Is this true about Canon printhead?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;

"Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
need to change them if there's some form of damage."

The whole review can be found here;

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875

Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
better than my friends IP4000.

Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
component'?

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

I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's lifetime?

It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are the
first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend the
warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it, until it
is at least shown to be an accurate claim.

Art

Patrick wrote:

> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>
> The whole review can be found here;
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>
> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
> better than my friends IP4000.
>
> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
> component'?
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have a Canon IP4000. I scanned the review and my interpretation
about "Canon considers the Print Head a lifetime component" has to do
with it not burning or wearing out under what they consider normal
conditions.

I do not think they mean that when it comes to clogging from non use
over a long time or clogging from many of the poor after market inks.

In any event, it did seem reassuring.

Patrick wrote:

>I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
>"Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
>need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>
>The whole review can be found here;
>
>http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>
>Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
>printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
>better than my friends IP4000.
>
>Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>component'?
>
>--
>Patrick
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
> lifetime?
>
> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are the
> first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend the
> warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it, until it
> is at least shown to be an accurate claim.


But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think
they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".

>
>
> Art
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
>> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>>
>> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you
>> should only
>> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>>
>> The whole review can be found here;
>>
>> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>>
>> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a
>> fantastic
>> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a
>> fair bit
>> better than my friends IP4000.
>>
>> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>> component'?
>>
>> --
>> Patrick
>>
>>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4qjne$mbl$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should
> only
> need to change them if there's some form of damage."

Why would you want to change the printhead if its working correctly?

> The whole review can be found here;
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>
> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
> better than my friends IP4000.
>
> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
> component'?

The prices I've seen for new Canon printheads means a lot of people will be
buying a new printer rather than spend 90% of that price just on a new
printhead - so, in that sense it becomes a 'Lifetime component'
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ho8ce.2369$zu.1392@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

>
>
> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after market
> inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think they are
> referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".
>
That would probably enter into the small print as self inflicted damage to
printer.... ie not covered under the guarantee.
--
Cari
(MS-MVP Printing & Imaging)
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:19:14 GMT, "Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk>
wrote:


>> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>> component'?
>
>The prices I've seen for new Canon printheads means a lot of people will be
>buying a new printer rather than spend 90% of that price just on a new
>printhead - so, in that sense it becomes a 'Lifetime component'
>
What I'd expect - marketroid speak for "it lasts until it lasts then
you buy a new printer".

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

That may be so, I think it's marketing hype, Most manufactures say the same
but they still only give a years warranty. If Canon say different they will
be leaving themselves wide open for abuse. There is a lot of difference
between "considers" and what is in the warranty.

"Patrick" <patrick@scotcomms.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4qjne$mbl$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should
only
> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>
> The whole review can be found here;
>
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=875
>
> Basically it says what I've thought since owning it. - This is a fantastic
> printer. The photo printing is way better than my old i850, and a fair bit
> better than my friends IP4000.
>
> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
> component'?
>
> --
> Patrick
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm suggesting they consider warranting the heads against burn out
"under normal circumstances" for a while longer to show they believe
their own hype.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
>> lifetime?
>>
>> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are the
>> first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend the
>> warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it, until it
>> is at least shown to be an accurate claim.
>
>
>
> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
> market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think
> they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".
>
>>
>>
>> Art
>>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I'm suggesting they consider warranting the heads against burn out
> "under normal circumstances" for a while longer to show they believe
> their own hype.


That would be nice but it is almost impossible to prove what normal
circumstances are.

>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
>>> lifetime?
>>>
>>> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are
>>> the first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend
>>> the warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it,
>>> until it is at least shown to be an accurate claim.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
>> market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think
>> they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I'm suggesting they consider warranting the heads against burn out
> "under normal circumstances" for a while longer to show they believe
> their own hype.
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose it all depends on what Canon considers their printer's
>>> lifetime?
>>>
>>> It might be a bold step under those circumstances, since they are the
>>> first to make such a claim on a thermal print head, to extend the
>>> warranty to 2 or 3 years, to accept some liability behind it, until
>>> it is at least shown to be an accurate claim.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But they know that there are so many who use a log of junkie after
>> market inks that they cannon afford to do that. I also do not think
>> they are referring to print head clogging when they estimate "lifetime".
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
Most consider than an automobile should last 10-15
years with minimal cost in normal use. Yet most
are warranted only for 3 years. Same with lawn
mowers, water heaters, A/C units, radios, CD
players, etc. There is little or no relationship
between the warranty period of a product and the
expected life time. I don't see any warranty on
the light bulbs I buy, but most last for years. I
don't see a problem with a 2 year warranty on a
printer. Most here seem to be focusing on a very
narrow area and don't consider that other products
don't meet the warranty periods they expect for
printers.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article Patrick says...
> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>
> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>
> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
> component'?

"some form of damage" why else would you change a printhead unless you
have an HP printer? With my i865 Canon offered an extended warranty, I
asked whether it covered the printhead for clogging etc and they said
that they regarded the printhead as a user replacable item and user was
responsible for clogs.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

colinco wrote:

>> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
>> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>>
>> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>> component'?

Definitely not.

Originally Canon used life of the printer in their marketing and
officially reported such to magazine reviewers. They have since dropped
that and no longer brag about life expectancy and instead offer an
expected number of pages and call it a user replaceable item.

>"some form of damage" why else would you change a printhead unless you
>have an HP printer? With my i865 Canon offered an extended warranty, I
>asked whether it covered the printhead for clogging etc and they said
>that they regarded the printhead as a user replacable item and user was
>responsible for clogs.

I had an i850 that failed after 16 months and less than 5,000 pages of
use (roughly 300 pages a month - rather light use). And after contacting
Canon directly about a replacement printhead, they told me the part is a
user serviceable item as well...no extended warranty coverage and no
discount to replace a failed printer.

They did offer to ship me a new printhead for over $80 and then told me
it would only have a warranty of 90 days. I declined since a new printer
was only $9 more and told them so.

It seems Canon makes claims about their printheads that are not up to
typical standards of what would normally be considered life expectancy
periods. It seems Canon's idea of "lifetime" is about a year or so. And
from what I've read, nothing has changed in the last couple of years
concerning their printhead design or marketing to alter that.

I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:39:25 +1200, colinco <colincomma@yawhoo.com>
wrote:

>In article Patrick says...
>> I have the Pixma IP5000 and have just read the following in a review;
>>
>> "Canon now considers its print heads lifetime components, so you should only
>> need to change them if there's some form of damage."
>>
>> Has anyone know if Canon do indeed class the printhead as a 'Lifetime
>> component'?
>
>"some form of damage" why else would you change a printhead unless you
>have an HP printer? With my i865 Canon offered an extended warranty, I
>asked whether it covered the printhead for clogging etc and they said
>that they regarded the printhead as a user replacable item and user was
>responsible for clogs.

They didn't tell you about the burn outs then?

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On 29-Apr-2005, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

> I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
> customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
> since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...

Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>On 29-Apr-2005, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>
>>
>
>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>
>

The IP4000 is better than the HP unless you are going to use it
infrequently. In that case the built in print heads are an advantage.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>> I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>> customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>> since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>
>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.

Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
should to prevent clogging.

Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
rather than clogging.

Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
need to print something.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:14:14 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>On 29-Apr-2005, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>> I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>> customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>> since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>
>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.

Which just proves that the people at Argos are completely clueless (or
maybe they just earn more commission on the other brands).

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Bill wrote:

>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>
>>>
>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>
>>
>
>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>should to prevent clogging.
>
>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>rather than clogging.
>
>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>need to print something.
>
>

If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
carts.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam gloves,
a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink plus the ink
and syringes and you are on your way.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news😛NVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>
>>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>
>>
>>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>should to prevent clogging.
>>
>>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>rather than clogging.
>>
>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>need to print something.
>>
>
> If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
> carts.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hecate wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:14:14 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 29-Apr-2005, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>
>>>
>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>
>>
>
>Which just proves that the people at Argos are completely clueless (or
>maybe they just earn more commission on the other brands).
>
>

I would still get a Canon ip4000. But if you are not going to print
much then get one of the 8000 series of HP printers. Get the one that
installs all 3 carts at one time so you do not have to play musical carts.

> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>Hecate@newsguy.com
>Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
>to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
>may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
>sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam gloves,
>a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink plus the ink
>and syringes and you are on your way.
>
>

Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a mess.

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news😛NVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame too,
>>>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>should to prevent clogging.
>>>
>>>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>rather than clogging.
>>>
>>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>need to print something.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
>>carts.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn
>> how to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done
>> refilling it may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good
>> instructions on many sites and the learning curve is not difficult at
>> all. Medical exam gloves, a cleanable work surface, a few paper
>> towels, and a nearby sink plus the ink and syringes and you are on
>> your way.
>>
>>
>
> Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a
> mess.
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news😛NVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>>> customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame
>>>>>> too,
>>>>>> since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>> I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>> should to prevent clogging.
>>>>
>>>> Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>>> method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>> rather than clogging.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>> really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>> or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>> need to print something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling
>>> messy carts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Why the heck do you keep posting here? Is it simply to see your ignorant
comments on your monitor? You are without a doubt one of the most
clueless persons I've ever come across.
You don't have any friends do you. You're the butt of all their jokes
but you still don't get it. That you can turn on a computer is a real
credit to you.
Or does your mommy do it for you?
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

This comment from a person who has never refilled a cartridge.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GmWce.11328$J12.3633@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
>>to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
>>may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
>>sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam
>>gloves, a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink
>>plus the ink and syringes and you are on your way.
>>
>
> Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a
> mess.
>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news😛NVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame
>>>>>>too,
>>>>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>>should to prevent clogging.
>>>>
>>>>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>>>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>>rather than clogging.
>>>>
>>>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>>need to print something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
>>>carts.
>>
>>
>>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>This comment from a person who has never refilled a cartridge.
>
>

This comment from a person who has never had a printhead clog since the
first inkjet printer was invented by HP. I had one of the first HP
printers for testing prior to them being shipped. We then purchased 500
of them.

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:GmWce.11328$J12.3633@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Not such a hassle or that messy once you refill a few times and learn how
>>>to do it cleanly and efficiently. For those who haven't done refilling it
>>>may appear to be a daunting task, but there are good instructions on many
>>>sites and the learning curve is not difficult at all. Medical exam
>>>gloves, a cleanable work surface, a few paper towels, and a nearby sink
>>>plus the ink and syringes and you are on your way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Instead of enjoying photography you need to be in an ER room. It is a
>>mess.
>>
>>
>>
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news😛NVce.3092$zu.352@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I was rather disappointed in their lack of eagerness to keep me as a
>>>>>>>customer too, so I went out and bought an HP printer. It's a shame
>>>>>>>too,
>>>>>>>since I think their camera equipment is great. Oh well...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Was just about to buy an IP4000 with extended warranty at Argos.
>>>>>>I'll go for HP since many say Epson are only fit for landfill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Epson's aren't bad...they just need to be maintained more than they
>>>>>should to prevent clogging.
>>>>>
>>>>>Canon's have a problem with printhead life...probably an issue with the
>>>>>method they're using to heat the ink since they seem to "burn out"
>>>>>rather than clogging.
>>>>>
>>>>>Personally, I think any printer that needs special attention is not
>>>>>really a consumer product. Most users don't want the hassle of cleaning
>>>>>or replacing printheads - they just want the printer to work when they
>>>>>need to print something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If that is the case then they do not want the hassle of refilling messy
>>>>carts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom