Need help choosing a printer

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

My wife and I are looking for a general purpose color inkjet printer.
It must be able to print on ledger size (tabloid, 11"x17") paper. It
will be used to print a variety of projects, such as resumes/cover
letters, envelopes, certificates, business cards, vector graphic art,
digital photos and scans, greeting cards, web pages, and black & white
newsletters.

We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you have
to feed it expensive photo paper for good results. (Rightfully so,
since it is classified as a photo printer.) We want a printer that can
use good quality inkjet paper to produce good photos and sharp line art
and text, even at small sizes. Speaking of paper, we read where the
i9900 cannot accept paper thicker than 28 lbs., which would rule out
cardstock, wouldn't it?

I wish we had the funds and the space for two separate printers, but we
don't, so we have to settle for one printer for all our printing needs.
Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance to those who help.

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

Steve Ward wrote:

> We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
> have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.


Each printer must be fed with expensive paper in order to get good results.
You get better results at quality paper with low cost printer than vice
versa...if you want to print photos, then photo paper is the only way to go.
You can't expect really good result on normal plain paper.
In any case, i'm quite happy with mine ip4000, but this is only A4 printer,
so it's too small for your needs... :-(((
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare parts are
readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then I had several
Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP after Epson started to
put chips in their cartridges. Notice I didn't mention Lexmark printers.
Pete
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:tEDnd.5845$F6.1286089@news.siol.net...
> Steve Ward wrote:
>
> > We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
> > have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.
>
>
> Each printer must be fed with expensive paper in order to get good
results.
> You get better results at quality paper with low cost printer than vice
> versa...if you want to print photos, then photo paper is the only way to
go.
> You can't expect really good result on normal plain paper.
> In any case, i'm quite happy with mine ip4000, but this is only A4
printer,
> so it's too small for your needs... :-(((
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

>>Steve Ward wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
>>>have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.

Canon i9900 is a good printer. There are in fact many good photo paper to choose
from. Have you looked into Costco's Kirkland brand glossy photo paper? That's
one excellent paper to use at $19 for 125 sheets (letter size).
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Steve Ward" <sward@tulsaconnectspamm.com> wrote in message
news:j8Dnd.3300163$yk.514385@news.easynews.com...

> My wife and I are looking for a general purpose color inkjet printer. It must
> be able to print on ledger size (tabloid, 11"x17") paper. It will be used to
> print a variety of projects, such as resumes/cover letters, envelopes,
> certificates, business cards, vector graphic art, digital photos and scans,
> greeting cards, web pages, and black & white newsletters.

The HP Deskjet 9650 may be a good match. See:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/18972-236251-236261-14438-f51-306780.html

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

Pete wrote:
> Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
> because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare
> parts are readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then I
> had several Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP
> after Epson started to put chips in their cartridges. Notice I didn't
> mention Lexmark printers. Pete

I agree with you about Lexmarks...i'v ehad two (cheap ones)...Carts are damn
expensive.
But, i wouldn't buy HP, too. Their carts are expensive, and they are very
slow when printing photos, like model450Ci, which needs whole 30 minutes to
print A4 photo, while some Canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.

> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:tEDnd.5845$F6.1286089@news.siol.net...
>> Steve Ward wrote:
>>
>>> We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you
>>> have to feed it expensive photo paper for good results.
>>
>>
>> Each printer must be fed with expensive paper in order to get good
>> results. You get better results at quality paper with low cost
>> printer than vice versa...if you want to print photos, then photo
>> paper is the only way to go. You can't expect really good result on
>> normal plain paper.
>> In any case, i'm quite happy with mine ip4000, but this is only A4
>> printer, so it's too small for your needs... :-(((
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:

>Pete wrote:
>> Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
>> because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare
>> parts are readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then I
>> had several Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP
>> after Epson started to put chips in their cartridges. Notice I didn't
>> mention Lexmark printers. Pete
>
>I agree with you about Lexmarks...i'v ehad two (cheap ones)...Carts are damn
>expensive.
>But, i wouldn't buy HP, too. Their carts are expensive,

People continue to say this, but it's simply not true.

While the Canon individual ink tanks are cheaper PER COLOUR, they're not
cheaper when bought in sets of three, which is required if you intend to
print in colour or make photos.

For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.

So when you go to the store and buy a Canon ink tank, you THINK you're
saving money because it only costs you about $20 that one time. But the
next day when the other colours run out and you buy two more of the ink
tanks, you've spent the same amount of money on ink.

Canon is using the ILLUSION of lower individual prices to make is seem
like you're saving money, when in fact you're not. It's all marketing
hype.

> and they are very
>slow when printing photos, like model450Ci, which needs whole 30 minutes to
>print A4 photo, while some Canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.

Before you make blanket statements condemning print speeds, you should
first compare similar models. The 450ci is a mobile printer that's
designed for convenience and portability first, speed second. Of course,
it's not a wide-format printer nor a high-end model like the Canon i9900
either, but we'll ignore those details for now.

As for speed, it's not an issue with any of the brands. There are many
HP printers that can produce a 4x6 photo as fast as 27 seconds, and an
A4 or 8.5x11 in less than 2 minutes.

Compared to my now defunct Canon i850, my new HP 6540 spits out slightly
better 4x6 photos using the same 4 colours, and it does so in about 60
seconds compared to the Canon's 50 seconds. That 10 seconds produces a
better photo though, so I certainly don't mind the minor difference.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Bill wrote:


> People continue to say this, but it's simply not true.
>
> While the Canon individual ink tanks are cheaper PER COLOUR, they're not
> cheaper when bought in sets of three, which is required if you intend to
> print in colour or make photos.
>
> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>
> So when you go to the store and buy a Canon ink tank, you THINK you're
> saving money because it only costs you about $20 that one time. But the
> next day when the other colours run out and you buy two more of the ink
> tanks, you've spent the same amount of money on ink.
>
> Canon is using the ILLUSION of lower individual prices to make is seem
> like you're saving money, when in fact you're not. It's all marketing
> hype.

Colours don't run out at the same rate, so if they are all in one cartridge then
you're throwing away ink. This makes printers like your 6540 more expensive to
run, because you are replacing the ink cartridge more frequently.

--
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:

>Colours don't run out at the same rate, so if they are all in one cartridge then
>you're throwing away ink. This makes printers like your 6540 more expensive to
>run, because you are replacing the ink cartridge more frequently.

Again, that's just hype from the companies promoting individual ink
tanks, and they're all guilty of that, including HP (see their business
inkjets).

Don't forget I had a Canon i850 for well over a year and I know exactly
how much ink was used per colour during that time. With typical prints,
the colours all run out at pretty much the same times, give or take a
few percent.

Sure there will be some occasions, like printing a lot of photos of blue
skies, where cyan will run out before the other two, but that's rare and
non-typical. If you have a need for that type of printing, then sure,
individual ink tanks are the way to go. But if you're a typical user,
then it doesn't make much difference.

And let's face it, when it comes to photos using a printer with genuine
ink and paper it costs A HECK OF A LOT MORE than going to the photo lab
and having them run off a few dozen prints from a CD.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at the
results - it is simply amazing compared to the awful Epson 810 Photo
(heads blocking/chipped cartridges/poor quality) we had, that said the
build quality could be better - time will tell. I was always a fan of
espon until the 810, I still have a 740 in use that gives good
results. We use a hp 1100 laserjet bought cheap off ebay for general
black and white and is generally trouble free. Haven't had a hp since
the 660 which was rubbish. Lexmark are IMO more trouble than they're
worth.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Bill wrote:

> BenOne© wrote:
>
>
>>Colours don't run out at the same rate, so if they are all in one cartridge then
>>you're throwing away ink. This makes printers like your 6540 more expensive to
>>run, because you are replacing the ink cartridge more frequently.
>
>
> Again, that's just hype from the companies promoting individual ink
> tanks, and they're all guilty of that, including HP (see their business
> inkjets).
>
> Don't forget I had a Canon i850 for well over a year and I know exactly
> how much ink was used per colour during that time. With typical prints,
> the colours all run out at pretty much the same times, give or take a
> few percent.


I've got a Canon i9950 and 2 friends with i865. We all go through the photo
colours MUCH quicker than the rest. It's NOT manufacturer hype.

I've heard plenty of people report the same experience as my friends and I, so
I'm inclined to think you are not a typical user.
--
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:

>> Again, that's just hype from the companies promoting individual ink
>> tanks, and they're all guilty of that, including HP (see their business
>> inkjets).
>>
>> Don't forget I had a Canon i850 for well over a year and I know exactly
>> how much ink was used per colour during that time. With typical prints,
>> the colours all run out at pretty much the same times, give or take a
>> few percent.
>
>I've got a Canon i9950 and 2 friends with i865. We all go through the photo
>colours MUCH quicker than the rest. It's NOT manufacturer hype.

I got news for you...the i865 does NOT use photo colours.

Your friends are likely just towing the Canon line about individual ink
tanks being more economical, when they're not.

I used to think that maybe Canon was right and individual ink tanks
would be better. But after using the i850 for over a year, I know that
was just one of their many marketing tools to help promote sales.

Many people are like sheep...they just follow the shepherd and will
agree that ink usage is lower and the individual carts are saving them
money. All because Canon, Epson, and HP said so.

>I've heard plenty of people report the same experience as my friends and I, so
>I'm inclined to think you are not a typical user.

You did not follow the thread properly, as nothing was ever said about
photo inks.

We all know the photo inks are consumed faster than the other three
colours. But we're talking about the three main colours and the typical
consumption levels.

But since you brought up the subject of photo inks, I can tell you that
even though they get consumed faster, once again their usage is fairly
consistent. And using my HP 6540 as an example, the three main colours
and the photo colours are in separate cartridges, so photo ink usage is
not really relevant to the main colours.

Now if all six colours were in one cartridge, then I would agree with
you, and I wouldn't use such a system. But as it stands, it's not an
issue.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Pete wrote:
>>> Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
>>> because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare
>>> parts are readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then
>>> I had several Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP
>>> after Epson started to put chips in their cartridges. Notice I
>>> didn't mention Lexmark printers. Pete
>>
>> I agree with you about Lexmarks...i'v ehad two (cheap ones)...Carts
>> are damn expensive.
>> But, i wouldn't buy HP, too. Their carts are expensive,
>
> People continue to say this, but it's simply not true.
>
> While the Canon individual ink tanks are cheaper PER COLOUR, they're
> not cheaper when bought in sets of three, which is required if you
> intend to print in colour or make photos.
>
> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.


You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than those at
HP. And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors, but
separately one one i'm out of.



>
> So when you go to the store and buy a Canon ink tank, you THINK you're
> saving money because it only costs you about $20 that one time. But
> the next day when the other colours run out and you buy two more of
> the ink tanks, you've spent the same amount of money on ink.
>
> Canon is using the ILLUSION of lower individual prices to make is seem
> like you're saving money, when in fact you're not. It's all marketing
> hype.
>
>> and they are very
>> slow when printing photos, like model450Ci, which needs whole 30
>> minutes to print A4 photo, while some Canon does same job in just
>> over 2 minutes.
>
> Before you make blanket statements condemning print speeds, you should
> first compare similar models. The 450ci is a mobile printer that's
> designed for convenience and portability first, speed second. Of
> course, it's not a wide-format printer nor a high-end model like the
> Canon i9900 either, but we'll ignore those details for now.
>
> As for speed, it's not an issue with any of the brands. There are many
> HP printers that can produce a 4x6 photo as fast as 27 seconds, and an
> A4 or 8.5x11 in less than 2 minutes.
>
> Compared to my now defunct Canon i850, my new HP 6540 spits out
> slightly better 4x6 photos using the same 4 colours, and it does so
> in about 60 seconds compared to the Canon's 50 seconds. That 10
> seconds produces a better photo though, so I certainly don't mind the
> minor difference.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Dave wrote:
> I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
> quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at the
> results - it is simply amazing


Agreed 101 %!
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:<mU0pd.6013$F6.1287364@news.siol.net>...
> Dave wrote:
> > I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
> > quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at the
> > results - it is simply amazing
>
>
> Agreed 101 %!


I agree with what the others suggested-it should be a great weekend to
check out some of the after thanksgiving sales-I'd suggest stopping by
staples and see what kind of deals they have in the store or online.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:

>> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
>> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
>> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>
>You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than those at
>HP.

Yes you're right, they do hold more.

But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The type
of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all affect
page yields.

> And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors, but
>separately one one i'm out of.

Yes, but a few days later when you've bought a total of three ink tanks
and spent $50 anyway, you're back at square one.

Hehehe...I know this may not apply, but you do realize that each time
you go out to buy the other two colours, you use more gas to get there
and back?
:)

The whole point of this is that ink usage is not a valid reason to
choose one brand over the other, Canon or HP. Buy the printer that best
suits your needs.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:z-SdnbsPffXrbDncRVn-1Q@golden.net...
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>>> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
>>> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink tanks
>>> is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>>
>>You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than those at
>>HP.
>
> Yes you're right, they do hold more.
>
> But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
> costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
> ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The type
> of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all affect
> page yields.
>

Your point?


>> And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors, but
>>separately one one i'm out of.
>
> Yes, but a few days later when you've bought a total of three ink tanks
> and spent $50 anyway, you're back at square one.
>

Awful big assumtion on your part. I (and most others I know can go weeks
between changing another tank after replacing a different one.

> Hehehe...I know this may not apply, but you do realize that each time
> you go out to buy the other two colours, you use more gas to get there
> and back?
> :)
>

Give me a break! I certainly hope that smiley is an indication of what a
rediculous point this would be (if it were one at all).


> The whole point of this is that ink usage is not a valid reason to
> choose one brand over the other, Canon or HP. Buy the printer that best
> suits your needs.

Which is the one that gives me the best quality print and costs the least to
operate because I can change individual ink tanks.
Hey, that's my Canon!!
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

PC Medic wrote:

>> But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
>> costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
>> ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The type
>> of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all affect
>> page yields.
>
>Your point?

No point...just blathering on about nothing again...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>>> For example, here in Canada a large colour cartridge (#97) for my HP
>>> 6540 from Staples is $49.96. Yet an equal set of three Canon ink
>>> tanks is $53.88 (3x$17.96) for about the same page yields.
>>
>> You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than
>> those at HP.
>
> Yes you're right, they do hold more.
>
> But page yield is all that matters when you want to calculate running
> costs. And ink volume does not equate to page yield, or the amount of
> ink a cartridge holds does not directly equal number of pages. The
> type of ink, printhead design, paper formulations, print engine, all
> affect page yields.
>
>> And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors,
>> but separately one one i'm out of.
>
> Yes, but a few days later when you've bought a total of three ink
> tanks and spent $50 anyway, you're back at square one.
>
> Hehehe...I know this may not apply, but you do realize that each time
> you go out to buy the other two colours, you use more gas to get there
> and back?
> :)
>
> The whole point of this is that ink usage is not a valid reason to
> choose one brand over the other, Canon or HP. Buy the printer that
> best suits your needs.

When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then i
decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read some
reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print A4
photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes. And better than
HP...In any case, since i refill, Canons are easiest to refill (you must
admit that) and with it, costs are way lowest among all printers. Even with
canon inks, costs (according to review) are cheapest. So....i guess at the
end, each says my is the best and, as you said, you buy what you need...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038

> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then i
> decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read some
> reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print A4
> photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.

I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread the
review. Was this in an April 1 issue?

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

Helena wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:<mU0pd.6013$F6.1287364@news.siol.net>...
>> Dave wrote:
>>> I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
>>> quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at
>>> the results - it is simply amazing
>>
>>
>> Agreed 101 %!
>
>
> I agree with what the others suggested-it should be a great weekend to
> check out some of the after thanksgiving sales-I'd suggest stopping by
> staples and see what kind of deals they have in the store or online.

Yep, some are lucky...in USA these printers are about 50% cheaper than
here...but still, from i've seen, ip4000 is best bet. That extra photo black
does wonderfull job indeed!
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038
>
>> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But,
>> then i decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i
>> just read some reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole
>> 30 minutes to print A4 photo, while canon does same job in just over
>> 2 minutes.
>
> I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread
> the review. Was this in an April 1 issue?
>
haha...
nope....2 weeks ago...
Can you explain a bit more? I mean, for quite a time now there's common
knowledge that Canon printers have the cheapest price per page... And i also
saw the "speed" of HP at my friend's...it was not a photo, just normal color
page and it took so looooooooooooong to print...
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:O4qpd.6120$F6.1287946@news.siol.net...

> Can you explain a bit more? I mean, for quite a time now there's common
> knowledge that Canon printers have the cheapest price per page...

Common knowledge? Can you point to any data based on actual measurements (as
opposed to mfg spec's)? There are certainly a range of products from both
manufacturers, with a range of speed and price per page. I suspect the HP
Business Inkjet 1200 series has better real world cost per page than any under
$200 color printer available. It has seperate ink tanks. See:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/18972-236251-236261-24728-f51-411179.html

As for speed, I suppose it is possible to find a very old HP printer, perhaps
driven by a 66 Mhz 486sx that could take thirty minutes to print, but five
minutes is more typical for best mode for printers sold in this millenia.
Certainly any recent HP Photo printer will be closer to three minutes than
thirty minutes for a best mode full size photo print.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP


> And i also saw the "speed" of HP at my friend's...it was not a photo, just
> normal color page and it took so looooooooooooong to print...
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:54:28 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
wrote:

>
>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038
>
>> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then i
>> decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read some
>> reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print A4
>> photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.
>
>I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread the
>review. Was this in an April 1 issue?
>
> - Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>
<g> 30 mins may be stretching it a bit, but I've seen 22 mins for a
best quality photo coming out of an HP.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rnadq0tm5m3q4qr3vn04u06mhnnooj07tq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:54:28 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038
>>
>>> When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then
>>> i
>>> decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read
>>> some
>>> reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print
>>> A4
>>> photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.
>>
>>I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread the
>>review. Was this in an April 1 issue?
>>
>> - Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
>>
> <g> 30 mins may be stretching it a bit, but I've seen 22 mins for a
> best quality photo coming out of an HP.
>

I can not quote the time for an HP and here is why.....
I was recently in my local CompUSA and overheard the HP Rep telling a
potential customer how the HP he was demonstrating "would beat the
competition hands-down in both speed and quality", since they were about to
take this at face value (and knowing my iP4000 prints a pretty damn quick
image) I had to ask, 'can you give us a demonstration?'. Sure he said and
proceeded to load a piece of photo paper and press the button to get a
sample print. After about 3-4 minutes I simply stated 'my printer would have
print two or three by now' and walked away. His potential customer caught up
with me a few minutes later stating it still had not finished and asked what
printer I had. I told him about my iP4000. He thanked me and went and picked
up an iP6000D from the shelf. I kin of felt like coming back when the Canon
guy was there and asking for my cut of the sale! :0)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom