Canon IP3000, 4000, 5000, 6000

[Guest]

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

In article <KfECe.1214$NU2.1050@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
inkystinky@oem.com says...
>
>
> Stevelee wrote:
>
> >
> > I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500.
> > Never
> > had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack of
> > paper
> > and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
> > just as
> > good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
>
> > > measekite wrote: (shouted, actually)
> >

> ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
> ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.
>

But what if you saved enough by driving without insurance to buy 2 new
cars? I haven't seen any sign of problems in 6 months of refilling, but
even if it was risky, the savings are so huge that they pay for a
replacemnt printer 2 or 3 times while still under warranty. Using OEM
cartridges isn't "risky", because it's a SURE loser (no risk involved).

 

[Guest]

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

Stevelee wrote:

>
>
> Mapanari wrote:
>
>>
>> The 3000/4000 are the top rated printers in Consumer Reports and the
>> 6000 is way down about halfway on the list.
>
>
> Not I don't believe you but it doesn't make sense. Ip6000 use CMYKPcPM
> inks
> to print all the colors contained in the image to be printed.
> Ip3000/4000 use
> only CMYK inks. Some colors will be missing because they are missing
> the PC
> and PM inks. all these printers use same CMYK inks. It doesn't make
> sense for
> Canon to produce the highly regarded i960 but screws up on ip6000.
> I960 uses
> same CMYKPcPm inks as the ip6000 does. Ip6000 is a newer printer than
> i960.
> It really makes no sense for ip6000 to be a poor printer.


READ ABOUT IT AT

www.pcmag.com

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>> It really makes no sense for ip6000 to be a poor printer.
>>
>>
>
>You'll have to check with someone wiser than my self. I've heard from
>many they prefer the output from the i960 than the ip6000. According
>to canon the i960 has 3,072 nozzles [4800 x 1200] where the ip6000
>[4800 x 1200 dpi] has 1536. While the dpi is constent yet the nozzle
>count is higher, I can only assume if these numbers are correct not
>only does the i960 have a different head than the ip6000, but prints a
>wider area at a given time.
>
>http://steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960_pg2.html
>http://steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d_pg2.html
>
>Discuss amongt your selves.
>
>

www.pcmag.com

 

[Guest]

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

Stevelee wrote:

> Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle counts.
> ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on Canon's
> web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an excellent i960
> with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's good to be
> corrected.


www.pcmag.com


I told you so but some like to listen to Burtie Furtie

>
> zakezuke wrote:
>
>>> It really makes no sense for ip6000 to be a poor printer.
>>
>>
>>
>> You'll have to check with someone wiser than my self. I've heard from
>> many they prefer the output from the i960 than the ip6000. According
>> to canon the i960 has 3,072 nozzles [4800 x 1200] where the ip6000
>> [4800 x 1200 dpi] has 1536. While the dpi is constent yet the nozzle
>> count is higher, I can only assume if these numbers are correct not
>> only does the i960 have a different head than the ip6000, but prints a
>> wider area at a given time.
>>
>> http://steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960_pg2.html
>> http://steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d_pg2.html
>>
>> Discuss amongt your selves.
>>

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle counts.
>>ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on Canon's
>>web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an excellent i960
>>with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's good to be corrected.
>>
>>
>
>The i960 was a $400 printer in 2003. The ip6000 I believe was released
>late 2004 for less money. For all intents and purposes... I think of
>the ip8500 a $400ish (ok $350) as a good replacement for the i960 in
>the fact that there is an improvement and the price mark is about the
>same.
>
>

Yeah, the IP8500 is superior to the i960 and also has twin paper feeds
and can print duplex. This is a real improvement plus it is nicer
looking as well.

>But I understand where you are comming from, I was shocked as well but
>it makes a fair amount of sense. How could they offer a printer with
>an LCD screen without cutting back somewhere.
>
>

The LCD screen is a gimmick for most people who really want to fully
edit their photos.

 

[Guest]

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

Burt wrote:

>"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1121639202.205001.208010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle counts.
>>>ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on Canon's
>>>web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an excellent i960
>>>with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's good to be
>>>corrected.
>>>
>>>
>>The i960 was a $400 printer in 2003. The ip6000 I believe was released
>>late 2004 for less money. For all intents and purposes... I think of
>>the ip8500 a $400ish (ok $350) as a good replacement for the i960 in
>>the fact that there is an improvement and the price mark is about the
>>same.
>>
>>But I understand where you are comming from, I was shocked as well but
>>it makes a fair amount of sense. How could they offer a printer with
>>an LCD screen without cutting back somewhere.
>>
>>
>
>Still time to buy a new i960 while there are a few in the pipeline (Amazon -
>about $150).
>
Who Cares

>I should have bought one when tigerdirect had them new for
>about $80 plus shipping. Just a few weeks ago.
>
Who cares. Soon the next generation of Pixmas will be out and then the
i960 will be 2 generations behind.

>Could have just put it ont
>the shelf and saved it til my current i960 dies.
>

Rather quickly when using aftermarket ink

>Although the ip8500 is
>rated very highly as a photo printer, the i960 is no slouch.
>

True but why not buy the best.

> This makes
>sense if you don't need the lcd screen, two paper feeds, and duplexing,
>"improvements" that I don't personally need.
>
>

Not interested in your needs. Two paper feeds are always beneficial and
duplexing can come in handy.

>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121639202.205001.208010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>> Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle
>>>> counts.
>>>> ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on Canon's
>>>> web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an excellent
>>>> i960
>>>> with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's good to be
>>>> corrected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The i960 was a $400 printer in 2003. The ip6000 I believe was released
>>> late 2004 for less money. For all intents and purposes... I think of
>>> the ip8500 a $400ish (ok $350) as a good replacement for the i960 in
>>> the fact that there is an improvement and the price mark is about the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> But I understand where you are comming from, I was shocked as well but
>>> it makes a fair amount of sense. How could they offer a printer with
>>> an LCD screen without cutting back somewhere.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Still time to buy a new i960 while there are a few in the pipeline
>> (Amazon - about $150).
>
> Who Cares
>
>> I should have bought one when tigerdirect had them new for about $80
>> plus shipping. Just a few weeks ago.
>
> Who cares. Soon the next generation of Pixmas will be out and then the
> i960 will be 2 generations behind.
>
>> Could have just put it ont the shelf and saved it til my current i960
>> dies.
>
>
> Rather quickly when using aftermarket ink
>
>> Although the ip8500 is rated very highly as a photo printer, the i960
>> is no slouch.
>
>
> True but why not buy the best.
>
>> This makes sense if you don't need the lcd screen, two paper feeds,
>> and duplexing, "improvements" that I don't personally need.
>>
>
> Not interested in your needs. Two paper feeds are always beneficial and
> duplexing can come in handy.
>

Two paper feeds ARE beneficial. The Canon auto duplexing function is
more than lame because Manual 'duplexing' is two to three times as fast.
The auto duplex feature makes fine watching if you're serving a prison
sentence and have a lot of time on your hands and no TV.

-Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Stevelee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should
>>>> then look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award
>>>> winning i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500.
>>> Never
>>> had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack
>>> of paper
>>> and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
>>> just as
>>> good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
>> ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.
>
>
> OEM ink use is not insurance. Registering the printer itself is
> insurance; and it's equally valid for both users or OEM and non OEM.
>
> And for what it's worth, I use bulk and compatibles in my iP5000 and
> haven't even bothered with registration. Does it look like I'm deeply
> worried.

Children do not worry.

> And I don't anticipate the Canon ink "keystone kops" pulling me
> over anytime soon for ink evasion. They're so inept the last time I
> talked to them they asked me to identify (name) the first cartridge in
> my printer beginning from the left. Duhhhhhhh. . . .
>
> -Taliesyn

 

[Guest]

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

Taliesyn wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Stevelee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should then
>>>> look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award winning
>>>> i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500.
>>> Never
>>> had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack
>>> of paper
>>> and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
>>> just as
>>> good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
>> ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.
>
>
> OEM ink use is not insurance. Registering the printer itself is
> insurance; and it's equally valid for both users or OEM and non OEM.
>
> And for what it's worth, I use bulk and compatibles in my iP5000 and
> haven't even bothered with registration. Does it look like I'm deeply
> worried. And I don't anticipate the Canon ink "keystone kops" pulling me
> over anytime soon for ink evasion. They're so inept the last time I
> talked to them they asked me to identify (name) the first cartridge in
> my printer beginning from the left. Duhhhhhhh. . . .
>
> -Taliesyn

Uh, at least in the U.S, you don't have to send in
a registration card on any purchase. The standard
guarantee is automatic, the consumer doesn't need
to do anything (except keep the sales ticket for
proof of purchase).

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>IT IS ONLY GOOD FOR THE COMPUTER ILLITERATE PERSON
>>WHO WANTS TO PRINT THEIR WAD WITHOUT A COMPUTER.
>>
>>
>
>Which is the largest demographic on planet earth. Otherwise why is
>pictbridge so popular?
>
>Seriously... You know what people do when you tell them that they don't
>need to hookup the printer to the computer? This could include all
>those nice AIOs that are on the market. You know what they do, they
>buy them. Who wants to learn tedius software when you can just pop in
>your memory, press a few buttons, and get prints. You, I, and just
>about anyone else who's computer literate would prefer going into
>photoshop, but we are in the minority. Even among people who own card
>readers, most don't know how to navigate folders down to where the
>images are. I'm not being insulting, this is a fact. And because
>canon's target market is the consumer crowd most of who are hardly
>computer literate (no offence), they are more than willing to sacrafice
>raw print speed in order to just jack in their memory and print bloody
>pictures, and thank the heavens above they don't have to fuss with
>wires or their pc.
>
>But if you honestly feel the output of the i6000 is inferior, why not
>reccomend the mp750/760/780 to those who actually want the LCD screen
>and ease of use. You points are valid enough that such a
>reccomendation is justified.
>
>

Most multifunction devices are not good values. They cost more and when
one of the multi devices fail the entire unit is not functional. On the
other side of the coin they do take up less space. One of the better
MPDs is the Canon MP780 but it is not the best of breed in each
function. Certain people may find is good for them.

 

[frank]

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

measekite wrote:


>
> Most multifunction devices are not good values. They cost more and when
> one of the multi devices fail the entire unit is not functional. On the
> other side of the coin they do take up less space. One of the better
> MPDs is the Canon MP780 but it is not the best of breed in each
> function. Certain people may find is good for them.

Worongo dog-breath. Obviously they have a very good place in the market
otherwise they wouldn't exist, stupid.
Frank

 

[Guest]

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

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
> In article <KfECe.1214$NU2.1050@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> inkystinky@oem.com says...
>
>>
>> Stevelee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500.
>>>Never
>>>had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack of
>>>paper
>>>and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
>>>just as
>>>good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
>>
>>>>measekite wrote: (shouted, actually)
>>>
>
>>ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
>>ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.
>>
>
>
> But what if you saved enough by driving without insurance to buy 2 new
> cars? I haven't seen any sign of problems in 6 months of refilling, but
> even if it was risky, the savings are so huge that they pay for a
> replacemnt printer 2 or 3 times while still under warranty. Using OEM
> cartridges isn't "risky", because it's a SURE loser (no risk involved).

A self evident truth apparantly not edident to Measekite. Instead of
1+1=2, to him it's 7. You simply cannot reason with a person like that.

-Taliesyn

 

[zakezuke]

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

> Most multifunction devices are not good values. They cost more and when
> one of the multi devices fail the entire unit is not functional. On the
> other side of the coin they do take up less space. One of the better
> MPDs is the Canon MP780 but it is not the best of breed in each
> function. Certain people may find is good for them.

Your the one who said the ip4000 provides better output than the
ip6000d. Are you saying that the ip4000 as a printer engine isn't any
good? I find this most disturbing as this is the one you post about
all the time. the MP750/760/780 share the same engine and the same
drivers as the ip4000... are you saying the ip4000 isn't any good?

>They cost more and when
> one of the multi devices fail the entire unit is not functional

This I don't understand. Are you saying that if the scanner fails it
won't print? If the printer fails it won't scan? If the modem fails
in the mp780 it won't scan or print? I had no idea.

 

[Guest]

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

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Most multifunction devices are not good values. They cost more and
>> when one of the multi devices fail the entire unit is not
>> functional. On the other side of the coin they do take up less
>> space. One of the better MPDs is the Canon MP780 but it is not the
>> best of breed in each function. Certain people may find is good for
>> them.
>
>
> Worongo dog-breath. Obviously they have a very good place in the
> market otherwise they wouldn't exist, stupid.
> Frank

GOOUT AND PLAY IN THE TRAFFIC

 

[Guest]

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

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:

>In article <KfECe.1214$NU2.1050@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>inkystinky@oem.com says...
>
>
>> Stevelee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500.
>>>Never
>>>had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack of
>>>paper
>>>and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
>>>just as
>>>good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
>>>
>>>
>>>>measekite wrote: (shouted, actually)
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
>>ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.
>>
>>
>>
>
>But what if you saved enough by driving without insurance to buy 2 new
>cars?
>
PECKERBLOOMER THAT TELLS ME YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. ONLY
ABOURT URSELF.

>I haven't seen any sign of problems in 6 months of refilling, but
>even if it was risky, the savings are so huge that they pay for a
>replacemnt printer 2 or 3 times while still under warranty.
>

>Using OEM
>cartridges isn't "risky",
>

THAT IS TRUE







>because it's a SURE loser (no risk involved).
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
>
>> In article <KfECe.1214$NU2.1050@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>> inkystinky@oem.com says...
>>
>>>
>>> Stevelee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my
>>>> ip8500. Never
>>>> had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack
>>>> of paper
>>>> and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
>>>> just as
>>>> good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> measekite wrote: (shouted, actually)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD
>>> AN ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But what if you saved enough by driving without insurance to buy 2
>> new cars? I haven't seen any sign of problems in 6 months of
>> refilling, but even if it was risky, the savings are so huge that
>> they pay for a replacemnt printer 2 or 3 times while still under
>> warranty. Using OEM cartridges isn't "risky", because it's a SURE
>> loser (no risk involved).
>
>
> A self evident truth apparantly not edident to Measekite. Instead of
> 1+1=2, to him it's 7. You simply cannot reason with a person like that.
>
> -Taliesyn

WHEN IS YOUR SENIOR PROM? ARE U TAKING UR PRINTER?

 

[zakezuke]

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

> It is advertisied to have the same print engine as the IP4000 but I am
> sure there are some differences in the mechanics of how the mechanism works.

I have the service manual for both printers. I can't find any parts
that are different except for the power supply which it's a german
manual with a euro/us auto switching PS and the back feed plastic, and
the circuit board. Even QM2-1239-000 is identical. The front door on
the mp7x0 is different and self opening. The print engine, motors,
gears, the print engine is 100% identical.

In case you're not aware... Canon has been making print engines since
your grandfather was in diapers. This is what they do best, make a
product, mass produce it, and slap other cases around it.

> I am saying if the printer fails you now have a very expensive oversized
> scanner. If the modem fails you cannot fax. If the scanner fails you
> have an overpriced big fat printer and do not have scanning nor send fax
> capability.

Overpriced. Street price is $220ish, heck the mp750 was onsale for
$100 on fry's website, now up to $130 on amazon. The 760 has a low
street price of $225, where the 780 has the street price of about $180.
The only thing the 780 has over the 750 is an onboard modem which if
it fails (unlikely) you can buy seperately. The 750 760 have no
modem.

But you seem to be missing the point. You say the ip4000's output is
superior to that of the ip6000. You say only computer illiterate
morons would buy the ip6000, which I say makes up most of the
marketplace. If such a person was going to buy a ip6000 anyway why not
do something productive and actually reccomend something that prints
*just like* the ip4000 but takes memory and has a spiffy onboard
screen. By my estimates you'd pay about $110 extra for these features
in the mp760, about $20 extra for the mp760 and $70 extra for the
mp780. It's a question whether you want the color screen (mp760) or
the sheet feeder (mp750/780) or the modem (mp780).

But I'm not talking about those extra features, i'm talking about a
product for people who want to print directly from their cards who
otherwise wouldn't be able to do so from the pc because they don't know
how to navigate folders to find the pic or operate the software to do
it. Unless you are telling me the mp7x0 is so inferior to ip4000 in
printing dispite it using an identical and I mean identical print
engine or it's card reader is inferior to the ip6000.

I know it's hard putting a dollar value on a feature you wouldn't find
useful. I understand... but given people are willing to spend $200 on
the ip6000 and you honestly feel the ip4000 is a better choice.... and
the only feature they need on the mp7x0 is printing from memory cards
why not recomend the mp7x0? Forget scanning or faxing.... just the
basic feature of getting an image to paper in as few button presses as
possible.

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>Most multifunction devices are not good values. They cost more and when
>>one of the multi devices fail the entire unit is not functional. On the
>>other side of the coin they do take up less space. One of the better
>>MPDs is the Canon MP780 but it is not the best of breed in each
>>function. Certain people may find is good for them.
>>
>>
>
>Your the one who said the ip4000 provides better output than the
>ip6000d. Are you saying that the ip4000 as a printer engine isn't any
>good?
>
No I am not.

>I find this most disturbing as this is the one you post about
>all the time. the MP750/760/780 share the same engine and the same
>drivers as the ip4000... are you saying the ip4000 isn't any good?
>
>

I am not. Multifunction devices are way down on the list in general.
MP devices usually provide printing, scanning, and fax. You do not get
best of breed in an MP device. Also, when one goes out fixing is still
usually cost prohibitive and a pain in the ass. You sort of loose the
remaining functionality. Also if there is a tech advancement in one or
the other MP devices you cannot upgrade one function. Like I said they
are usually simpler to use and take up less space. And while the
scanning function on a Canon MP780 is not as good as the Epson 4180
scanner it does have an auto sheetfeeder and a flatbed scanner.

It is advertisied to have the same print engine as the IP4000 but I am
sure there are some differences in the mechanics of how the mechanism works.

>
>
>>They cost more and when
>>one of the multi devices fail the entire unit is not functional
>>
>>
>
>This I don't understand. Are you saying that if the scanner fails it
>won't print? If the printer fails it won't scan? If the modem fails
>in the mp780 it won't scan or print? I had no idea.
>
>

I am saying if the printer fails you now have a very expensive oversized
scanner. If the modem fails you cannot fax. If the scanner fails you
have an overpriced big fat printer and do not have scanning nor send fax
capability.

In general, it would be better to get an Epson 4180 scanner, and IP4000
printer, a relatively inexpensive modem, and some fax software. On sale
all of this would cost less than a MP780 and you can upgrade any of the
pieces at any time. You also have best of breed.

 

[Guest]

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

zakezuke wrote:

>>It is advertisied to have the same print engine as the IP4000 but I am
>>sure there are some differences in the mechanics of how the mechanism works.
>>
>>
>
>I have the service manual for both printers. I can't find any parts
>that are different except for the power supply which it's a german
>manual with a euro/us auto switching PS and the back feed plastic, and
>the circuit board. Even QM2-1239-000 is identical. The front door on
>the mp7x0 is different and self opening. The print engine, motors,
>gears, the print engine is 100% identical.
>
>In case you're not aware... Canon has been making print engines since
>your grandfather was in diapers. This is what they do best, make a
>product, mass produce it, and slap other cases around it.
>
>

JESUS, I DID NOT KNOW THAT CANON MADE PRINT ENGINES WHEN THOMAS
JEFFERSON WAS PRESIDENT.

>
>
>>I am saying if the printer fails you now have a very expensive oversized
>>scanner. If the modem fails you cannot fax. If the scanner fails you
>>have an overpriced big fat printer and do not have scanning nor send fax
>>capability.
>>
>>
>
>Overpriced. Street price is $220ish, heck the mp750 was onsale for
>$100 on fry's website, now up to $130 on amazon. The 760 has a low
>street price of $225, where the 780 has the street price of about $180.
> The only thing the 780 has over the 750 is an onboard modem which if
>it fails (unlikely) you can buy seperately. The 750 760 have no
>modem.
>
>

SOFTWARE MAY BE DIFFERENT. I HAVE NOT CHECKED.

>But you seem to be missing the point. You say the ip4000's output is
>superior to that of the ip6000.
>

read the review" www.pcmag.com

>You say only computer illiterate
>morons would buy the ip6000, which I say makes up most of the
>marketplace.
>

That is not true. That is what a bunch of jerky unprofessional tech
support people what you to believe. Sure there are many who are like
that and do not care but not most. I would say that many of this ng
advisors are worse.

>If such a person was going to buy a ip6000 anyway why not
>do something productive and actually reccomend something that prints
>*just like* the ip4000 but takes memory and has a spiffy onboard
>screen. By my estimates you'd pay about $110 extra for these features
>in the mp760, about $20 extra for the mp760 and $70 extra for the
>mp780. It's a question whether you want the color screen (mp760) or
>the sheet feeder (mp750/780) or the modem (mp780).
>
>But I'm not talking about those extra features, i'm talking about a
>product for people who want to print directly from their cards who
>otherwise wouldn't be able to do so from the pc because they don't know
>how to navigate folders to find the pic or operate the software to do
>it. Unless you are telling me the mp7x0 is so inferior to ip4000 in
>printing dispite it using an identical and I mean identical print
>engine or it's card reader is inferior to the ip6000.
>
>I know it's hard putting a dollar value on a feature you wouldn't find
>useful. I understand... but given people are willing to spend $200 on
>the ip6000 and you honestly feel the ip4000 is a better choice.... and
>the only feature they need on the mp7x0 is printing from memory cards
>why not recomend the mp7x0? Forget scanning or faxing.... just the
>basic feature of getting an image to paper in as few button presses as
>possible.
>
>

It is took big.

 

[zakezuke]

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

> I believe that they did not rank the IP6000 very highly not because it
> is a bad printer but Canon has others in the line that they (and I
> agree) are much better. An example would be the IP4000 and the IP5000.

I think if you actualy read the articile they say "The iP6000D's
performance and quality for business applications make it a poor choice
as an all-around printer. But its photo performance, quality, and
photo-printing features make it a reasonable choice if you want a
second printer specifically for photos." In fact if you look at their
review on the ip8500 they basicly say the same thing "Text/graphics
quality and speed are good but not in the same league as photo quality
and speed.".

This is why I don't read PC mag but rather made my own judgement. To
me the ip6000 seems just dandy for a dedicated photo printer esp among
those who don't want to be limited to PC printing.

As a pure photo printer, the ip6000 is just fine... if a tad slower
than the older model i960, but keep in mind the ip6000 is cheaper than
the ip5000. But I do agree with you the fact that text printing is my
primary application and while I have older lasers they have reached the
point that I don't want to muck with them any more, and the ip3000 and
mp760, while more costly per page for black, are a reasonable
substute.. if not perfect. I would consider the ip6000 as a
replacement to my epson r200 for CD printing, covers, and photos.

 

[Guest]

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

" Stevelee" <" Stevelee"@hotmail.com>
wrotenews:cz1Ce.3677$Rv7.2639@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Mapanari wrote:
>
>>
>> The 3000/4000 are the top rated printers in Consumer Reports and the
>> 6000 is way down about halfway on the list.
>
> Not I don't believe you but it doesn't make sense. Ip6000 use CMYKPcPM
> inks to print all the colors contained in the image to be printed.
> Ip3000/4000 use only CMYK inks. Some colors will be missing because they
> are missing the PC and PM inks. all these printers use same CMYK inks.
> It doesn't make sense for Canon to produce the highly regarded i960 but
> screws up on ip6000. I960 uses same CMYKPcPm inks as the ip6000 does.
> Ip6000 is a newer printer than i960. It really makes no sense for ip6000
> to be a poor printer.
>

Go buy a copy or get a subscription or go the library and read why for
yourself....about 2-6 months ago.

--
---Mapanari---

 

[Guest]

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

" Stevelee" <" Stevelee"@hotmail.com>
wrotenews:qYwCe.4205$_%4.3993@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle
> counts. ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on
> Canon's web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an
> excellent i960 with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's
> good to be corrected.
>

You're welcome.

Now go out and get a year's subscription to Consumer Reports; online it's
only about $14 a year!

--
---Mapanari---

 

[Guest]

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

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrotenews:4kECe.1235$NU2.687
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:


>>
>>http://steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960_pg2.html
>>http://steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d_pg2.html
>>
>>Discuss amongt your selves.
>>
>>
>
> www.pcmag.com
>

Dumbshit...if you're going to be snarly and smirky and a smartass, at least
post a full earl!

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1756583,00.asp

--
---Mapanari---