Dye-based third party inks available for Canon PIXMA?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

We have been unable to decide between a Canon or an Epson photo
printer. We feel that our needs would be well met by an iP8500 or an
R1800, when it becomes available. We see advantages to each printer.
However, we are most concerned about the reported lack of permanence
in pigment-based printers.

So, we have been wondering if there exists a reputable, quality
supplier of third-party _dye_ inks for Canon Pixma printers, including
the extra colors in the iP8500? And of course at a price that won't
bankrupt the national treasury.

Is there any truth to the statement that only Epson (and therefore not
Canon) knows how to design a printhead that will not clog with a
dye-based ink? Or is this a scurrilous comment by a backbencher type
who is ignored by all right-thinking people?

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

A bit of confusion here, Maggie - Pigment based inks, used in several of the
Epson printers, are more permanent than dye based inks which have been used
in older Epson printers and are used in Canon printers. I have posted this
info before, so for those who have already read it, please accept my
apology.
Inkjet printers have the potential to get clogged heads with their own brand
inks as well as quality aftermarket inks. The two major issues are 1) the
quality of the aftermarket inks and cartridges and 2) the frequency with
which you print. In addition, there is always some buildup of dried ink on
the underside of printheads that can sometimes cause clogs with months or
years of normal, regular use. Since you are interested in your supplies
beyond just going to the store and buying original brand manufactured
cartridges it would be a good idea to become more educated regarding these
printers, inks and cartridges. Although few of the vendors advertise which
inks they are selling, there are a few who do let you know. I have
personally used MIS inks to refill Canon carts and have been very happy with
the product (which I have been told is Image Specialist ink). Look through
this newsgroup for posts by Ron Cohen and Taliesyn for info about their
personal excellent experiences with third party inks. Following are a few
sites that have excellent information by people who don't just give you
their opinionated response - they have used these products successfully, and
they also report when they have had problems. Neil Slade's info on Canon
printers, papers, and inks is at
http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html . Then follow the link he
gives near the top of that site to http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for
the forum on ink jet stuff. Lots of information there as well. It's a good
idea to know how to trouble shoot printer problems that can occur with any
ink and that information is on those sites. Sensient Formulabs inks are
available bulk and also in prefilled cartridges, and this ink has quite a
good reputation with people who have used it and reported on this and other
forums. Formulabs ink is in cartridges sold by Alotofthings (their Arrow
carts, not Rainbow), Weink (carts that have the CRU id in their product
listings), and, I have been told, Wiredbeans carts which are available on
ebay. You can contact each of them to verify that their cartridges are
filled with Formulabs inks before purchasing. Do sign in to the Nifty-stuff
forum and ask any questions of them that you wish. They are very helpful.
There are also some extremely helpful participants on this newsgroup as
well, but you can also experience the invective and snide remarks of a few
people on this NG that might tend to discourage you from pursuing this
issue. For information on Epson printers look up Arthur Entlich's posts on
this newsgroup. I know that he also uses some aftermarket inks for his
Epson printers and, if you buy Epson, you should email him about
availability of third party inks for Epson.

"Lady Margaret Thatcher" <Was_at_10_Downing_Street@bad_for_the_UK.org> wrote
in message news:c35g61ddk28o4uiso8k2th603mhrasf8et@4ax.com...
> We have been unable to decide between a Canon or an Epson photo
> printer. We feel that our needs would be well met by an iP8500 or an
> R1800, when it becomes available. We see advantages to each printer.
> However, we are most concerned about the reported lack of permanence
> in pigment-based printers.
>
> So, we have been wondering if there exists a reputable, quality
> supplier of third-party _dye_ inks for Canon Pixma printers, including
> the extra colors in the iP8500? And of course at a price that won't
> bankrupt the national treasury.
>
> Is there any truth to the statement that only Epson (and therefore not
> Canon) knows how to design a printhead that will not clog with a
> dye-based ink? Or is this a scurrilous comment by a backbencher type
> who is ignored by all right-thinking people?
>
> Maggie
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:

>We have been unable to decide between a Canon or an Epson photo
>printer. We feel that our needs would be well met by an iP8500 or an
>R1800, when it becomes available.
>
If you want the most highly rated wide format printer consider the
i9900. That is much more economical to run and costs less than the
R1800. The Canon IP8500 is also more economical and less expensive than
the Epson R800. The Canon dye based printers produce more striking
results. The Epsons, while very costly, produce less vibrant prints
that last longer. If you are not in the business of selling your prints
then the Canon may be the best choice.

>We see advantages to each printer.
>However, we are most concerned about the reported lack of permanence
>in pigment-based printers.
>
>So, we have been wondering if there exists a reputable, quality
>supplier of third-party _dye_ inks for Canon Pixma printers, including
>the extra colors in the iP8500? And of course at a price that won't
>bankrupt the national treasury.
>
>Is there any truth to the statement that only Epson (and therefore not
>Canon) knows how to design a printhead that will not clog with a
>dye-based ink?
>
You have it reversed. Most of the print head clogging complaints in
this NG are from Epson owners and the majority in that universe are
useing 3rd party ink.

> Or is this a scurrilous comment by a backbencher type
>who is ignored by all right-thinking people?
>
>Maggie
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:59:54 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You have it reversed. Most of the print head clogging complaints in
>this NG are from Epson owners and the majority in that universe are
>useing 3rd party ink.

Hi Measekite,

I haven't had a chance to compare Epson vs Canon re clogging. Your
cmment about 3rd party inks certainly makes sense. Just wanted to
point out the separate thread re my own experience with Canon: Some
of them evidently still use pigment-based blacks, or so I'm led to
believe. My own Canon i850's black nozzle clogged shortly after I
bought it (the 'warranty + 1 day' rule). The colors still work. This
shows up in color prints as white spots where there should be deep
black.

The IP4000's additional 6E-series black cart is supposedly dye-based,
but for IP3000's and some others, the clogged black printhead would
still be as much a problem as a clogged head on an Epson.

This is not an argument for/against either brand, but I'd love to know
if Epson's pigment-based nozzles clog more/less frequently than
Canon's black pigment nozzles. That's a stat we probably won't see.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>A bit of confusion here, Maggie - Pigment based inks, used in several of the
>Epson printers, are more permanent than dye based inks which have been used
>in older Epson printers and are used in Canon printers. I have posted this
>info before, so for those who have already read it, please accept my
>apology.
>Inkjet printers have the potential to get clogged heads with their own brand
>inks as well as quality aftermarket inks.
>

But to a far greater extent with after market inks.

>The two major issues are 1) the
>quality of the aftermarket inks and cartridges
>

And since anybody can open a website and stick a made up label on what
ever they sell it is much more difficult to tell what you are getting.
Just look at the majority of websites hawking ink and try to find a
manufacturer's BRAND name that they are selling. If you do then please
post the results.

>and 2) the frequency with
>which you print. In addition, there is always some buildup of dried ink on
>the underside of printheads that can sometimes cause clogs with months or
>years of normal, regular use. Since you are interested in your supplies
>beyond just going to the store and buying original brand manufactured
>cartridges it would be a good idea to become more educated regarding these
>printers, inks and cartridges.
>

>Although few of the vendors advertise which
>inks they are selling,
>

Ask your self why?

>there are a few who do let you know. I have
>personally used MIS inks to refill Canon carts and have been very happy with
>the product (which I have been told is Image Specialist ink). Look through
>this newsgroup for posts by Ron Cohen and Taliesyn for info about their
>personal excellent experiences with third party inks. Following are a few
>sites that have excellent information by people who don't just give you
>their opinionated response - they have used these products successfully, and
>they also report when they have had problems. Neil Slade's info on Canon
>printers, papers, and inks is at
>http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html . Then follow the link he
>gives near the top of that site to http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/ for
>the forum on ink jet stuff. Lots of information there as well. It's a good
>idea to know how to trouble shoot printer problems that can occur with any
>ink and that information is on those sites. Sensient Formulabs inks are
>available bulk and also in prefilled cartridges, and this ink has quite a
>good reputation with people who have used it and reported on this and other
>forums. Formulabs ink is in cartridges sold by Alotofthings
>

Go to their website and you will not find an adequate description of
what they sell. Send them an Email and ask them why they do not
describe what they sell adequately and why they do not list the
manufacturer/formulator BRAND name on their site. At least with Canon,
Epson, and HP you have a respected brand name that is sold in all
marketing channels. Sensinet Formulabs may be OK but while possible, it
is difficult to buy a Formulabs ink cart or a bulk bottle of ink with
the Formulabs name on it. That is what is wrong with this unregulated
industry.

>(their Arrow
>carts, not Rainbow),
>

>Weink
>
This guy is a hawker who charges $2.00 less than why you can be the real
Canon inks for at Costco. And he defends this also.

>(carts that have the CRU id in their product
>listings), and, I have been told, Wiredbeans carts which are available on
>ebay.
>

Many people have had problems with Pay Pal on eBay.

>You can contact each of them to verify that their cartridges are
>filled with Formulabs inks before purchasing. Do sign in to the Nifty-stuff
>forum and ask any questions of them that you wish. They are very helpful.
>There are also some extremely helpful participants on this newsgroup as
>well, but you can also experience the invective and snide remarks of a few
>people on this NG that might tend to discourage you from pursuing this
>issue.
>

By all means, you should pursue this issue. Carefully evaluate their
website as to what they are really putting in writing for the masses so
you will really know what they stand for. One problem with even very
legitimate ink stores is consistency. Unless they are selling a real
BRANDED product from a responsible manufacturer, the seller can easily
and legitimately change their supplier and the user will ultimately have
a different product and may have a lesser experience. Remember, if they
can get a better deal then you might not get the same product time after
time.

Also, when purchasing prefilled carts the quality and manufacturer of
the cartridge ( part of the ink delivery system) may vary and it is
difficult to judge this as well. Be an really informed buyer.

