Name brand or recycled ink cartridges?

[digger]

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

Is the quality of recycled carts really *that* bad? The cost for new
ones seems to be prohibitive, especially for HP products. Does anyone
have any real hard data on the pros and cons of name brand vs. recycled?

 

[Guest]

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

On 5 Jan 2005 14:50:50 -0800, digger@s4f.com wrote:

>Is the quality of recycled carts really *that* bad? The cost for new
>ones seems to be prohibitive, especially for HP products. Does anyone
>have any real hard data on the pros and cons of name brand vs. recycled?

Just my opinion:
recycled may not have true oem ink so the color would seems a bit off
and thinner ink may even leak and ruin the printer. Also those that
are recucled with the original printerhead (Lexmark and HP for
example) may not be good as the head may have been worn out or
damaged.

I prefer the original and new ink for high quality prints and I have
an older HP 722c with ink cart that's been refilled 5 or 6 times for
other prints. If it dies, I usually can find a similiar HP printer at
Goodwill for about $5 to $10. 😉 So far a 712c has been retired to the
trash can because black and yellow ink was oozing from the bottom. I
don't know how many times but I think I went through about 50 of
refilled cart (some refilled as many as 8 times)
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

 

[Guest]

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

<digger@s4f.com> wrote in message
news:1104965450.223025.51270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Is the quality of recycled carts really *that* bad? The cost for new
> ones seems to be prohibitive, especially for HP products. Does anyone
> have any real hard data on the pros and cons of name brand vs. recycled?

See http://www.hp.com/sbso/product/supplies/supplies_reliability_ink.pdf for
some real test data focused on the reliability aspects, while
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_Cheap_Inks_2003_10.pdf has
information on lightfastness.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Guest]

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

digger@s4f.com wrote:
> Is the quality of recycled carts really *that* bad?
No
The cost for new
> ones seems to be prohibitive, especially for HP products.
Thats because the print head is integral to the cartridge unlike epsons
and new canons. The plus side is if it plugs beyond help you only have
to change the cartridge. This is also a good reason to refill your own
or to try recycled cartridges without fear of major damage.
Does anyone
> have any real hard data on the pros and cons of name brand vs. recycled?
>
No hard data, just 4 years of refilling my own HP cartridges. Using MIS
inks I average 7 refills on black cartridges and 4 on the color ones.
Quality does not seem degraded until around the 3rd refill.

 

[Guest]

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

digger@s4f.com wrote:
> Is the quality of recycled carts really *that* bad? The cost for new
> ones seems to be prohibitive, especially for HP products. Does anyone
> have any real hard data on the pros and cons of name brand vs. recycled?
>

There are some reputable brands of compatible cartridges, and many cheap and
nasty ones.

I prefer to use Canon cartridges in my Canon printer because I am guaranteed of
the longest print life and better colour accuracy.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

 

[GP]

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> <digger@s4f.com> wrote in message
> news:1104965450.223025.51270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Is the quality of recycled carts really *that* bad? The cost for new
>>ones seems to be prohibitive, especially for HP products. Does anyone
>>have any real hard data on the pros and cons of name brand vs. recycled?
>
>
> See http://www.hp.com/sbso/product/supplies/supplies_reliability_ink.pdf for
> some real test data focused on the reliability aspects, while

Are Anzen, Dataproducts, Geha, KMP, NCR, Nukote and Turbon popular brands in
the States? I'm not proficient in the matter, but I've never seen any of these
inks in Canada. /Staples/ - /Bureau en gros/ - /Office Depot/, which used to
sell Ko-Rec-Type brand, now sells Jet Tec. None ot these were tested.

Because Jet Tec inks are offered alongside HP's, and Staples sells HP
products, I suppose they could hardly claim they void the guarantee. And they
sell for almost half the price!

> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_Cheap_Inks_2003_10.pdf has
> information on lightfastness.

At the bottom of page 3 of this test, the Display Permanence Rating of the
Epson ink is estimated at 92 years, Canon's at 25, HP's at 12.

Epson ink is a bit more expensive than Canon's. But HP's is way more. It
prints only 380 pages versus 653 for Canon with a cartridge that's 2 1/2 times
more expensive for black ink and almost 3 times more expensive for color.

So, you pay, say, 5 times more for ink that's half as stable? Fortunately, HP
doesn't specify the yield for the cartridge on its site, but it does pretend
that you get "Affordable HP printing at a competitive price."

I don't mean to offend you Bob, and I'm certainly not ironic here, but, if
those figures are correct, it clearly means one thing: stay clear from HP!

GP