Inkjet Purchase

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>since canon controls the engineering and the process canon is the mfg
>>
>>
>
>I don't know what level canon is involved in the manufacturering
>process. But if you accept this as fact then you must accept that
>Lyson, Image Specalists, Formula Labs are brands as well. If you don't
>believe me e-mail any one of them and ask them who deals in their
>product. Media Street being formulators, manufacturers, and
>distriuting them though multiable sourses well. Print-rite has at
>least 20 years of experence under their belt and have more
>distrobution channels than I can shake a stick at.
>
>Reality is you are accepting these things on faith.
>
>
>
>>hope you get a printhead clog
>>
>>
>
>Why do you care what others buy? You said before you don't like seeing
>other people cheated but now you are saying you hope use of a product
>you don't approve of causes damage to our property?
>
>
>
>>good buy an epson. do you honestly think I give a <hoot> what the <heck> you buy
>>
>>
><edit mine>
>
>You feel so strongly that if someone doesn't buy Canon inks they
>deserve property damage then I honestly think you give a big hoot!
>You are, with all due respect... obsessed with Canon and Canon inks.
>
>I do use 3rd party ink. If I get a printhead clog i'll be sad but
>chances are i'll clean it or if worse comes to worse i'll buy another
>head. I've establsihed that even buying a new printer would cost less
>than using the OEM inks.
>
>I wish you would actually offer valid arguments on the subject. We
>need someone to evaluate OEM vs 3rd party solutions based on the
>important things
>
>1. How much they are
>2. Are they any good
>3. Where do I get them
>
>
>
>>why are you getting dumber?
>>
>>
>
>Because I buy some bulk food products? I would buy bulk coffee more
>often but Trader Joes offers a better deal for tins. Because I
>honestly feel General Mills Cheerios(tm) quality has declined and many
>of the bottom shelf non boxed round oats actually taste better?
>Because I would choose to buy things not in a box?
>
>Well, you are the one that said a brand had to be sold via multiable
>distribution channels, which well is wrong. There are quite a few
>brands that for whatever reason get sold via one retail chain.
>
>I unlike you self don't actually care what someone else buys. I will
>share what I use, my experences with a product, and let someone else
>make up their own mind without emotional manipluation. And I will not
>throw a fit if someone buys OEM ink. It's my firm belief that
>competition.... real competition breeds a situation that the consumer
>wins.
>
>

Formulabs is a brank of wholesale ink. They are not a consumer brand. I
wish they would mfg prefilled carts under either the Formulabs or
Sensinent name and sell they through a variety of outlets for under
$4.00 per cart. They do not.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>the problem with the majority of the hp photo printers today is you have to play musical
>>carts. 3 or more carts and 2 slots. to me this ruins most of the hp printers
>>
>>
>
>I wonder which is better. Having the ability of a lesser printer to do
>the same things as a better printer by swaping out the carts, or being
>limited to a specific ink set.
>
>For example, it should be technicaly possible for Canon to create a
>printer that could accept a ip4000 head, ip5000 head, i960 head, and
>perhaps even a i8500 head. Head would report back to the printer what
>it is and the printer would print accordingly. With different inksets.
> This would be a cool feature.
>
>

HP should accomodate 4 carts in all of their printers so you could
install the ink cart and not have to switch them. The 8400 does hold 3.

>While I agree playing musical carts could be annoying.... I'd rather
>have that option available to me than not at all. This way if you
>decide you needed a photo printer you can buy the photo printer
>consumables... you are not locked into one compliment of tanks.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 1 Sep 2005 13:21:52 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com>
wrote:

><edit mine>
>
>> >So you finally admit they are a brand.
>
>> Why are you an <foofoo head>. I always say they were a mfg/formulator but
>> they do not sell branded ink to the public. I know they will if you want to buy it by
>> the gallon.


What is wroing with you zakezuke? Why are you censoring the messages
for? This is FREE SPEECH and stop doing this.

Do you want to get netkkkopped?

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news😛tydnZ-NP8aFM47eRVn-hg@golden.net...

> It's very unclear how they tested. They said they did their own
> estimates using some unspecified method:
>
> "using a lot of patience and many reams of paper"
>
> I don't know if that means they printed until the cartridge was empty or
> what. If so, it wouldn't be an estimate, it would be exact.

Except there can be a great difference in just how the printing is done. If
the cartridge is printed continuously until empty you will get one answer, and
if printed in a rate more like a real user you get much different results.
Some printers use a significant amount of ink in servicing, performing an
extensive cleaning every four days or so and at other times as triggered by
usage. HP is rather efficient in its servicing and does not use nearly as much
ink in servicing. A continuous test does not show this and does not reflect
the results a real user would get.

> They also said there is no common way to compare ink costs:
>
> "Manufacturers haven't agreed on a universal way of calculating cost per
> page"
>
> Well that's simply untrue, since virtually all manufacturers use the
> standard 5% coverage for black text, and 15% coverage for colour when
> calculating page yields.

But the meaning of 5% can vary, as can the tests. Read the fine print - some
use a 5% coverage page, but define the page as one having 1" borders all
around, so the actual printing for an A size sheet is based on 5% of 6.5"x9",
not 5% of 8.5"x11".

There is an ISO standard in the late stage of development that would give a
standard page and method of testing to make apples-to-apples comparisons more
valid between different manufacturers. This is currently expected to be done
about the end of 2005 or early 2006. The working standard does not address the
servicing overhead used when printing at user rates.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125365465.075354.246050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> The yield for the photo color, I assume light cyan/magenta is listed
> officaly as 133p. While it's possible canon and HP might use different
> systems of measurement... you can reasonably expect HP to use the same
> standard of measurement for their own tanks.

Well, actually there are several different methods depending on the cartridge.
For tri-color cartridges you are looking at the 15% coverage per page figure,
but for photo cartridges they use a suite of 4'x6" photos. See
http://h10060.www1.hp.com/pageyield/index.html for details of HP reported
yields.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Well, actually there are several different methods depending on the cartridge.
> For tri-color cartridges you are looking at the 15% coverage per page figure,
> but for photo cartridges they use a suite of 4'x6" photos. See
> http://h10060.www1.hp.com/page yield/index.html for details of HP reported
> yields.

Hey thanks for the heads up... when no method of mesurement is listed I
assume 5%, and office depot from what i've observed in the past is
pretty good about keeping the page yeild at a single standard. I'll
dig through that site when I have more time.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If your fridge is giving off ozone in any quantity, you may want to look
at it for repair... must be arcing somewhere.

It would sort of be nice if they did give off ozone, since the CFC
refrigerant in them, if it leaks, destroys ozone. The problem is any
ozone it made would be ground level ozone which is a pollutant (it's a
component of smog) and also bad for humans, and the ozone that gets
destroyed by loose CFCs is atmospheric ozone.

Art

Patrick wrote:


> And it also states it was on a refridgerator - you know those big cold
> things that give of ozone gas. He didn't look after the print and then
> complains that it faded.
>
>
 
Hi friends,

can anyone advise on a budget inkjet printer that I could purchase with cartridges that don't cost a fortune to replace!

Speed is not a priority.

Using Windows Xp (Home).

Many thanks x x