>For information on Epson printers look up Arthur Entlich's posts on
>this newsgroup. I know that he also uses some aftermarket inks for his
>Epson printers and, if you buy Epson, you should email him about
>availability of third party inks for Epson.
>
>"Lady Margaret Thatcher" <Was_at_10_Downing_Street@bad_for_the_UK.org> wrote
>in message news:c35g61ddk28o4uiso8k2th603mhrasf8et@4ax.com...
>
>
>>We have been unable to decide between a Canon or an Epson photo
>>printer. We feel that our needs would be well met by an iP8500 or an
>>R1800, when it becomes available. We see advantages to each printer.
>>However, we are most concerned about the reported lack of permanence
>>in pigment-based printers.
>>
>>So, we have been wondering if there exists a reputable, quality
>>supplier of third-party _dye_ inks for Canon Pixma printers, including
>>the extra colors in the iP8500? And of course at a price that won't
>>bankrupt the national treasury.
>>
>>Is there any truth to the statement that only Epson (and therefore not
>>Canon) knows how to design a printhead that will not clog with a
>>dye-based ink? Or is this a scurrilous comment by a backbencher type
>>who is ignored by all right-thinking people?
>>
>>Maggie
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

_R wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:59:54 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>You have it reversed. Most of the print head clogging complaints in
>>this NG are from Epson owners and the majority in that universe are
>>useing 3rd party ink.
>>
>>
>
>Hi Measekite,
>
>I haven't had a chance to compare Epson vs Canon re clogging. Your
>cmment about 3rd party inks certainly makes sense. Just wanted to
>point out the separate thread re my own experience with Canon: Some
>of them evidently still use pigment-based blacks, or so I'm led to
>believe. My own Canon i850's black nozzle clogged shortly after I
>bought it (the 'warranty + 1 day' rule). The colors still work. This
>shows up in color prints as white spots where there should be deep
>black.
>
>The IP4000's additional 6E-series black cart is supposedly dye-based,
>but for IP3000's and some others, the clogged black printhead would
>still be as much a problem as a clogged head on an Epson.
>
>This is not an argument for/against either brand, but I'd love to know
>if Epson's pigment-based nozzles clog more/less frequently than
>Canon's black pigment nozzles. That's a stat we probably won't see.
>
>

The IP3000 and the IP4000 both use BCI-6M, Y, C ink carts plus a
BCI-3eBK. This is a pigment based black used for text.
In addition, the IP4000 has an additional dye based black used for
enhancing contrast in printing photos. The IP3000 mixes the black using
CYM colors.

I use Canon OEM ink that I purchased at Costco for $9.00 a cart. While
expensive, I do not have any problems and I do have consistency from
batch to batch.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Lady Margaret Thatcher" <Was_at_10_Downing_Street@bad_for_the_UK.org> wrote
in message news:c35g61ddk28o4uiso8k2th603mhrasf8et@4ax.com...
> We have been unable to decide between a Canon or an Epson photo
> printer. We feel that our needs would be well met by an iP8500 or an
> R1800, when it becomes available. We see advantages to each printer.
> However, we are most concerned about the reported lack of permanence
> in pigment-based printers.
>
> So, we have been wondering if there exists a reputable, quality
> supplier of third-party _dye_ inks for Canon Pixma printers, including
> the extra colors in the iP8500? And of course at a price that won't
> bankrupt the national treasury.
>
> Is there any truth to the statement that only Epson (and therefore not
> Canon) knows how to design a printhead that will not clog with a
> dye-based ink? Or is this a scurrilous comment by a backbencher type
> who is ignored by all right-thinking people?
>
> Maggie

You are getting your terms mixed up - permanent inks such as are used in the
R1800 are PIGMENT. Canon uses DYE ink. The heads on the Canon printers are
not designed for pigment ink - they would clog up instantly I would think if
you tried using them in a canon printer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:24:28 +1000, "Caitlin"
<caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Lady Margaret Thatcher" <Was_at_10_Downing_Street@bad_for_the_UK.org> wrote
>in message news:c35g61ddk28o4uiso8k2th603mhrasf8et@4ax.com...
>> We have been unable to decide between a Canon or an Epson photo
>> printer. We feel that our needs would be well met by an iP8500 or an
>> R1800, when it becomes available. We see advantages to each printer.
>> However, we are most concerned about the reported lack of permanence
>> in pigment-based printers.
>>
>> So, we have been wondering if there exists a reputable, quality
>> supplier of third-party _dye_ inks for Canon Pixma printers, including
>> the extra colors in the iP8500? And of course at a price that won't
>> bankrupt the national treasury.
>>
>> Is there any truth to the statement that only Epson (and therefore not
>> Canon) knows how to design a printhead that will not clog with a
>> dye-based ink? Or is this a scurrilous comment by a backbencher type
>> who is ignored by all right-thinking people?
>>
>> Maggie
>
>You are getting your terms mixed up - permanent inks such as are used in the
>R1800 are PIGMENT. Canon uses DYE ink. The heads on the Canon printers are
>not designed for pigment ink - they would clog up instantly I would think if
>you tried using them in a canon printer.

We deeply, deeply regret any confusion we may have caused to the less
experienced readers of this fine newsgroup. And, equally, we
appreciate the graciousness and helpfulness of members of this
newsgroup who corrected our errors and provided us with very useful
information.

From the varied postings, we believe that we can conclude that Canon
printers are limited to _dye_ inks, either first-party or third-party.
And Canon printers have the advantages of more brilliant prints and
lower costs. There are also concerns about the quality of
third-party inks for Canon.

We also understand that Canon dye-based inks are not as permanent as
_pigment_ inks, and this also concerns us. We intend to follow up
with Mr. Entlich regarding the choices for third-party pigment inks
for Epson printers.

Although not discussed in this thread, we are also concerned that
Canon printers sold in the 13 colonies, sometimes referred to as the
"United States of America", do not print on CD disks because Canon
have not paid the license fees to allow them to print on CD disks.
Whereas in England, there is no such restriction. With our residence
in the "United States of America" we are denied a feature available to
Canon users in England and all those countries across the English
Channel.

We feel that we have been helped greatly in our selection process.

Maggie

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

Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:24:28 +1000, "Caitlin"
><caitlin_online_spamtrap@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lady Margaret Thatcher" <Was_at_10_Downing_Street@bad_for_the_UK.org> wrote
>>in message news:c35g61ddk28o4uiso8k2th603mhrasf8et@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>We have been unable to decide between a Canon or an Epson photo
>>>printer. We feel that our needs would be well met by an iP8500 or an
>>>R1800, when it becomes available. We see advantages to each printer.
>>>However, we are most concerned about the reported lack of permanence
>>>in pigment-based printers.
>>>
>>>So, we have been wondering if there exists a reputable, quality
>>>supplier of third-party _dye_ inks for Canon Pixma printers, including
>>>the extra colors in the iP8500? And of course at a price that won't
>>>bankrupt the national treasury.
>>>
>>>Is there any truth to the statement that only Epson (and therefore not
>>>Canon) knows how to design a printhead that will not clog with a
>>>dye-based ink? Or is this a scurrilous comment by a backbencher type
>>>who is ignored by all right-thinking people?
>>>
>>>Maggie
>>>
>>>
>>You are getting your terms mixed up - permanent inks such as are used in the
>>R1800 are PIGMENT. Canon uses DYE ink. The heads on the Canon printers are
>>not designed for pigment ink - they would clog up instantly I would think if
>>you tried using them in a canon printer.
>>
>>
>
>We deeply, deeply regret any confusion we may have caused to the less
>experienced readers of this fine newsgroup. And, equally, we
>appreciate the graciousness and helpfulness of members of this
>newsgroup who corrected our errors and provided us with very useful
>information.
>
>From the varied postings, we believe that we can conclude that Canon
>printers are limited to _dye_ inks
>

when printing photos - pigment black for text on IP3,4,5000 printers

>, either first-party or third-party.
>And Canon printers have the advantages of more brilliant prints and
>lower costs. There are also concerns about the quality of
>third-party inks for Canon.
>
>

And there is even less for Epson R800/R1800 inks.

> We also understand that Canon dye-based inks are not as permanent as
>_pigment_ inks, and this also concerns us.
>
True but I do not know how long it will take to fad. Prints from my
IP4000 have been lying around on an open desk for over a half hour.


> We intend to follow up
>with Mr. Entlich regarding the choices for third-party pigment inks
>for Epson printers.
>
>

He only recommends OEM inks for the R800/R1800 printers.

>Although not discussed in this thread, we are also concerned that
>Canon printers sold in the 13 colonies, sometimes referred to as the
>"United States of America", do not print on CD disks because Canon
>have not paid the license fees to allow them to print on CD disks.
>
>


You hit the nail on the head. You are invidted to the Boston Tea
Party. And remember, you lost the war. ;-)

And lucky you, you have a Queen and a Princess and we have a Bush :-( :'(

>Whereas in England, there is no such restriction. With our residence
>in the "United States of America" we are denied a feature available to
>Canon users in England and all those countries across the English
>Channel.
>
>We feel that we have been helped greatly in our selection process.
>
>Maggie
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5N0ae.1902$zX7.133@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>

[..]

>> We also understand that Canon dye-based inks are not as permanent as
>>_pigment_ inks, and this also concerns us.
> True but I do not know how long it will take to fad. Prints from my
> IP4000 have been lying around on an open desk for over a half hour.
>

I don't know about you, but I myself would want my prints to last a *bit*
more than half an hour.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:


>
> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
> would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people who
> have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that over
> 235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand because
> they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought from a
> hawker. So you do the math.
>
> Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
> story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print head.
>
>>
>>
>>

Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't you!
You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You think
that most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this ng about
their experiences, good or bad.
Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased printers
and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any problems with
either are unlikely to post to this ng. So that leaves a very small
number who have the time, knowledge and inclination to post here and
have very likely had a printer/ink related problem. That’s not very many
is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look at the number of
printers sold. There are very, very few complaints relatively speaking.
What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd party
sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even that many.
As I said, the real proof is in the posters, or the lack thereof. And if
oem was so much better than 3rd party then the market itself dictates
that 3rd’s would be few and far between and we’re swimming in them.
School’s out.
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

(snip)
> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I would
> say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people who have had
> problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that over 235 of them
> are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand because they do not
> know what brand. It is some label they bought from a hawker. So you do
> the math.
(snip)

Are we reading the same newsgroup? I have read every post about inks on
this NG for the last six months and I haven't seen 235 posts identifying
head clogs CAUSED by using third party inks. Maybe I need to be as
meticulous as you in keeping statistics on this issue. OR --- maybe it
doesn't matter to me since the inks many others and I are using have been no
problem at all. As a matter of fact, several of the posts on clogged heads
have ackcnowledged that they are using OEM inks exclusively. My only head
clogs have been with exclusive use of OEM inks. Furthermore, as Arthur
Enlich said in one post - the vast majority of head clogs are not fatal and
can be cleared with some effort beyond the maintenance utilities that are
described for head cleaning in the printer drivers.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>(snip)
>
>
>>Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I would
>>say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people who have had
>>problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that over 235 of them
>>are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand because they do not
>>know what brand. It is some label they bought from a hawker. So you do
>>the math.
>>
>>
>(snip)
>
>Are we reading the same newsgroup? I have read every post about inks on
>this NG for the last six months and I haven't seen 235 posts identifying
>head clogs CAUSED by using third party inks. Maybe I need to be as
>meticulous as you in keeping statistics on this issue. OR --- maybe it
>doesn't matter to me since the inks many others and I are using have been no
>problem at all. As a matter of fact, several of the posts on clogged heads
>have ackcnowledged that they are using OEM inks exclusively.
>
That is the difference between 300 and 235. You are one of the 6; Burt.

> My only head
>clogs have been with exclusive use of OEM inks. Furthermore, as Arthur
>Enlich said in one post - the vast majority of head clogs are not fatal and
>can be cleared with some effort beyond the maintenance utilities that are
>described for head cleaning in the printer drivers.
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>> would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people
>>> who have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that
>>> over 235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand
>>> because they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought
>>> from a hawker. So you do the math.
>>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> Are we reading the same newsgroup? I have read every post about inks
>> on this NG for the last six months and I haven't seen 235 posts
>> identifying head clogs CAUSED by using third party inks. Maybe I need
>> to be as meticulous as you in keeping statistics on this issue. OR
>> --- maybe it doesn't matter to me since the inks many others and I are
>> using have been no problem at all. As a matter of fact, several of
>> the posts on clogged heads have ackcnowledged that they are using OEM
>> inks exclusively.
>
> That is the difference between 300 and 235. You are one of the 6; Burt.
>

This is the biggest lie Measekite has been flogging since his
conception. Not bad for someone who has never used non-OEM inks but has
suddenly become a know-it-all ink (and website) expert. Any 'knowledge'
he claims to profess comes from second and third hand comments - none of
which can be substantiated. I have actual non-OEM ink experience, both
with pre-filled cartridges and bulk/refill kits. I have filling and
usage experience with ALL 4 major printer brands - Epson, Canon, Lexmark
and HP over several years. None have EVER clogged because of the inks
used except Epson. But Epson clogged with its own inks too. HP, Lexmark
and Canon refillings have never required head cleanings nor any other
special attention. My Epson worked fine first 6 months, then slowly
required more and more head cleanings until I began using more ink for
cleaning than for printing! The new Epsons featured chips so it was time
to move to another brand - Lexmark. My Lexmark worked faithfully with
the same 2 cartridges on bulk refills for almost 2 years until I retired
it for a Canon. I've also been refilling my sister's HP cartridges for
many, many years without any problems.

I've had and use several Canons and head clogging has never existed.
This is not to say it can't happen, it may depend on frequency of use.
I use both of my printer on an almost daily basis. I just have never
seen it. What may appear as a head clog may actually be a premature
Canon head failure. I believe a head failure I had was due to over
use (non-stop printing for several hours). Ever wondered why they made
those heads user replaceable?

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

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>> would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people
>> who have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that
>> over 235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand
>> because they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought
>> from a hawker. So you do the math.
>>
>> Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
>> story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print
>> head.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't
> you! You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You
> think that most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this ng
> about their experiences, good or bad.
> Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased printers
> and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any problems with
> either are unlikely to post to this ng.

I purchased a printer. I use OEM inks currently. I post to this NG.

> So that leaves a very small number who have the time, knowledge and
> inclination to post here and have very likely had a printer/ink
> related problem.


I have not had any problems as of date.

> That’s not very many is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look
> at the number of printers sold. There are very, very few complaints
> relatively speaking.
> What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd party
> sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even that many.


My guess is that the vast majority use OEM inks.

> As I said, the real proof is in the posters, or the lack thereof. And
> if oem was so much better than 3rd party then the market itself
> dictates that 3rd’s would be few and far between and we’re swimming in
> them.
> School’s out.
> Frank
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>> would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people
>>> who have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that
>>> over 235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand
>>> because they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought
>>> from a hawker. So you do the math.
>>>
>>> Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
>>> story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print
>>> head.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't
>> you! You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You
>> think that most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this ng
>> about their experiences, good or bad.
>> Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased printers
>> and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any problems with
>> either are unlikely to post to this ng.
>
>
> I purchased a printer. I use OEM inks currently. I post to this NG.
>
>> So that leaves a very small number who have the time, knowledge and
>> inclination to post here and have very likely had a printer/ink
>> related problem.
>
>
>
> I have not had any problems as of date.
>
>> That’s not very many is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look
>> at the number of printers sold. There are very, very few complaints
>> relatively speaking.
>> What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd party
>> sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even that many.
>
>
>
> My guess is that the vast majority use OEM inks.
>
>> As I said, the real proof is in the posters, or the lack thereof. And
>> if oem was so much better than 3rd party then the market itself
>> dictates that 3rd’s would be few and far between and we’re swimming in
>> them.
>> School’s out.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
All that went right over your head didn't it.
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L0tae.2291$zX7.911@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>> would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people who
>>> have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that over
>>> 235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand because
>>> they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought from a
>>> hawker. So you do the math.
>>>
>>> Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
>>> story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print
>>> head.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't you!
>> You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You think that
>> most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this ng about their
>> experiences, good or bad.
>> Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased printers
>> and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any problems with
>> either are unlikely to post to this ng.
>
> I purchased a printer. I use OEM inks currently. I post to this NG.
>
>> So that leaves a very small number who have the time, knowledge and
>> inclination to post here and have very likely had a printer/ink related
>> problem.
>
>
> I have not had any problems as of date.
>
>> That’s not very many is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look at
>> the number of printers sold. There are very, very few complaints
>> relatively speaking.
>> What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd party
>> sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even that many.
>
>
> My guess is that the vast majority use OEM inks.


My guess is that the vast majority don't.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ivor Floppy wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:L0tae.2291$zX7.911@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Frank wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>>>would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people who
>>>>have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that over
>>>>235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand because
>>>>they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought from a
>>>>hawker. So you do the math.
>>>>
>>>>Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
>>>>story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print
>>>>head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't you!
>>>You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You think that
>>>most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this ng about their
>>>experiences, good or bad.
>>>Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased printers
>>>and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any problems with
>>>either are unlikely to post to this ng.
>>>
>>>
>>I purchased a printer. I use OEM inks currently. I post to this NG.
>>
>>
>>
>>>So that leaves a very small number who have the time, knowledge and
>>>inclination to post here and have very likely had a printer/ink related
>>>problem.
>>>
>>>
>>I have not had any problems as of date.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That’s not very many is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look at
>>>the number of printers sold. There are very, very few complaints
>>>relatively speaking.
>>>What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd party
>>>sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even that many.
>>>
>>>
>>My guess is that the vast majority use OEM inks.
>>
>>
>
>
>My guess is that the vast majority don't.
>
>

The majority of people who buy inkjet printers are small users that are
not heavy computer users and are not photographers but snap shooters.
These are the people who buy the point and shoot camera that are around
$300. They are not inclined to go to NG and usually buy their
replacement ink at places like Staples, Office Depot, Costco etc. and
they usually buy OEM products. Get a breath of fresh air and stick your
head when the sun shines.

Do you think that the printer mfg would use the Gillette razor marketing
concept if they were not getting the bulk of the replacement ink business.

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

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Ivor Floppy wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:L0tae.2291$zX7.911@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> measekite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>>>> would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people
>>>>> who have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted
>>>>> that over 235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what
>>>>> brand because they do not know what brand. It is some label they
>>>>> bought from a hawker. So you do the math.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
>>>>> story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print
>>>>> head.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't
>>>> you! You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You
>>>> think that most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this
>>>> ng about their experiences, good or bad.
>>>> Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased
>>>> printers and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any
>>>> problems with either are unlikely to post to this ng.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I purchased a printer. I use OEM inks currently. I post to this NG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So that leaves a very small number who have the time, knowledge and
>>>> inclination to post here and have very likely had a printer/ink
>>>> related problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have not had any problems as of date.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That’s not very many is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look
>>>> at the number of printers sold. There are very, very few complaints
>>>> relatively speaking.
>>>> What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd
>>>> party sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even
>>>> that many.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My guess is that the vast majority use OEM inks.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My guess is that the vast majority don't.
>>
>>
>
> The majority of people who buy inkjet printers are small users that are
> not heavy computer users and are not photographers but snap shooters.
> These are the people who buy the point and shoot camera that are around
> $300. They are not inclined to go to NG and usually buy their
> replacement ink at places like Staples, Office Depot, Costco etc. and
> they usually buy OEM products. Get a breath of fresh air and stick your
> head when the sun shines.
>
> Do you think that the printer mfg would use the Gillette razor marketing
> concept if they were not getting the bulk of the replacement ink business.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Hey you...have you noticed the price difference between oem & 3rd. Do
the math dumbass...if u can.
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Burt wrote:
>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>>> would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people
>>>> who have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted
>>>> that over 235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what
>>>> brand because they do not know what brand. It is some label they
>>>> bought from a hawker. So you do the math.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> Are we reading the same newsgroup? I have read every post about
>>> inks on this NG for the last six months and I haven't seen 235 posts
>>> identifying head clogs CAUSED by using third party inks. Maybe I
>>> need to be as meticulous as you in keeping statistics on this
>>> issue. OR --- maybe it doesn't matter to me since the inks many
>>> others and I are using have been no problem at all. As a matter of
>>> fact, several of the posts on clogged heads have ackcnowledged that
>>> they are using OEM inks exclusively.
>>
>>
>> That is the difference between 300 and 235. You are one of the 6; Burt.
>>
>
> This is the biggest lie Measekite has been flogging since his
> conception. Not bad for someone who has never used non-OEM inks but has
> suddenly become a know-it-all ink (and website) expert. Any 'knowledge'
> he claims to profess comes from second and third hand comments - none
> of which can be substantiated. I have actual non-OEM ink experience,
> both with pre-filled cartridges and bulk/refill kits. I have filling
> and usage experience with ALL 4 major printer brands - Epson, Canon,
> Lexmark and HP over several years. None have EVER clogged because of
> the inks used except Epson. But Epson clogged with its own inks too.
> HP, Lexmark
> and Canon refillings have never required head cleanings nor any other
> special attention. My Epson worked fine first 6 months, then slowly
> required more and more head cleanings until I began using more ink for
> cleaning than for printing! The new Epsons featured chips so it was time
> to move to another brand - Lexmark. My Lexmark worked faithfully with
> the same 2 cartridges on bulk refills for almost 2 years until I
> retired it for a Canon. I've also been refilling my sister's HP
> cartridges for
> many, many years without any problems.


You do not have to use the stuff to count posts and form an opinion.
You are atypical.

>
> I've had and use several Canons and head clogging has never existed.
> This is not to say it can't happen, it may depend on frequency of use.
> I use both of my printer on an almost daily basis.

Most people who use inkjet printers do not. These are the same hundreds
of thousands of people who only check their email once a week and some
do not event do that.

> I just have never
> seen it. What may appear as a head clog may actually be a premature
> Canon head failure. I believe a head failure I had was due to over
> use (non-stop printing for several hours). Ever wondered why they made
> those heads user replaceable?
>
> -Taliesyn
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>
> You do not have to use the stuff to count posts and form an opinion.

Then are you also correctly getting the opinion this newsgroup has
formed about you? I'd count the posts, but they'd only prove what
everyone already knows.

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Luuae.5458$J12.4522@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Ivor Floppy wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:L0tae.2291$zX7.911@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>measekite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>>>>would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people who
>>>>>have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that over
>>>>>235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand because
>>>>>they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought from a
>>>>>hawker. So you do the math.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
>>>>>story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print
>>>>>head.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't you!
>>>>You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You think
>>>>that most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this ng about
>>>>their experiences, good or bad.
>>>>Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased printers
>>>>and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any problems with
>>>>either are unlikely to post to this ng.
>>>>
>>>I purchased a printer. I use OEM inks currently. I post to this NG.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So that leaves a very small number who have the time, knowledge and
>>>>inclination to post here and have very likely had a printer/ink related
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>I have not had any problems as of date.
>>>
>>>
>>>>That’s not very many is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look at
>>>>the number of printers sold. There are very, very few complaints
>>>>relatively speaking.
>>>>What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd party
>>>>sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even that many.
>>>>
>>>My guess is that the vast majority use OEM inks.
>>>
>>
>>
>>My guess is that the vast majority don't.
>>
>
> The majority of people who buy inkjet printers are small users that are
> not heavy computer users and are not photographers but snap shooters.
> These are the people who buy the point and shoot camera that are around
> $300. They are not inclined to go to NG and usually buy their replacement
> ink at places like Staples, Office Depot, Costco etc. and they usually buy
> OEM products. Get a breath of fresh air and stick your head when the sun
> shines.
>
And you can show me documented proof on this 'fact' can you?


....



....


....



No, I thought not.

> Do you think that the printer mfg would use the Gillette razor marketing
> concept if they were not getting the bulk of the replacement ink business.
>

Do you think the printer manufactures would need to charge such an
extortionate amount for their ink if they were selling enough of them rather
than the majority of the ink market being taken by 3rd party supplies?
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ivor Floppy wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Luuae.5458$J12.4522@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Ivor Floppy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:L0tae.2291$zX7.911@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>measekite wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes there are under 6 that reports successes on a regular basis. I
>>>>>>would say in the past 3 months I have read over 300 posts by people who
>>>>>>have had problems with clogged print heads. I have counted that over
>>>>>>235 of them are using 3rd party ink. I do not know what brand because
>>>>>>they do not know what brand. It is some label they bought from a
>>>>>>hawker. So you do the math.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now the 3rd party stuff for many of the HP printers are a different
>>>>>>story. Leaking ink is more of the culprit than damage to the print
>>>>>>head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Ahhhh...I now see where you're coming from. You're a newbie aren't you!
>>>>>You have the wrong idea about ng’s and who posts to them. You think
>>>>>that most everyone who ever purchased a printer post to this ng about
>>>>>their experiences, good or bad.
>>>>>Here's how it really works. First of all, those who purchased printers
>>>>>and used either oem or 3rd party carts and never had any problems with
>>>>>either are unlikely to post to this ng.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I purchased a printer. I use OEM inks currently. I post to this NG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So that leaves a very small number who have the time, knowledge and
>>>>>inclination to post here and have very likely had a printer/ink related
>>>>>problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I have not had any problems as of date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That’s not very many is it? Count all the post, pos and neg and look at
>>>>>the number of printers sold. There are very, very few complaints
>>>>>relatively speaking.
>>>>>What do you think the numbers really are in terms of oem vs 3rd party
>>>>>sales? 50/50, 40/60 30/70 or maybe more like 15/85 if even that many.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>My guess is that the vast majority use OEM inks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>My guess is that the vast majority don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The majority of people who buy inkjet printers are small users that are
>>not heavy computer users and are not photographers but snap shooters.
>>These are the people who buy the point and shoot camera that are around
>>$300. They are not inclined to go to NG and usually buy their replacement
>>ink at places like Staples, Office Depot, Costco etc. and they usually buy
>>OEM products. Get a breath of fresh air and stick your head when the sun
>>shines.
>>
>>
>>
>And you can show me documented proof on this 'fact' can you?
>
>
>...
>
>
>
>...
>
>
>...
>
>
>
>No, I thought not.
>
>
>
>>Do you think that the printer mfg would use the Gillette razor marketing
>>concept if they were not getting the bulk of the replacement ink business.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Do you think the printer manufactures would need to charge such an
>extortionate amount for their ink if they were selling enough of them rather
>than the majority of the ink market being taken by 3rd party supplies?
>
>

Yes, get on a plane and goto Juno Alaska. Go to the phone in the
northeast corner of the terminal, I will contact you for further
instructions.

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:25:05 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>>, either first-party or third-party.
>>And Canon printers have the advantages of more brilliant prints and
>>lower costs. There are also concerns about the quality of
>>third-party inks for Canon.
>>
>>
>
>And there is even less for Epson R800/R1800 inks.

We are confused by your intent here? What were you trying to say?

>
>> We also understand that Canon dye-based inks are not as permanent as
>>_pigment_ inks, and this also concerns us.
>>
>True but I do not know how long it will take to fad. Prints from my
>IP4000 have been lying around on an open desk for over a half hour.
>
>
>> We intend to follow up
>>with Mr. Entlich regarding the choices for third-party pigment inks
>>for Epson printers.
>>
>>
>
>He only recommends OEM inks for the R800/R1800 printers.

We thank you. You have saved us several pence for the postage for an
email to Mr. Entlich.



>
>>Although not discussed in this thread, we are also concerned that
>>Canon printers sold in the 13 colonies, sometimes referred to as the
>>"United States of America", do not print on CD disks because Canon
>>have not paid the license fees to allow them to print on CD disks.
>
>
>You hit the nail on the head. You are invidted to the Boston Tea
>Party. And remember, you lost the war. ;-)
>
>And lucky you, you have a Queen and a Princess and we have a Bush :-( :'(


A gentlemen who went to the right public school, where the headmaster
still teaches proper manners, would never make such a remark. In
polite society, we do not say things designed to offend our listeners,
no matter how true they may be.

However, we should admit that our Mr. Blair speaks the King's English
and is remarkably intelligent. Your Mr. Bush, he is simply not spoken
of in our polite society. We prefer to talk about intelligent people
whom we can actually understand, who won't bankrupt their country
while they engage in foolish foreign adventures that must end badly.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:25:05 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>, either first-party or third-party.
>>>And Canon printers have the advantages of more brilliant prints and
>>>lower costs. There are also concerns about the quality of
>>>third-party inks for Canon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And there is even less for Epson R800/R1800 inks.
>>
>>
>
>We are confused by your intent here? What were you trying to say?
>
>
>
>>>We also understand that Canon dye-based inks are not as permanent as
>>>_pigment_ inks, and this also concerns us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>True but I do not know how long it will take to fad. Prints from my
>>IP4000 have been lying around on an open desk for over a half hour.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>We intend to follow up
>>>with Mr. Entlich regarding the choices for third-party pigment inks
>>>for Epson printers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>He only recommends OEM inks for the R800/R1800 printers.
>>
>>
>
>We thank you. You have saved us several pence for the postage for an
>email to Mr. Entlich.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Although not discussed in this thread, we are also concerned that
>>>Canon printers sold in the 13 colonies, sometimes referred to as the
>>>"United States of America", do not print on CD disks because Canon
>>>have not paid the license fees to allow them to print on CD disks.
>>>
>>>
>>You hit the nail on the head. You are invidted to the Boston Tea
>>Party. And remember, you lost the war. ;-)
>>
>>And lucky you, you have a Queen and a Princess and we have a Bush :-( :'(
>>
>>
>
>
>A gentlemen who went to the right public school, where the headmaster
>still teaches proper manners, would never make such a remark. In
>polite society, we do not say things designed to offend our listeners,
>no matter how true they may be.
>
>

Are You ANAL?

>However, we should admit that our Mr. Blair speaks the King's English
>and is remarkably intelligent. Your Mr. Bush,
>

Oh my is that not King George bush?

>he is simply not spoken
>of in our polite society. We prefer to talk about intelligent people
>whom we can actually understand, who won't bankrupt their country
>while they engage in foolish foreign adventures that must end badly.
>
>


Tony Blair for President :-\

>
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom