
>>> I just hope others that read your BS will check out the facts!
>>>
>>>
>> BS stands for Bachelor of Science. Is your degree from the school of
>> hard knocks?
>>
>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RRlZd.10182$C47.64@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> First measekite states Epsons print on specially priced cds,but
>>>>> not in the US.WHAT?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe I said or at least I meant that Epsons print on specially
>>>> priced CDs but the Canons do not in the US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I live in the US and print cds and dvds.The price difference in
>>>>> cds is less than labels.Labels can be a hazard to your equipment!
>>>>> I owned a Canon i9900,and sold it to buy an Epson(4000)!True dye
>>>>> inks are more vibrant,but at times that actually is a bad
>>>>> thing!That sometimes is unrealistic!I also own an Epson
>>>>> R800,mainly to print on cds and dvds.It uses pigment inks,and
>>>>> printed cds are more water resistant than ones done with dye based
>>>>> inks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saying Canon printers are better than Epson,in all cases,and
>>>>> for all users,is pure bull!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Canon Printers are better in all cases for all users EXCEPT for
>>>> professionals who need pigmented inks when they sell there prints.
>>>> In that case longevity is the number 1 concern and vibrancy and
>>>> visual quality are secondary. Epson prints still look good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have owned every brand of printer made,and have had good and bad
>>>>> luck with HP,Epson,Lexmark and Canon.I buy the printer that fits
>>>>> my needs,and by the way,price seldom,if ever,is the main factor!
>>>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fSiZd.10111$C47.4916@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Epson makes a fine printer. The pigmented inks do last longer
>>>>>> but are less vibrant and the print quality is debatable not quite
>>>>>> as good. Epson printers tend to use more ink than Canon and have
>>>>>> a tendency to clog. The Canon IP8500 is the narrow carriage
>>>>>> version of the Canon i9900 while the Epson R800 is the narrow
>>>>>> carriage version of the Epson R1800.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said the Canons produce better results, are less money, cost
>>>>>> less to run, clog less and all around are better printers.
>>>>>> Epsons print on specially priced CDs but not in the US due to
>>>>>> patents. The Canon i9900 has been an Editors choice at PCMag,
>>>>>> PCWorld and many other periodicals. The i9900 is a couple of
>>>>>> hundred cheaper and better. I use Surething labels for CD
>>>>>> printing and have no problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope this post has been helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lady Margeret Thatcher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Up to now, "we" have been convinced that I should get a Canon photo
>>>>>>> printer because we have been pretty happy with the results of the
>>>>>>> Canon S520. Couple of clogs, but easily remedied by cleaning with
>>>>>>> rubbing alcohol (the kind you get from the chemist that you can't
>>>>>>> drink, for you Brits).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But "we" are annoyed that Canon printers in the USA don't have
>>>>>>> CD/DVD
>>>>>>> printing capability, and we are also very intrigued by the
>>>>>>> claims that
>>>>>>> Epson inks are much more permanent than Canon inks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, we just looked at the R1800 printer. Aside from the $200+
>>>>>>> extra
>>>>>>> cost over the Canon iP8500, it appears to be a better printer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -CD/DVD direct printing
>>>>>>> -1.5 picoliter droplets, vs. 2.0 picoliter droplets for the Canon
>>>>>>> -"gloss" optimizer
>>>>>>> - 13" wide print capability, vs. only 8.5" for the Canon
>>>>>>> - 44" long print capability, vs. only 11" for the Canon
>>>>>>> - 5760 nozzles, vs. 6144 for the Canon (practically the same)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what are we missing? Why isn't the world leaving Canon for
>>>>>>> Epson?
>>>>>>> (this is not meant as flame bait.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>