Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Jon O'Brien wrote:
>In article <7c3d8$42824061$455da0d2$636@allthenewsgroups.com>,
>davecoe@blueyonder.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid (Davy) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Jon O'Brienwrote:
>>In article
>><b9840$4280ef74$455da0d2$28871@allthenewsgroups.com>,
>>
>>You've proved that your C62s clogged, which is not the same thing.
>>
>>For the Nth time: many people have used Epson inkjet printers for
>>years without having more than the occasional blockage which is easily
>>cleared by running a head cleaning cycle. I'm one of them.
>>
>>Davy replies:
>>Proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt, you like to quote but without
>>any explanation so what is not the same thing....?
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, I though it was self-evident. There's plenty of doubt.
>
>You said:
>
>
>
>>So I say Epsons will clog wheter you use third party inks or genuine
>>inks - I've prove it
>>
>>
>
>That implies that you've proved that all Epson printers clog, whatever ink
>is being used. You haven't. All you've 'proved' (we'll gloss over the fact
>that no one here has seen any actual proof, we've only read your version
>of events, which doesn't even _prove_ that you've ever owned a printer) is
>that you had clogging problems with several C62s. You can't use your
>limited experience of Epson printers to extrapolate to all models and all
>users. It could be that: a) there's something about the way you used the
>printers that caused the clogging. b) there's something in the environment
>where your printers were kept that caused the clogging (dust, low
>humidity, etc). c) some C62s clog and all the ones you had were in this
>group. d) there was a problem with the C62 design which made it
>susceptible to clogging (which I think someone here suggested may be the
>case).
>
>
>
>>Is a head clog not an head clog then, yes I agree there's alot of
>>Epson's about and don't have the trouble that I HAVE EXPERIENCED, but
>>there are complaints about Epsons clogging and not just C62's you only
>>need to look around
>>
>>
>
>I'm aware of the reports but, as you have pointed out, there are plenty of
>people that don't experience the problem, which makes your statement
>'Epsons will clog' a sweeping generalisation which can be proved false. To
>use your own words: 'I've prove it'.
>
>
>
>>The problems arose using GENUINE EPSON INK's so am I right again in
>>saying that original inks are as liable to clog than any other ink?
>>
>>
>
>It supports the experience of others that Epsons can clog, no matter what
>ink formulation is used. It doesn't prove, one way or the other, that they
>are '...as liable to clog...'. However, it ignores the fact that some
>people /never/ have serious clogging problems, regardless of which inks
>they use.
>
>
All of everything said in this post is true. However, very generally it
is known that Epson printers as a class have a greater tendency to clog
than Canon and that Canon, while much smaller, will have a greater
propensity to clog over an HP with cart and head together. While it is
generally true it is equally true that many people have had the right
mix of usage that they did not experience any clogs or just an
occassional one. It is also true, as admitted by the Epson Factory Rep I
spoke with that Epson goes through numerous unasked for cleaning cycles
and uses more ink.
>What you're saying is equivalent to arguing that the common factor amongst
>people who are killed crossing the road is that they were crossing the
>road at the time, therefore crossing the road kills you. It can, but it
>doesn't always and more people die whilst not crossing a road than die
>crossing one. What's more likely is that some were being careless, some
>were drunk, some were hit by a careless driver, some weren't actually
>crossing the road but fell or were pushed into it, etc.
>
>Clogging may be due to:
>
>- A badly designed printer/print head.
>- How often the printer is used.
>- The kind of ink being used.
>- How the printer is used (E.g. paper that produces lots of dust).
>- Where the printer is used (E.g. low-humidity environment, direct
>sunlight).
>- Some other cause, of which I'm unaware.
>
>Until you've carried out tests which rule out every possibility, you
>haven't _proved_ anything.
>
>Jon.
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram