HP 7960 vs CANON Pixma 4000

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head. I am replacing
the head for $50 to give the printer to my son.
The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me and
the card slots on the HP don't matter much to me. I like the Canons because
of their single ink tanks.

Any and all opinions of both of these printers would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Matthew
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have the 7960. Nothing but good things to say about it. Ink cost is
expensive, really expensive. Started doing 'refills'. Cost is now
negligible.
Bill
-----


On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:36:08 GMT, "Matthew"
<thew60nospam@optonline.net> wrote:

>OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
>numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
>the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
>I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head. I am replacing
>the head for $50 to give the printer to my son.
>The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me and
>the card slots on the HP don't matter much to me. I like the Canons because
>of their single ink tanks.
>
>Any and all opinions of both of these printers would be appreciated!
>Thanks,
>Matthew
>

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

Matthew wrote:

>OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
>numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
>the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.

Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.

A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.

>I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head.

Out of curiosity, how did you kill the printhead?

>The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me

Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. You're
not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.

The main reason I bought a Canon was for the easy to refill clear ink
tanks. Refilling them is very inexpensive, but if you're not refilling,
then ink costs can be similar across various brands and models.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Matthew wrote:

> OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
> numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can get
> the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
> I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head. I am replacing
> the head for $50 to give the printer to my son.
> The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me and
> the card slots on the HP don't matter much to me. I like the Canons because
> of their single ink tanks.
>
> Any and all opinions of both of these printers would be appreciated!
> Thanks,
> Matthew
>
>

The Canon's are definitely superior because of the individual ink tanks. Doesn't
the ip4000 have a much better resolution and droplet size than the HPs.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

BenOne© wrote:

>The Canon's are definitely superior because of the individual ink tanks.

For refilling, the Canons are definitely easier. No argument there.

> Doesn't
>the ip4000 have a much better resolution and droplet size than the HPs.

Resolution is the same 4800x1200. Droplet size is smaller for the C&M
colours at 2 picoliters on the Canon. However, the HP can use six
colours instead of four and produces similar if not better photos.

My friend just bought the HP 6540 (basically the same as 7960 for photo
prints), and it produces better photos than my i850, which is similar to
the iP4000 except for the photo black ink.

I'd like to see side by side comparisons. :)
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

While refilling BCI-6 tanks is definately the least expensive route (and a
very easy one at that), third party tanks with quality inks are also
available at a very low price. I use bulk ink and tanks from
www.alotofthings.com. FWIW, I've had an iP4000 for a few weeks now and it is
a fantastic printer. It replaced an i950 that gave out on me. The printhead
wasn't clogged, but it started getting a heavy magenta tint to most prints.
The same old refilled tanks from the i950 were put in the iP4000 and the
prints came out beautiful. The same prints were also done using the OEM
Canon cartridges which came with the iP4000 and no difference in colors
could be noted.
--
Ron Cohen

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:05idnTjQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
> Matthew wrote:
>
>>OK, I am going nuts trying to figure out which to get. I have looked at
>>numerous reviews of both the HP 7960 and the new Canon Pixma 4000. I can
>>get
>>the HP at Costco for the bargain price of $150.00.
>
> Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.
>
> A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
> cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
> i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.
>
>>I had a Canon i850 which I love but killed the print head.
>
> Out of curiosity, how did you kill the printhead?
>
>>The HP looks terrific but the cost of the ink scares the hell out of me
>
> Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. You're
> not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.
>
> The main reason I bought a Canon was for the easy to refill clear ink
> tanks. Refilling them is very inexpensive, but if you're not refilling,
> then ink costs can be similar across various brands and models.


---
AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
for text, the same as the i860. The iP3000 is the successor to the i850.
These lack the dye based black, but do have pigmented black for text. The
iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller droplet
size of one picoliter.
--
Ron Cohen

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:05idnTvQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
> BenOne© wrote:
>
>>The Canon's are definitely superior because of the individual ink tanks.
>
> For refilling, the Canons are definitely easier. No argument there.
>
>> Doesn't
>>the ip4000 have a much better resolution and droplet size than the HPs.
>
> Resolution is the same 4800x1200. Droplet size is smaller for the C&M
> colours at 2 picoliters on the Canon. However, the HP can use six
> colours instead of four and produces similar if not better photos.
>
> My friend just bought the HP 6540 (basically the same as 7960 for photo
> prints), and it produces better photos than my i850, which is similar to
> the iP4000 except for the photo black ink.
>
> I'd like to see side by side comparisons. :)


---
AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:05idnTjQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
> Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.

It's new, I've seen it at Costco as well. Very cheap as you noticed.

> A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
> cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
> i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.

I have the HP Photosmart 7350, and yes, the photo quality is superb.

> Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. ***You're
> not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.***

EXACTL:Y! I bought a Canon i560 just to see if the individual cartridges
would save me money. It saves me a bit of yellow, but nothing that's
noticeable. It seems like people get carried away with the whole
'individual cartridges' deal and fail to realize that unless you print a lot
of one color (ie. red logo) you will not save that much.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

xNokia3390x wrote:

>> Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high. ***You're
>> not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.***
>
>EXACTL:Y! I bought a Canon i560 just to see if the individual cartridges
>would save me money. It saves me a bit of yellow, but nothing that's
>noticeable. It seems like people get carried away with the whole
>'individual cartridges' deal and fail to realize that unless you print a lot
>of one color (ie. red logo) you will not save that much.

I bought a Canon for one primary reason - the clear ink tanks are VERY
easy to refill. Beyond that, they have no serious advantage. And now I'm
concerned about its printhead life...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Cohen wrote:

>The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
>for text, the same as the i860.

Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
six colour printers are still the best.

>iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller droplet
>size of one picoliter.

That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
picoliters like the competition.

I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
refills.

Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
back to HP instead. I don't blame him.

And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
computer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

And there's little advantage to single cartridges if refilling. Actually,
refilling HP cartridges is really easy, it's resetting the ink level
indicator to 100% that takes the time and can fail to work sometimes causing
much time to be wasted trying again until it does work.


"xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:F63gd.27766$jo2.20416@twister.socal.rr.com...
> "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
> news:05idnTjQ9pRN-x3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
>> Sounds like it's a refurbished unit? If not, it's a good price.
>
> It's new, I've seen it at Costco as well. Very cheap as you noticed.
>
>> A friend just picked up the HP Deskjet 6540. And with the photo
>> cartridge we picked up for it tonight, it prints BETTER than my Canon
>> i850 with the default settings. I was pleasantly surprised.
>
> I have the HP Photosmart 7350, and yes, the photo quality is superb.
>
>> Consumable prices for all original printer brands are very high.
>> ***You're
>> not saving that much with individual ink cartridges.***
>
> EXACTL:Y! I bought a Canon i560 just to see if the individual cartridges
> would save me money. It saves me a bit of yellow, but nothing that's
> noticeable. It seems like people get carried away with the whole
> 'individual cartridges' deal and fail to realize that unless you print a
> lot
> of one color (ie. red logo) you will not save that much.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

http://www.alotofthings.com/supportforrefillers/HP565758_rotatingcartridges.html

Above link describes:
ROTATING YOUR CARTRIDGES
HPs built-in reset.
According to Hewlett Packard documentation the printers using the #56,
#57 & #58 only retain the information of the last two cartridges that
were in the printer.

Article goes on to say if have 3 cartridges (of same type), rotating
will cause printer to register 100%. I have found that it works on my
7960 - and refilling doesn't take much time.

Bill
-------

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:46:19 +0100, "SteveB"
<sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:

>And there's little advantage to single cartridges if refilling. Actually,
>refilling HP cartridges is really easy, it's resetting the ink level
>indicator to 100% that takes the time and can fail to work sometimes causing
>much time to be wasted trying again until it does work.
>
Bill
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SteveB wrote:

>And there's little advantage to single cartridges if refilling. Actually,
>refilling HP cartridges is really easy, it's resetting the ink level
>indicator to 100% that takes the time and can fail to work sometimes causing
>much time to be wasted trying again until it does work.

I found refilling my old HP cartridges was slow and tedious, and it had
to be done far too often because of the small cartridges. I switch to
Canon mainly for the easy refilling.

I thought the HP cartridges didn't have ink-level chips in them? So how
does the printer keep track?
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Bill Sumrall wrote:

>http://www.alotofthings.com/supportforrefillers/HP565758_rotatingcartridges.html
>
>Above link describes:
>ROTATING YOUR CARTRIDGES
>HPs built-in reset.
>According to Hewlett Packard documentation the printers using the #56,
>#57 & #58 only retain the information of the last two cartridges that
>were in the printer.
>
>Article goes on to say if have 3 cartridges (of same type), rotating
>will cause printer to register 100%. I have found that it works on my
>7960 - and refilling doesn't take much time.

That's good info. Thanks.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:S8mdnWOAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>>The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
>>for text, the same as the i860.
>
> Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
> printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
> that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
> six colour printers are still the best.
>
>>iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller
>>droplet
>>size of one picoliter.
>
> That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
> picoliters like the competition.
>
> I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
> wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
> the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
> get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
> out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
> get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
> refills.
>
> Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
> back to HP instead. I don't blame him.
>
> And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
> about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
> cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
> printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
> certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
> five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
> computer.


considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got your
moneys worth from the canon. I fortunately bought the 3 year extended
warranty. Finally, those monthly duty cycles are for 5% coverage not 95%
(which proper photos are).
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mr Jessop wrote:

>> And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
>> about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
>> cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
>> printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
>> certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
>> five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
>> computer.
>
>considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got your
>moneys worth from the canon.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make me feel any better about Canon quality.

The printhead should have lasted a lot longer than the measly 2500 pages
my friend got out of his i550, that's for sure.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:S8mdnWKAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
> I bought a Canon for one primary reason - the clear ink tanks are VERY
> easy to refill. Beyond that, they have no serious advantage. And now I'm
> concerned about its printhead life...

Yup, I don't refill because the OEM cartridges are cheap enough at Costco.
I see no advantage either, despite the advertising gimmicks. I had to try
it for myself, and now I am satisfied that I can go back to HP knowing it's
good enough until the next line of seriously revamped printers from another
comapny comes out. I too am getting concerned about the print head life.
It's very humid here in Hawaii and previous experiences with a Canon BJC5000
and BJC4300 have left me with a bad impression of Canon's printers. Once it
dies though, I'm trashing it and not looking back. I am not in the market
for a disposable printer 😉
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:43:01 GMT, "Mr Jessop" <anonymouse@isp.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:S8mdnWOAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
>> Ron Cohen wrote:
>>
>>>The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented black
>>>for text, the same as the i860.
>>
>> Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
>> printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
>> that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
>> six colour printers are still the best.
>>
>>>iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller
>>>droplet
>>>size of one picoliter.
>>
>> That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
>> picoliters like the competition.
>>
>> I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
>> wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
>> the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
>> get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
>> out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
>> get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
>> refills.
>>
>> Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
>> back to HP instead. I don't blame him.
>>
>> And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
>> about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
>> cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
>> printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
>> certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
>> five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
>> computer.
>
>
>considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got your
>moneys worth from the canon. I fortunately bought the 3 year extended
>warranty. Finally, those monthly duty cycles are for 5% coverage not 95%
>(which proper photos are).
>



To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO PRINT
HEAD ROT, like Cannon..

Read the Article on Tomshardware web site.

HP's are not cheap to run as you have to buy a new print head each time you
need a new Cartridge, but that does get over the head rot thing..




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
news:8p33o0927p4clfr1h7lm5502n7jg2tf4ld@4ax.com...
> To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO
PRINT
> HEAD ROT, like Cannon..

I'm not so sure about that. I have a C84 that has received VERY limited use
and it has used half the ink in each cartridge already! I've tried leaving
it on 24/7, or just switching it on and off each day. It makes no
difference. I'm going to switch out my i560 and start using the C84 as my
daily printer and see how that works. But so far, I am not impressed. The
print head cleaning on power-up is overkill.

> HP's are not cheap to run as you have to buy a new print head each time
you
> need a new Cartridge, but that does get over the head rot thing..

I haven't found them that expensive to run. I have a DeskJet 930c and a
Photosmart 7350. Once my i560 dies, I will trash it - and believe me, I
won't be looking back. I'll just stick with HP. I tried Canon (since the
new "i" series came out a few years ago, I've heard rave reviews up until
recently since print heads are starting to die...which is what I was worried
about, due to previous bad experiences with Canon), tried Epson and will end
up right where I started with HP.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
news:8p33o0927p4clfr1h7lm5502n7jg2tf4ld@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:43:01 GMT, "Mr Jessop" <anonymouse@isp.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
>>news:S8mdnWOAeL1yyhzcRVn-3Q@golden.net...
>>> Ron Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>>The iP4000 is a five ink tank system - dye based CMYK and pigmented
>>>>black
>>>>for text, the same as the i860.
>>>
>>> Yes it has five tanks, but to nitpick it only has FOUR colours for
>>> printing. The smaller droplet size does help with gradients though, and
>>> that's where the 3&4 colour printers get their advantage. But current
>>> six colour printers are still the best.
>>>
>>>>iP5000 uses the same ink setup as the iP4000 but has an even smaller
>>>>droplet
>>>>size of one picoliter.
>>>
>>> That only applies to half of the C&M jets though. The rest are 5
>>> picoliters like the competition.
>>>
>>> I'm curious to see if the small size produces greater clogging or more
>>> wear on the printhead. It seems a friend's Canon i550 printhead just bit
>>> the dust. Based on the number of ink tanks he used in it, it didn't even
>>> get to the quarter-way point in the life expectancy. And of course, it's
>>> out of warranty now (16 months) and he has to pay $60+shipping+taxes to
>>> get a new one. He only used Canon ink tanks as well, not compatibles or
>>> refills.
>>>
>>> Obviously he's REALLY pissed off with Canon now and is thinking of going
>>> back to HP instead. I don't blame him.
>>>
>>> And now I'm getting worried that mine won't last either. My i850 is
>>> about the same age, and it just started clogging and needs a printhead
>>> cleaning each time I print with it now. With all the recent talk of
>>> printhead failures, I'm concerned about it's future. If it fails, I
>>> certainly won't buy another Canon again. My last printer (HP) was over
>>> five years old and was stilling going strong when I sold it with my last
>>> computer.
>>
>>
>>considering how much genuine consumables cost for each printer you got
>>your
>>moneys worth from the canon. I fortunately bought the 3 year extended
>>warranty. Finally, those monthly duty cycles are for 5% coverage not 95%
>>(which proper photos are).
>>
>
>
>
> To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO
> PRINT
> HEAD ROT, like Cannon..
>

Hmm never had problem with my Canon printheads and even if I did unlike
Epson my printhead is covered under the Canon warranty.

> Read the Article on Tomshardware web site.
>

Ahh, how I remember the days when Tom's did not appear t be a Ziff Davis
publication!
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:50:20 GMT, "xNokia3390x" <ofc2-ivom@spamex.com> wrote:

><puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
>news:8p33o0927p4clfr1h7lm5502n7jg2tf4ld@4ax.com...
>> To me the Epson is the cheaper printer to run in the long term and NO
>PRINT
>> HEAD ROT, like Cannon..
>
>I'm not so sure about that. I have a C84 that has received VERY limited use
>and it has used half the ink in each cartridge already! I've tried leaving
>it on 24/7, or just switching it on and off each day. It makes no
>difference. I'm going to switch out my i560 and start using the C84 as my
>daily printer and see how that works. But so far, I am not impressed. The
>print head cleaning on power-up is overkill.
>
>> HP's are not cheap to run as you have to buy a new print head each time
>you
>> need a new Cartridge, but that does get over the head rot thing..
>
>I haven't found them that expensive to run. I have a DeskJet 930c and a
>Photosmart 7350. Once my i560 dies, I will trash it - and believe me, I
>won't be looking back. I'll just stick with HP. I tried Canon (since the
>new "i" series came out a few years ago, I've heard rave reviews up until
>recently since print heads are starting to die...which is what I was worried
>about, due to previous bad experiences with Canon), tried Epson and will end
>up right where I started with HP.
>



Please read the Reviews like the one on Toms web site

HP is dearer to run, well know fact.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
news:8bk3o0lnk67jp29ardh41evtkv0ev6g3j7@4ax.com...
> Please read the Reviews like the one on Toms web site
>
> HP is dearer to run, well know fact.

I've read many reviews on there, and after having personally tried the
printer in the reviews I don't always agree with the review. I don't know,
I'd rather just test it myself or see what others have said about it.

HP's might be more expensive to run, but you'll have less trouble in the
long run. What happens when you have a big print job and your print head
gets clogged? You can't just run down to WalMart and get a new printer
head, but you *can* get a new cartridge.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"PC Medic" <NOT@home.net> wrote in message
news😛eDgd.165$G15.41@fed1read03...
> The fact that Canon covers the
> printhead in that warranty is eveidence that they must feel it IS designed
> for the life of the printer.

Or that they know it might fail within 12 months, and if not, they could
care less because it will fail after the warranty period is over and tough
luck for the consumer.

> Talk about flawed figures. What do you do with the remaining ink in that
> cartridge that one of the colors ran out in? You chuck it in the garbage
> with the cartridge. That increases cost per page. You buy a $35
replacement
> cause one color is out, I buy an $11 replacement (which yilelds more pages
> per tank than your HP.

Do you think everyone will have unequal usage, therefore requiring premature
cartridge replacement? In my first set of Canon cartridges, I found that I
had just a little more yellow than the rest of my colors. Hardly a savings.
I'm now on my second set and can see I have about 1/3 more yellow than the
rest of my colors. Who knows, by the time I use all the ink from this
second set of cartridges, the yellow may be down to the same levels as the
other colors. It's not a good assumption that individual cartridges
automatically save you money. That type of mentality is exactly what the
marketing folks love. Unless you are constantly printing say, a red logo,
chances are you'll end up with just a little more yellow than the rest of
the colors. Whether or not it's a fair trade off is up to the consumer.
I'd rather just replace the whole thing and get a new printhead so I don't
have to worry about the print head.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

PC Medic wrote:

>> It's just scare tactics. My friend's i550 printhead died recently and he
>> used nothing but genuine Canon ink tanks from day one. Obviously the
>> printheads are NOT designed "for the life of the printer", and he's
>> rather ticked off about it, as am I.
>
>First let me say this is not a pro or Con 3rd party ink response and then
>continue by saying this is the kind of deductive thinking that spreads false
>rumoors.

Not rumours, actual facts.

My Canon i850 printhead died yesterday at 16 months and some 5,000
pages. A friend's i550 printhead died earlier this week, and it too is
16 months old (one week newer than mine since I bought mine before him),
but only some 2,500 pages.

The 16 month period is hopefully just a coincidence, but it's also
obvious that the printheads are not designed to last.

I should point out that Canon has been completely uncaring in response
to the failures, even after pointing out the low page counts, and that
they both died within days of each other. Out of warranty means you're
out of luck.

> The fact that Canon covers the
>printhead in that warranty is eveidence that they must feel it IS designed
>for the life of the printer.

So the life of the printer is only expected to be 12 months?

Canon originally claimed "life of the printer" for the printheads. Now
they are claiming 10,000 pages. Neither is anywhere near what we've
seen, and Canon doesn't seem to care about page counts, just if it's
under warranty or not.

>Talk about flawed figures. What do you do with the remaining ink in that
>cartridge that one of the colors ran out in? You chuck it in the garbage
>with the cartridge. That increases cost per page. You buy a $35 replacement
>cause one color is out, I buy an $11 replacement

And then a few days later you buy another $11 replacement. Then another.
Hmm...that's $33 dollars, pretty close.

Don't forget that I've been refilling the ink tanks in my i850 for over
a year, and I know from first-hand experience that even though the tanks
run low at different times, overall usage of the three colours is
roughly the same. All I have to do is put the bulk ink bottles on the
counter and look at how much is in them - they're all within a few ml of
each other.

> (which yilelds more pages per tank than your HP.

What HP printer? I've been using a Canon i850 for the last 16 months.

And do you have special ink tanks? From what I've read on reviews, page
yield is similar if you use the large cartridges. It seems the
discrepancy of individual ink tank cost to tri-colour cartridge cost is
what throws the comparisons out of whack. One review says costs are
close, another says HP costs 3-4 times as much. That doesn't sit right
with me.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

xNokia3390x wrote:

>Do you think everyone will have unequal usage, therefore requiring premature
>cartridge replacement? In my first set of Canon cartridges, I found that I
>had just a little more yellow than the rest of my colors. Hardly a savings.

I concur. I've refilled my ink tanks 6 times out of my bulk bottles, and
it's easy to see overall usage is very similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom